News The US has the best health care in the world?

[Al68]

What? Are you saying now that if taxes were introduced to pay for national health care it would be illegal? Akin to the IRS just deciding one day that they were going to make you cough up some extra cash? or just throw someone in prison even though they paid their taxes?

Your metaphors are a bit wonky.

So far this is the impression that I am getting...



IRS: Excuse me. We're here to collect the taxes you owe. I am very sorry about this but if you refuse we will have to take it from you by force.

Al68: Oh, well I completely respect that. Here let me write you a check, and as well you should throw me in jail if I refuse to pay you.

IRS: Good good. You see we really need the money to pay for this new National Health Care deal.

Al68: Uh oh, sorry fellas but I don't agree with my money being spent on National Health Care. I'm just going to have to tear up this check here and since I don't agree with the way you want to spend my money, well, I don't think I can allow you to take me to jail.

IRS: Oh no, well dash. It's too bad you don't agree with the way we want to spend your money since we'd really like to arrest you for not paying your taxes but if that's the way it is then I guess we'll just have to leave you alone. Carry on then.

Al68: Thanks for understanding guys. Maybe we'll have this sorted out by next year. See you then!



Is that about right?

My analogy was intended to show that using the "same" force for two purposes doesn't make the purposes equal.

The conversation above seems backwards.

We were discussing whether or not to collect the money by force, not whether or not to be collected from. That being said, the above "conversation" sure sounds silly if you operate under the assumption that people's earnings don't rightfully belong to them.

 

[turbo]

Michele Bachmann and John Kline (both GOP, BTW) say that public health insurance would be 30-40% cheaper than private health insurance, and are using that as an argument AGAINST it. Small businesses are the real "job-engines" in our economy, and it is hardly good conservative practice to work against a program that can greatly reduce the expenses of these businesses who want to offer health insurance coverage to their employees.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/39874/bachmann-kline-oppose-public-option-because-its-cheaper

Now, for those who rail that government can't do anything right, please look here: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=3272

Most retirees pay just $96.40/month for Medicare Part B (doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc) and a married couple would have to be making almost $1/2M per year to pay the maximum premium of $308.30/month. Please bear in mind that the people being served by this program are primarily elderly retirees, with people on Social Security Disability thrown in. Those are demographics with more health problems than average and the cost of their health care should be higher than average. If the government can put together a similar public program WITH the addition of people from healthier demographic groups, costs and premiums should go down significantly.

The GOP is playing the politics of fear and uncertainty to try to derail universal health-care coverage.

 

[Al68]

Most retirees pay just $96.40/month for Medicare Part B (doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc) and a married couple would have to be making almost $1/2M per year to pay the maximum premium of $308.30/month. Please bear in mind that the people being served by this program are primarily elderly retirees, with people on Social Security Disability thrown in. Those are demographics with more health problems than average and the cost of their health care should be higher than average.

And is. Surely you're not suggesting that the above premiums represent the total cost of the coverage.

The GOP is playing the politics of fear and uncertainty to try to derail universal health-care coverage.

That's better than being the ones advocating such a thing to be feared.

 

[Al68]

Stupid? He has taken an idea and made the rhetorical implication that it is somehow distasteful or even unethical. I'm pointing out the rediculousness in his implication by extending it to encompass all things paid for by taxes and not just those which he is currently arguing against. That is I would find it much less distasteful if money taken from me by force (or legalized theft) were spent on something as important as health care than to be made, by threat of force, to pay for someone's lawn care. Tell me, which application of the threat of force do you find the most distasteful?

Distasteful? You can't seriously think that's what this is about. Why would it be a valid point to extend an objection to theft to encompass things that are not theft?

And not all taxes are legalized theft. I use the word theft only to refer to the portion that's use is not related to services provided to the person paying the tax. The road (fuel) tax is an obvious example of a tax that is not theft.

Income taxes are doubly problematic. Not only are the taxes collected from a person by force unrelated to services provided to that person (theft), the right to privacy is violated by the governments demand to know someone's personal income.

Can you explain how an individual's personal income is even government's business?

 

[mheslep]

Its over, at least for this Summer.
http://twitter.com/GStephanopoulos
"Top Senate aides confirm Obama's August deadline for healthcare won't be met. Durbin tells "The Hill" not "possible" Takes bullet for POTUS"

Maybe when they come back in the Fall they'll work some plans that make sense.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Distasteful? You can't seriously think that's what this is about. Why would it be a valid point to extend an objection to theft to encompass things that are not theft?

And not all taxes are legalized theft. I use the word theft only to refer to the portion that's use is not related to services provided to the person paying the tax. The road (fuel) tax is an obvious example of a tax that is not theft.

Income taxes are doubly problematic. Not only are the taxes collected from a person by force unrelated to services provided to that person (theft), the right to privacy is violated by the governments demand to know someone's personal income.

Can you explain how an individual's personal income is even government's business?

Again, here we go with the rhetoric used to make your position seem self evident. "It's theft I say! Theft!"

There are any number of things that your taxes go to pay for that you do not benefit from directly. Do you necessarily benefit directly from paying for the police? I mean when was the last time they helped you specifically? And maybe they have helped you, who knows, but what about the guy who pays his taxes and never receives any help from the police at all? Does he deserve a refund? Or would you say that he is benefiting indirectly from the work done by the police?

Well you can benefit indirectly from national health care too. Imagine all of your co-workers and/or employees getting the medical attention they need. They'll probably call out from work less often. They will probably be less likely to suffer work related injuries. They will likely be healthier and in better spirits and so more productive and easier to work with.
The same goes for clients, vendors, contractors, customers, ect, ect. The healthier the populace, the better and more smoothly everything will run, and the better the economy will be. How is this any different than the indirect benefits that people receive from the vast majority of things that they pay taxes for?

