Pedro Martínez:

Thank you... and statements like "if there is a heart and a doctor available" is a good example.

That was my whole point..... if health care is to be a "right", then the government has to have the ability to protect that for the people in all and every instance, and if it is not possible to do that, then it cannot be possible to be a right

Its a philosophical debate... it either is or isnt, there is no grey area.

Übergeek 바둑이: Healthcare is a right when people die as a result of poor healthcare.

Well, it either IS a right or it ISN'T. Words like "when" or "if" have no place in defining what is a right.

GTCharlie: Poor lifestyle is a factor the docs know how to adjust for. The science and technology exists to determine all the factors that lead upto a persons death.

Little things called autopsy's and post mortems...

As for college.. the more that go to that level of education and complete it the better potential for high skilled employees. That level of workforce potential should be nurtured and kept open otherwise you end up with a lack of skills. It is simple economic sense to have college open to as many potential skilled employees as possible.

As long as they pass the entrance tests.

Übergeek 바둑이: But how many actually die because of PROVEN poor health care? rather than poor lifestyles,smoking, drinking, obesity? also to think about,, everyone has the right to education at least k-12, but not college, meaning paid by the taxpayers

Czuch:

Like you, I was a little busy and could not reply to your post.

> it was about the companies, and even you admitted that it was a US
> company that develops a majority of drugs

Please don't put words in my mouth! I never said what you wrote and in that same post I gave examples of half a dozen drug companies which are not American. Drug development is done by pharmaceutical companies all over the world.

> You claim they make billions in profits, maybe so... but explain why then, if
> a government like Canada can make socialized medicine a part of their way,
> why doesnt the same government spend the money and time to develope
> their own drugs?????

Do you really think Canada has no research into drugs and pharmaceuticals? You should visit universities and companies here. Canadias spend billions in research too, both through private and public funds. Pharmaceuticals are a huge business and Canada exploits them too, like many other countries.

> Also, the question about health care being a right, my point was also missed.....
> we can have rights like the right to free speach, or the right to unlawful search
> or seasure etc, but how can we have rights to a service like health care?

I had on purpose stayed out of HEALTHCARE AS A RIGHT. The reason is that it is not as simple as it looks. Individual beliefs play a big role here, just as with many other issues of "rights".

I can give a good example too of how "rights" are interpreted differently by different people. Consider the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I brought this up to make a point. Many Americans consider the second Amendment to be an unalieanable right. They see restriction on gun possession as a direct infringement of their rights. Here is a good question. If it is a right for people to possess a deadly weapon, is that right a good or a bad thing? The answer to this has raised heated debates in the United States and here in Canada too. Gun control in Canada was a source of bitterness for many gun owners, as much as it is in the US.

Likewise, the "right" to healthcare is a source of a lot of vitriol on both sides of the political spectrum. One thing is interesting. Republicans generally tend to oppose gun control and healthcare reform. The defend one right (bear arms) and oppose the other (healthcare). Democrats generally oppose the right to bear arms (they support stronger gun control) and defend the right to healthcare.

> What about an MRI, do I also have a right to an MRI? What if the MRI isnt
> invented yet?

The issue of access is central to the debate of healthcare as a right. The question is not a black and white question. Consider a case of two men. One needs a hip joint replacement to be able to walk and the other needs a heart transplant to survive.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone the right to life. Denying health care to the first man does not violate his human rights, but denying the second man does. The second man would die if not given treatment. The question is, does this man have a right to healthcare on account of his potential death if not given a transplant? The question is difficult. Assuming that doctors and a heart donor is available, would denying the transplant on accounts of economic reasons be a violation of human rights?

Now, two men need a heart transplant. One is wealthy and has all the insurance coverage he needs. The other is poor and is without adequate insurance to cover his operation. Is denying the poor man insurance coverage a violation of his human rights?

Most cases are not as drastic as this, like somebody who just needs prescription glasses, or simple pain relief for arthritis. It is a complex question. I think that ultimately a health care system has to attempt to balance all sides of the issue. Insurance companies have a right to make a profit, as do doctors and hospitals. However, if profit takes precendence over the protection of the inalienable right to life, then somehow the state