Of course we still pay taxes for all sorts of things that we arguably receive no benefit from at all. Does a pretty well lit flag in from of the capital building benefit you really? Does a politician being driven around in a limo help you out much?
Of all the inane crap that your tax money goes to pay for there are much better things you could be referring to as "theft" than national health care.

 

[Al68]

Again, here we go with the rhetoric used to make your position seem self evident. "It's theft I say! Theft!"

There are any number of things that your taxes go to pay for that you do not benefit from directly. Do you necessarily benefit directly from paying for the police? I mean when was the last time they helped you specifically? And maybe they have helped you, who knows, but what about the guy who pays his taxes and never receives any help from the police at all? Does he deserve a refund? Or would you say that he is benefiting indirectly from the work done by the police?

Well you can benefit indirectly from national health care too. Imagine all of your co-workers and/or employees getting the medical attention they need. They'll probably call out from work less often. They will probably be less likely to suffer work related injuries. They will likely be healthier and in better spirits and so more productive and easier to work with.
The same goes for clients, vendors, contractors, customers, ect, ect. The healthier the populace, the better and more smoothly everything will run, and the better the economy will be. How is this any different than the indirect benefits that people receive from the vast majority of things that they pay taxes for?

Of course we still pay taxes for all sorts of things that we arguably receive no benefit from at all. Does a pretty well lit flag in from of the capital building benefit you really? Does a politician being driven around in a limo help you out much?
Of all the inane crap that your tax money goes to pay for there are much better things you could be referring to as "theft" than national health care.

Sure there are plenty of other things I could refer to as theft, I agree, and you didn't even put a dent in them, but those other things are not the subject of this thread.

As far as using the word theft, what definition of theft would it not meet? Except of course a definition that was conditional on legality. Theft is "the act of stealing" and steal means "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force".

Would the exact same actions be theft if committed by someone other than government? If so, then it's theft, unless your definition of theft conveniently has the "unless it's the government" clause.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sure there are plenty of other things I could refer to as theft, I agree, and you didn't even put a dent in them, but those other things are not the subject of this thread.

As far as using the word theft, what definition of theft would it not meet? Except of course a definition that was conditional on legality. Theft is "the act of stealing" and steal means "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force".

Would the exact same actions be theft if committed by someone other than government? If so, then it's theft, unless your definition of theft conveniently has the "unless it's the government" clause.

If you take a look at the conventional definition of theft it bares little resemblence to a system put in place and maintained by duely elected representatives of the people to collect money necessary for the betterment and maintenance of their society. Strip anything of context and amplify selected characteristics and you can make it look however you'd like.

So maybe you can drop this argument by rhetoric and actually make an argument? Would you like to actually respond to the main thrust of my post which you quoted? That is: What of things paid for with taxes which you benefit from indirectly such as perhaps the police? Is the benefit you receive indirectly from national health care really all that different?

 

[Huckleberry]

As far as using the word theft, what definition of theft would it not meet? Except of course a definition that was conditional on legality. Theft is "the act of stealing" and steal means "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force".

Would the exact same actions be theft if committed by someone other than government? If so, then it's theft, unless your definition of theft conveniently has the "unless it's the government" clause.

The government has the right to tax the people it justly represents and provides services for. Not paying taxes is stealing from the government and the people. Without taxes there is no government. Without government there is no nation. That's what you're getting for your money. Whether that is of value to you or not doesn't exclude you from contributing to it, by force if necessary.

If the government becomes corrupt or no longer justly represents the people then I'll be right there with you in prison, not paying taxes.

 

[Al68]

If you take a look at the conventional definition of theft it bares little resemblence to a system put in place and maintained by duely elected representatives of the people to collect money necessary for the betterment and maintenance of their society.

So you mean the conventional definition with the added "unless it's the government" clause. In that case it wouldn't meet that definition of theft. But that's just semantics.

So maybe you can drop this argument by rhetoric and actually make an argument? Would you like to actually respond to the main thrust of my post which you quoted? That is: What of things paid for with taxes which you benefit from indirectly such as perhaps the police? Is the benefit you receive indirectly from national health care really all that different?

I'd say first that national health care would be a detriment, on average, not a benefit to the people paying for it. Even if we could say it was of some benefit, it wouldn't come close to a service provided to everyone with value roughly in line with the amount each person is taxed, like police, fire, national defense, roads, etc. That's a big difference from claiming that everyone would get some benefit, but not only is the price not in line with the value of the benefit, it's designed purposely not to be.

I would also note that being a libertarian means that I don't consider changing, altering, modifying, or "bettering" society to be a legitimate function of government, while protecting liberty is. The legitimate role of government is to protect the liberty of people to decide for themselves what to do, not take it away so government can decide what's best for society.

 

[Al68]

The government has the right to tax the people it justly represents and provides services for. Not paying taxes is stealing from the government and the people. Without taxes there is no government. Without government there is no nation. That's what you're getting for your money. Whether that is of value to you or not doesn't exclude you from contributing to it, by force if necessary.

If the government becomes corrupt or no longer justly represents the people then I'll be right there with you in prison, not paying taxes.

Did you accidentally respond to the wrong post? I never advocated anyone not paying taxes.

I never objected to the government collecting taxes in general, or for services provided. My objection is to using the tax code for theft, not to paying taxes.

My objection is based on my role in helping to decide government policy, not in following it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Wrt the cost of health care:

SACRAMENTO, California (CNN) -- Debbie Brown used to process medical and dental forms for a living before a debilitating illness forced her into early disability retirement and left her in a simple, no-frills wheelchair -- a rented wheelchair that has cost taxpayers about $1,200.

Brown says the public should be outraged about her wheelchair.

Why? She says she could buy a comparable wheelchair on the Internet for $440 if she had the money. It sounded hard to believe that her rented, $1,200 taxpayer-funded wheelchair could be bought for $440, so CNN decided to check -- and instead found an even better deal.

CNN went to the same company that charges Medicare for Brown's chair, Apria Healthcare, and bought it for $349 -- about a fourth of what taxpayers' have paid for Brown's rented wheelchair...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/20/healthcare.wheelchair/index.html

 

[Al68]

Wrt the cost of health care:

SACRAMENTO, California (CNN) -- Debbie Brown used to process medical and dental forms for a living before a debilitating illness forced her into early disability retirement and left her in a simple, no-frills wheelchair -- a rented wheelchair that has cost taxpayers about $1,200.

Brown says the public should be outraged about her wheelchair.

Why? She says she could buy a comparable wheelchair on the Internet for $440 if she had the money. It sounded hard to believe that her rented, $1,200 taxpayer-funded wheelchair could be bought for $440, so CNN decided to check -- and instead found an even better deal.

CNN went to the same company that charges Medicare for Brown's chair, Apria Healthcare, and bought it for $349 -- about a fourth of what taxpayers' have paid for Brown's rented wheelchair...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/20/healthcare.wheelchair/index.html

The only surprise here is that Medicare paid only $1200 over 4 years at about $25/month. Being involved with government projects quite a bit, that's a much better deal than a lot of other things government buys.

Of course everybody (except government) knows if you rent something for 4 years it will cost much more than just buying it. You're better off buying than renting most things if you're going to have it over a year.

This is just what happens when the spender of the cash gets it for free, and the more they spend the better off they are, and the more they can claim to need in the future. If I allowed my child to tell me how much allowance he needed, and he continually claimed it wasn't enough no matter how much it was and how much he wasted, I would go broke in no time. Sound familiar?

 

[Huckleberry]

Did you accidentally respond to the wrong post? I never advocated anyone not paying taxes.

I never objected to the government collecting taxes in general, or for services provided. My objection is to using the tax code for theft, not to paying taxes.

My objection is based on my role in helping to decide government policy, not in following it.

It isn't theft. We benefit as individuals from living in a nation. We pay for those benefits with our taxes. The government uses those taxes to promote the general welfare, among other things as specified in the Constitution. We benefit from the nation and owe a fair contribution to it.

It's interesting you want to exclude a legal right for governments to collect taxes from any counterargument. A democratic government's legal right is given to it by the representatives of the people. If the government is acting in the interests of the people then it is justified in its right to collect taxes on their behalf. Accepting a legal right would mean that you would have no case for calling it tax theft. Dismissing a legal right would give some merit to your argument and lead counterarguments into semantics, but deny the legitimacy of democracy in America.

You have as much voice in deciding policy as any other average American, but just because you prefer a libertarian perspective of democracy doesn't mean that everyone should. There's plenty of times I feel that majority rules outcomes are unfair, but I have to live with whatever decision is made. Democracy isn't a government of the person by the person. That is no government at all.

 

[gravenewworld]

http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3641677n

Insurance Won't Pay; Girl Dies

December 22, 2007 1:01 AM

An insurance company denied a teenage girl a liver transplant. When they changed their minds, it was too late. The girl had died and now many are outraged. John Blackstone reports.
http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html Cancer Patient Upset With Coventry Insurance
Company Refuses To Pay For Prescription Drug
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Her doctor said she needs a drug to survive, but her insurance company refused to pay for it.



http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatment.denied.2.1007394.html

Insurance Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) ?Will your insurance company pay for the treatment your doctors recommend? They may not. That's what a single mother from Chico said she found out.

http://cbs5.com/investigates/CyberKnife.blue.shield.2.716740.html


Blue Shield Denies New Cancer Treatment ClaimBoooooooooooooooo! I don't want the stinkin' government bureaucrats making health care decisions for me! I'd much rather have a pencil pusher behind a desk at an insurance company doing it!

 

[Pupil]

I've read many of the posts here, but not all (just got here too late, I suppose!). Anyway, http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2009/06/yes-patient-might-die-but-im-not-going.html" It's things like this that need to change.

 

[JDStupi]

Though I have no personal experiences with our health system currently, I believe that it is undeniable to anybody that the United States health care system is in need of improvement, but I find that too often people look at as if it was only a binary situation; Either the current system stays and we take the bad with the good or we convert to the Obama-proposed government provided health care system. People fight back and forth endlessly over the pro's and con's of both systems, but there is always other options and various synthesises of the different options. I personally have no suggestions as of yet because I am not informed enough to say something with authority, but I do know that there is more than just these two options. The left charges the right with corporate corruption, the right charges the left with the possibility of bureaucratic idiocy, both are true and both won't go away unless we deal with them. I may be an idealist, but I think we should focus on ways to end the corporate corruption of highly capitalistic systems without throwing away the benefits of the capitalistic system, similarly we should acknoledge the government can do some good to a certain extent if we find a way to fix the bureaucratic system. I will admit I'm young and have yet to reach the age to vote, therefore my opinions may be discredited by many as being "too inexperienced" and that may be true to some extent, but I still hold that it is not an either/or situation. I hope some people more informed then I can possibly explicate upon what I said hopefully with more detail and possibly proposals.

 

[mheslep]

http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3641677n

Insurance Won't Pay; Girl Dies

December 22, 2007 1:01 AM

An insurance company denied a teenage girl a liver transplant. When they changed their minds, it was too late. The girl had died and now many are outraged. John Blackstone reports.



http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html

Boooooooooooooooo! I don't want the stinkin' government bureaucrats making health care decisions for me! I'd much rather have a pencil pusher behind a desk at an insurance company doing it!

On average, US transplant patients are better off in the US's flawed system than in other government run systems.

 

[Pupil]

On average, US transplant patients are better off in the US's flawed system than in other government run systems.

Do you have any studies or information that indicates this? I'm not trying to be an ***, but there are a lot of claims going around this thread and I don't know what's true or not.

 

[BobG]

http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3641677n

Insurance Won't Pay; Girl Dies

December 22, 2007 1:01 AM

An insurance company denied a teenage girl a liver transplant. When they changed their minds, it was too late. The girl had died and now many are outraged. John Blackstone reports.



http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html


Cancer Patient Upset With Coventry Insurance
Company Refuses To Pay For Prescription Drug
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Her doctor said she needs a drug to survive, but her insurance company refused to pay for it.






http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatment.denied.2.1007394.html

Insurance Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) ?


Will your insurance company pay for the treatment your doctors recommend? They may not. That's what a single mother from Chico said she found out.




http://cbs5.com/investigates/CyberKnife.blue.shield.2.716740.html


Blue Shield Denies New Cancer Treatment Claim




Boooooooooooooooo! I don't want the stinkin' government bureaucrats making health care decisions for me! I'd much rather have a pencil pusher behind a desk at an insurance company doing it!

Two problems may be being mixed together.

1) Some "low cost" health insurance policies can charge low premiums because their policy covers nothing. They make their profit by denying claims, thereby reducing what they have to pay out in benefits.

2) To a patient staring death in the face, any treatment and any cost seems reasonable. That doesn't mean the treatment has a good enough chance of succeeding to be worth the cost to the objective observer. The insurance company is denying treatments it will cover for good reason.

(Yes, telling the difference between the first and second can sometimes be hard).

Government health care would eliminate the first problem. People wouldn't waste their money (even if only a little) for "insurance" that wasn't worth the money it was printed on.

If government eliminates the second problem by granting any treatment that offers even a sliver of hope, then government health care will just bankrupt the government. Someone looking at the odds objectively has to decide if the treatment is worth paying for even if it's the government doing the paying.

 

[mheslep]

Do you have any studies or information that indicates this? I'm not trying to be an ***, but there are a lot of claims going around this thread and I don't know what's true or not.

Yes.

First, the big choke point on transplants is organ availability, not the operation itself(http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/" ), so obviously there has to be some unavoidably ruthless triage done. Second, transplant patients in the even the US's flawed system seem to fairly well in terms of availability and outcome:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120001235968882563.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Availability:

...In 2002 -- a year comparative data is available -- U.S. doctors performed 18.5 liver transplants per one million Americans. This is significantly more than in the U.K. or in single-payer France, which performed 4.6 per million citizens, or in Canada, which performed 10 per million...

A study in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation compared statistics on heart transplants over the mid 1990s. It found patients were more likely to receive hearts in the U.S., even when they were older and sicker. The rate was 8.8 transplants per one million people, compared to 5.4 in the U.K. Over the same period, about 15% of patients died while waiting for new hearts in the U.K. compared to 12% in the U.S. In 2006, there were 28,931 transplants of all organ types in the U.S., 96.8 transplants for every one million Americans. There were 2,999 total organ transplants in the U.K., 49.5 transplants for every one million British citizens.

Survivability

...recent study found that patients' five-year mortality after transplants for acute liver failure, the type from which Ms. Sarkisyan presumably suffered, was about 5% higher in the U.K. and Irleand than the U.S. The same study also found that in the period right after surgery, death rates were as much as 27% higher in the U.K. and Ireland than in the U.S., although differences in longer-term outcomes equilibrated once patients survived the first year of their transplant.

The same link shows transplant availability is not all about income either. Most of the liver transplants are due to Hep-C and alcoholism - diseases of the poor or fallen.

 

[mheslep]

Two problems may be being mixed together.

1) Some "low cost" health insurance policies can charge low premiums because their policy covers nothing. They make their profit by denying claims, thereby reducing what they have to pay out in benefits.

2) To a patient staring death in the face, any treatment and any cost seems reasonable. That doesn't mean the treatment has a good enough chance of succeeding to be worth the cost to the objective observer. The insurance company is denying treatments it will cover for good reason.

(Yes, telling the difference between the first and second can sometimes be hard).

Government health care would eliminate the first problem. People wouldn't waste their money (even if only a little) for "insurance" that wasn't worth the money it was printed on.

Eliminate the problem? It would only eliminate the option to pay: all would be forced to pay through taxes, you might still get bad care.

If government eliminates the second problem by granting any treatment that offers even a sliver of hope, then government health care will just bankrupt the government. Someone looking at the odds objectively has to decide if the treatment is worth paying for even if it's the government doing the paying.

"...just bankrupt the nation..." and "...even if it's the people doing the paying." would be more accurate.

 

[Al68]

It isn't theft. We benefit as individuals from living in a nation. We pay for those benefits with our taxes. The government uses those taxes to promote the general welfare, among other things as specified in the Constitution. We benefit from the nation and owe a fair contribution to it.

It's interesting you want to exclude a legal right for governments to collect taxes from any counterargument. A democratic government's legal right is given to it by the representatives of the people. If the government is acting in the interests of the people then it is justified in its right to collect taxes on their behalf. Accepting a legal right would mean that you would have no case for calling it tax theft. Dismissing a legal right would give some merit to your argument and lead counterarguments into semantics, but deny the legitimacy of democracy in America.

You have as much voice in deciding policy as any other average American, but just because you prefer a libertarian perspective of democracy doesn't mean that everyone should. There's plenty of times I feel that majority rules outcomes are unfair, but I have to live with whatever decision is made. Democracy isn't a government of the person by the person. That is no government at all.

You have again grossly misconstrued my position. I never even suggested that the government shouldn't collect taxes. Why do you continue to respond to my posts with statements I agree with and pretend that they contradict something I said?

That's called a "strawman argument" when you argue against a position that nobody has advocated. Just because politicians do it all the time on TV doesn't mean it's not fallacious logic.

I repeat, I do not oppose the legitimate power of government to levy taxes for the reasons you stated. The only thing in your post I don't agree (or disagree) with is the first sentence "It isn't theft", and that's just because I don't know what "it" you are referring to.

Edit: And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "deny the legitimacy of democracy in America." The U.S. is not a democracy in the absolute sense you imply. It's only a democracy by the broad definition that loosely includes a constitutional republic with limited, enumerated powers. The government is elected by the people (republic), but does not have unlimited power like a pure democracy.

 

[mgb_phys]

On average, US transplant patients are better off in the US's flawed system than in other government run systems.

Although the mortality rate is 35% higher than Canada according to http://www.ustransplant.org/

The donation rate in the US is good but not the highest - in spite of the great efforts made by US drivers.

 

[turbo]

I think I'd rather get my transplantation performed in Australia or NZ than in the US, unless it was a pancreas graft procedure.

http://www.geocities.com/organdonate/AAACh8SurvivalStats.html

In 1997, prior to the suppression of Australian transplant survival statistics (except for kidneys), the heart transplant patient survival rate as published by the government agency, ACCORD, was 90% for the first year and 77% for five years. The US statistics published by UNOS in 1999 show a lower patient survival at 85% for the first year and 69% for five years.

Similarly, US liver transplant survival rates are 79% for one year and 63% for five years while the Australian were 83% for one year and 73% for five years. The US pancreas patient survival rate is 96% for the first year and 82% for five years. In Australia it is 94% for one year and 87% for five years. The above is patient survival but the actual pancreas graft survival is another story. Graft survival is where the patient may survive but the transplanted organ fails or is rejected and must be cut out before it goes rotten. U.S. pancreas graft survival is 76% for one year and 35% for five years so you can understand why the Australians suppress graft survival figures. It doesn’t fit in with their "life-saving" transplant sales theme they throw at grieving relatives in the waiting room and at the public through mass advertising campaigns.

Pancreas graft failure means the patient is back on insulin and the whole thing was a waste of time with increased suffering, expense and risk of death from surgery and drugs. There doesn’t seem to be any proof that pancreas transplants increase life expectancy and, with the anti-rejection drugs and surgery, may actually reduce it.

The kidney statistics for 1999 from The Australia New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), based in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Adelaide, indicate one-year kidney patient survival at 95% while the kidney or graft survival is 91%. Harvest promoters never fail to broadcast these encouragingly good figures. But these one-year figures are misleading in that they only include people receiving their first kidneys. Five year patient survival is 84% while 72% of kidneys kept functioning. 41a

Ultimately, though, comparing transplant survival figures is complicated by willingness (or lack of) to donate organs, condition of the host, sickness of the recipient, etc. In this regard, it is pretty tough to make a substantiated claim that the US has the best transplant survival rate. There are just too many factors, including whether a private insurer will pay for the procedure.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Those statistics are useless. It doesn't break it up into what kind of risk is involved... imagine country A, where only one out of ten people gets a transplant. That lucky 10% is going to be the people with the highest chance of survival. Country B gives everyone a new organ. Their survival rate is probably half of country A's. That doesn't make it a worse place to get a transplant though

 

[mheslep]

Although the mortality rate is 35% higher than Canada according to http://www.ustransplant.org/

That would seem to conflict with this for the US:
http://www.surgery.com/procedure/kidney-transplant/morbidity-mortality

Survival rates for patients undergoing kidney transplants are 95–96% one year post-transplant, and 91% three years after transplant...

How is it possible to improve 35% absolutely over a 95 or 91% survival rate?

 

[mheslep]

Those statistics are useless. It doesn't break it up into what kind of risk is involved... imagine country A, where only one out of ten people gets a transplant. That lucky 10% is going to be the people with the highest chance of survival. Country B gives everyone a new organ. Their survival rate is probably half of country A's. That doesn't make it a worse place to get a transplant though

Transplant triage is a factor to consider for mortality, but it doesn't impact the availability / number of operations statistics.

 

[mheslep]

I think I'd rather get my transplantation performed in Australia or NZ than in the US, unless it was a pancreas graft procedure.

http://www.geocities.com/organdonate/AAACh8SurvivalStats.html

It's also a bit tricky to run comparisons against a country (~4m) with half the population of a large US city (8M). One might find that, say, the Mayo Clinic area of Minnesota, has a much better transplant survival rate than NZ and save the trip.

 

[Huckleberry]

I repeat, I do not oppose the legitimate power of government to levy taxes for the reasons you stated. The only thing in your post I don't agree (or disagree) with is the first sentence "It isn't theft", and that's just because I don't know what "it" you are referring to.

Edit: And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "deny the legitimacy of democracy in America." The U.S. is not a democracy in the absolute sense you imply. It's only a democracy by the broad definition that loosely includes a constitutional republic with limited, enumerated powers. The government is elected by the people (republic), but does not have unlimited power like a pure democracy.

What you say here is true. Rephrasing the statement I would say - Dismissing a legal right would give some merit to your argument and lead counterarguments into semantics, but deny the legitimacy of the democratic republic in America. (I was lazy and imprecise) People govern themselves as they see fit. In the US, democracy takes the form of a republic. That doesn't make it illegitimate if it is the will of the people.

Though I wouldn't call myself libertarian, I share many libertarian viewpoints. It seems to me that you are saying some taxes are theft because they aren't based on libertarian principles. I think I understand the reasons that you believe it is theft, but the government does have a legal right to collect any and all taxes supported by the majority of people it justly represents. It won't always be fair to any individual, but that doesn't make collecting any particular tax theft.

If the government is corrupt, or doesn't represent the people, or uses force or deciet to manipulate the will of the people, then I'm on your side. Those taxes are theft. Any tax that does represent the will of the majority is not theft. It would be a theft not to pay them.

When it comes to issues of basic human necessity I drop the libertarian perspective in favor of a social one. It's impossible for me to watch someone suffer and say that has nothing to do with me, especially when it is through no fault of their own. I believe that in order to have a civilized society it is important that its individual members have an obligation to the well-being of other individuals, particularly ones in that society. The current health care system (or lack thereof) in the US has some serious problems. I don't have any solutions, but a solution that doesn't abandon and impoverish people seems preferable to me. Otherwise I favor as much elbow room as possible.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Transplant triage is a factor to consider for mortality, but it doesn't impact the availability / number of operations statistics.

I was responding specifically to turbo's survival rate post

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So you mean the conventional definition with the added "unless it's the government" clause. In that case it wouldn't meet that definition of theft. But that's just semantics.

No. The difference is not that it is the government since obviously the government can take money from you that it is not entitled to take and that would be a form of theft.
Huck's last post pretty well sums up my position on this.
The "added clause" would be "unless the person taking the money are endowed with the power to do so by the consent of the people". The level of direct benefit received by the tax payer is moot unless you can show me something that says the governments ability to tax is restricted in this fashion.
Better yet I will find something regarding the matter myself...

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This is apparently the conditions for tax collection (or lack thereof) consented to by the people.

I'd say first that national health care would be a detriment, on average, not a benefit to the people paying for it. Even if we could say it was of some benefit, it wouldn't come close to a service provided to everyone with value roughly in line with the amount each person is taxed, like police, fire, national defense, roads, etc. That's a big difference from claiming that everyone would get some benefit, but not only is the price not in line with the value of the benefit, it's designed purposely not to be.

I would also note that being a libertarian means that I don't consider changing, altering, modifying, or "bettering" society to be a legitimate function of government, while protecting liberty is. The legitimate role of government is to protect the liberty of people to decide for themselves what to do, not take it away so government can decide what's best for society.

Having health care for everyone would be a detriment on average? I find that hard to believe. Perhaps you could actually explain how and and why it would be a detriment?

As for the direct benefit received in proportion to the amount of taxes paid nothing you have mentioned seems to me to have a proportionate level of benefit. From what I read and hear in the news there are plenty of people out there who have had their homes saved by firemen. I never have and I do not know anyone who has either. I actually know someone who lost their home and all of their possessions to a fire. Do we deserve refunds? Surely my acquaintance who lost his home and possessions ought to receive something back yes? Nor have the police intervened on my behalf in a crime in progress. My laptop was stolen and I filed a police report. It has not been returned to me yet. Are they going to reimburse me for their failure to retrieve my property? Does the person whose property is returned to them have to pay extra for that added benefit?

Besides all of that the people have apparently consented to allow taxes to be taken from them without regard to the apportionment as noted above in the article from the United States constitution.

 

[BobG]

Although the mortality rate is 35% higher than Canada according to http://www.ustransplant.org/

That would seem to conflict with this for the US:
http://www.surgery.com/procedure/kid...dity-mortality

Survival rates for patients undergoing kidney transplants are 95–96% one year post-transplant, and 91% three years after transplant...

How is it possible to improve 35% absolutely over a 95 or 91% survival rate? That would seem to conflict with this for the US:

If the survival rate is 91%, then there's a 9% mortality rate. If Canada's mortality rate is 6.7% (meaning they have a 93.3% survival rate), then the US mortality rate is 35% higher than Canada's.

Survival rate: Canada - 93% (the US rate was only given to 2 significant digits, so it's not fair to carry Canada's out to 3); US - 91%

Mortality rate: Canada - 6.7%; US - approximately 9% (once you get down to only 1 significant digit left, you start running into problems - actually, you can't be sure it's 9 to 6.7; it could be 8.8 to 6.5% or something like that)

Obviously, looking at the smaller side of the numbers looks more impressive if you want to emphasize how much better Canada's survival rate is.

 

[BobG]

Two problems may be being mixed together.

1) Some "low cost" health insurance policies can charge low premiums because their policy covers nothing. They make their profit by denying claims, thereby reducing what they have to pay out in benefits.

2) To a patient staring death in the face, any treatment and any cost seems reasonable. That doesn't mean the treatment has a good enough chance of succeeding to be worth the cost to the objective observer. The insurance company is denying treatments it will cover for good reason.

(Yes, telling the difference between the first and second can sometimes be hard).

Government health care would eliminate the first problem. People wouldn't waste their money (even if only a little) for "insurance" that wasn't worth the money it was printed on.

Eliminate the problem? It would only eliminate the option to pay: all would be forced to pay through taxes, you might still get bad care.

You might still get bad care no matter what. I think you're making some leap in logic that you've not stated and are trying to make some kind of point. As is, it sounds like you're saying a person might still die in a car crash even if they're wearing seat belts, so why wear them.

What it would eliminate is people throwing money away on worthless insurance policies. Since the government insures everyone and quite a few people would be savvy enough to complain if the policy were junk, even the people who don't really understand what they're paying for get a decent policy (you could probably accomplish the same goal by imposing more regulations on private insurance companies).

If government eliminates the second problem by granting any treatment that offers even a sliver of hope, then government health care will just bankrupt the government. Someone looking at the odds objectively has to decide if the treatment is worth paying for even if it's the government doing the paying.

"...just bankrupt the nation..." and "...even if it's the people doing the paying." would be more accurate.

The point I was making was that, if the company and/or the government have a fair insurance policy, it doesn't matter who's making the decision. Some care is going to be denied and some "customers" are going to feel that denial cost them their life.

Among the news articles linked, there wasn't enough info to discern which were stories about the "bargain" insurance companies that never pay out or which were stories about an insurance company denying unreasonable treatments. I kind of had a feeling that there were examples of each in the stories linked.

 

[mheslep]

If the survival rate is 91%, then there's a 9% mortality rate. If Canada's mortality rate is 6.7% (meaning they have a 93.3% survival rate), then the US mortality rate is 35% higher than Canada's...

Arg, yes of course, should have seen that.

 

[Al68]

It seems to me that you are saying some taxes are theft because they aren't based on libertarian principles.

No.

I think I understand the reasons that you believe it is theft, but the government does have a legal right to collect any and all taxes supported by the majority of people it justly represents.

So you're using a definition of theft with a "unless it's supported by a majority" clause. Again, that's a matter of semantics.

It won't always be fair to any individual, but that doesn't make collecting any particular tax theft.

It is a legitimate debate whether certain non-theft taxes are collected fairly, like for fire stations, police, etc. But no one disputes that the service is provided, the only dispute is exactly what the service is worth to each person. What I'm referring to is taking money with not so much as any attempt to pretend it's in return for a service provided to the person paying.

If the government is corrupt, or doesn't represent the people, or uses force or deciet to manipulate the will of the people, then I'm on your side. Those taxes are theft.

Well your claim here represents even a larger portion of taxes in the U.S. is theft than I ever claimed.

Any tax that does represent the will of the majority is not theft.

Unless that will is manipulated? Or is this the "unless it's the will of the majority" clause in your definition of theft?

It would be a theft not to pay them.

Failure to give to the majority what the majority wants is theft? I must assume this is either a typo or a joke.

 

[Al68]

Having health care for everyone would be a detriment on average?

I didn't say that, and you know it. Just like I didn't say it would be a detriment to society for no one to ever get sick. Why can't we just institute that policy? That's my new policy. Let's just pass a law that says nobody will ever get sick again. Seriously, I said "national health care" would be a detriment overall. I'm sure you didn't think I meant that the "good" aspect of it in isolation would be a detriment.

Besides all of that the people have apparently consented to allow taxes to be taken from them without regard to the apportionment as noted above in the article from the United States constitution.

I'm well aware of the income tax amendment. It doesn't obligate me to agree with the majority. And it doesn't authorize government to collect and spend money for anything it wants, it just authorizes government to use income taxes to collect money to do those things authorized by the constitution.

The "added clause" would be "unless the person taking the money are endowed with the power to do so by the consent of the people".

If we use a definition of theft with this clause, then you're correct, there would be no such thing as "majority approved" theft. Again, that's a matter of semantics. I think it's obvious that I was not using such a definition when I used the word theft in my posts.

 

[Huckleberry]

Failure to give to the majority what the majority wants is theft? I must assume this is either a typo or a joke.

If the government represents the will of the majority then my answer is yes. That's democracy. I'm not saying that all laws are morally right, just that they are legally right, hence your proposal that some taxes are theft is untrue on a legal basis. The government does have the right to collect taxes within its legal parameters and it cannot logically be considered theft to collect that tax. That's just the reality of the situation.

Your argument is logical, but was semantics from the moment you stated it, because it follows from moral premises. You're using your personal definition of 'right'. Not everyone agrees with you.

What I see so far is a semantic argument that denies semantics, a moral argument that claims to be founded in logic, denial of 'unless clauses' as an attempt to make your argument infallible and a disregard for the reality of the situation. Believe whatever pleases you, but the laws of a democracy are based on what the majority feels is right, not what you feel is right. Your only recourse is to convince the majority of your moral correctness.

 

[Al68]

I'm not saying that all laws are morally right, just that they are legally right, hence your proposal that some taxes are theft is untrue on a legal basis.

I never suggested any taxes were "legally" wrong, so you misconstrue my proposal. The word theft has meaning beyond the concept of "legally wrong". Obviously the taxes I referred to are legal, so cannot be claimed to be theft according to any legal code. I was not using the word theft to mean "illegal theft". That would make the term "legalized theft" a self contradiction.

The government does have the right to collect taxes within its legal parameters and it cannot logically be considered theft to collect that tax. That's just the reality of the situation.

It cannot logically be considered illegal theft, but I thought it would be obvious that's not what I meant.

Believe whatever pleases you, but the laws of a democracy are based on what the majority feels is right, not what you feel is right. Your only recourse is to convince the majority of your moral correctness.

I agree, and have never said otherwise. Again, you say things that it should be obvious I agree with, as if you're saying them to disagree with me.

Where did you get the idea that I was claiming that any taxes were theft in the legal sense of the word? That wouldn't even make any logical sense.

And you're absolutely right that this is all about semantics. But you knew from the beginning, since it was too obvious not to, that I wasn't using the word theft to mean "illegal theft", but your responses have assumed I was nevertheless. Did you really think that I was claiming that "legalized theft" was "illegal theft"?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I never suggested any taxes were "legally" wrong, so you misconstrue my proposal. The word theft has meaning beyond the concept of "legally wrong". Obviously the taxes I referred to are legal, so cannot be claimed to be theft according to any legal code. I was not using the word theft to mean "illegal theft". That would make the term "legalized theft" a self contradiction.It cannot logically be considered illegal theft, but I thought it would be obvious that's not what I meant.I agree, and have never said otherwise. Again, you say things that it should be obvious I agree with, as if you're saying them to disagree with me.

Where did you get the idea that I was claiming that any taxes were theft in the legal sense of the word? That wouldn't even make any logical sense.

And you're absolutely right that this is all about semantics. But you knew from the beginning, since it was too obvious not to, that I wasn't using the word theft to mean "illegal theft", but your responses have assumed I was nevertheless. Did you really think that I was claiming that "legalized theft" was "illegal theft"?

Ah... so as Huck and I both have said now, you are just using the word "theft" to make your argument seem self evident. Gotcha.

 

[Al68]

Ah... so as Huck and I both have said now, you are just using the word "theft" to make your argument seem self evident.

No, I used the word theft to make clear that that was why I opposed universal health care, not for the variety of other nonsensical reasons normally attributed to detractors. Have we become so government dependent that we can't even conceive of a word like theft to have any meaning independent of government policy?

The reason I, and many others, oppose "universal health care" is because we think it's wrong to steal. We think it's wrong to steal even if the majority approve and it's legal. That's the reason, plain and simple. Everyone knows what the words theft and steal mean in this context, despite the pretense to the contrary.

Is there another word I could use instead to convey the same meaning?

 

[Huckleberry]

Did you really think that I was claiming that "legalized theft" was "illegal theft"?

No, I didn't think that. I was using it as a counterpoint to isolate the source of the argument as your personal opinion.

Is there another word I could use instead to convey the same meaning?

We aren't disagreeing on the meaning of theft. We are disagreeing on what is morally correct, and whether the word applies at all.

Have we become so government dependent that we can't even conceive of a word like theft to have any meaning independent of government policy?

The problem isn't conception of the use of a word, but agreement on if the word is applicable. Democratic government policy is the best we can do to agree. The policy becomes the reality that we live by.

Your logic is good. If one accepts your premise then you are right that these taxes are theft. I understand why you believe that. Someone starting from a different premise will arrive at a different conclusion that is just as valid to them as yours is to you. Not everyone considers universal health care as theft. Can you understand that? If you can then our argument is back to where it began, which seems like a good place to conclude it. There will be no resolution to a moral argument.

 

[j93]

What is the point of arguing if one side starts from the premise that taxes are inherently theft, before arguing if a certain program is a good use of tax revenue everyone should agree in that in the idea of taxes.

 

[D H]

Many people do not think that this particular program is a good use of tax revenue.

This whole theft thing is a side-issue that obscures the main questions, to wit

1. Is health care a problem? Ivan started this thread with a reference to a WHO study that others have pointed out was deeply flawed.
2. If it is a problem, is it one that government has any business solving? Our government was founded on the two potentially conflicting principles: inalienable rights and limited government interference. Is health care an inalienable right? If not, what is the rationale for this government takeover?
3. If a government takeover is appropriate, will doing that solve the problem? Are there approaches that are more in line with our basic principles that could solve the problem?

 

[drankin]

Many people do not think that this particular program is a good use of tax revenue.

This whole theft thing is a side-issue that obscures the main questions, to wit

1. Is health care a problem? Ivan started this thread with a reference to a WHO study that others have pointed out was deeply flawed.
   
   
2. If it is a problem, is it one that government has any business solving? Our government was founded on the two potentially conflicting principles: inalienable rights and limited government interference. Is health care an inalienable right? If not, what is the rationale for this government takeover?
   
   
3. If a government takeover is appropriate, will doing that solve the problem? Are there approaches that are more in line with our basic principles that could solve the problem?

Excellent summary. Ultimately, we will be taxing the working class to provide health care to those who do not work. Those of us who currently do work but do not have insurance pay for our health care directly. It has been this way long before health insurance was ever created. Health insurance is not a right.

In the end, the government will be the ones denying or delaying health care as well as creating an immense and expensive bureaucracy to disperse it.

 

[j93]

Excellent summary. Ultimately, we will be taxing the working class to provide health care to those who do not work.

If this is true this is a problem with the taxing structure not the program which means that argument is off-topic because it is based on a totally different problem.

Those of us who currently do work but do not have insurance pay for our health care directly.

This is obviously false unless you define working as having health insurance and employment.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Is health care an inalienable right?

I believe the idea that all people should benefit from the aid of medicine has been at the core of medical ethics for a couple thousand years now. Arguably any civilized society ought to take measures to insure this whether or not you title it an "inalienable right".

Excellent summary. Ultimately, we will be taxing the working class to provide health care to those who do not work. Those of us who currently do work but do not have insurance pay for our health care directly. It has been this way long before health insurance was ever created. Health insurance is not a right.

In the end, the government will be the ones denying or delaying health care as well as creating an immense and expensive bureaucracy to disperse it.

We already pay for people who do not work to get medical treatment. Often this comes in the form of expensive emergency room visits for people who should have gotten medical attention earlier (for cheaper) but could not afford it. The people who are getting screwed currently are the one who have jobs and make enough money to not be elegible for free medical treatment but do not make enough to afford health insurance. The idea that denying universal health care would protect the working class from having to pay for lazy non-working bums seems inaccurate.

 

[Al68]

No, I didn't think that. I was using it as a counterpoint to isolate the source of the argument as your personal opinion. We aren't disagreeing on the meaning of theft. We are disagreeing on what is morally correct, and whether the word applies at all. The problem isn't conception of the use of a word, but agreement on if the word is applicable. Democratic government policy is the best we can do to agree. The policy becomes the reality that we live by.

Your logic is good. If one accepts your premise then you are right that these taxes are theft. I understand why you believe that. Someone starting from a different premise will arrive at a different conclusion that is just as valid to them as yours is to you. Not everyone considers universal health care as theft. Can you understand that? If you can then our argument is back to where it began, which seems like a good place to conclude it. There will be no resolution to a moral argument.

I agree with all of this. Maybe I misunderstood something you said along the way.

 

[Al68]

Our government was founded on the two potentially conflicting principles: inalienable rights and limited government interference. Is health care an inalienable right?

I think the word "entitlement" might fit better for health care, since at the time our nation was founded, the words right and entitlement were not used interchangeably. The word right refers to liberties while the word entitlement refers to something provided by other people, and was not a founding principle. The potential conflict is between limited government interference and "entitlements", not inalienable rights.

 

[mheslep]

I believe the idea that all people should benefit from the aid of medicine has been at the core of medical ethics for a couple thousand years now. Arguably any civilized society ought to take measures to insure this whether or not you title it an "inalienable right"...

I agree with the initial premise there - 'should', 'benefit', traditional practice - as this is the language responsibility. You lose me though in the indifference to labelling health care a right, since a right is a radically different thing from responsibility, most importantly in who owns which.

A 'right', at least in the sense the US Constitution uses it, is that which can not be taken from any citizen in good standing, not taken by anyone, and especially not taken by the government. In that sense, calling a health care a right wrecks the chances for rationale approach to the health care problem before it begins. That discussion begins, reasonably, with matters of efficiency, quality, distribution, cost, i.e. economics - all of which are completely antithetical to the idea rights. There is no resource scarcity applicability to free speech rights, or to the right to be free from illegal search and seizure. So we end up with a schizophrenic debate. Moreover, since I agree I have a responsibility to help my neighbour, having the recipient call that help a right - something I must provide to him without infringement - poisons the well.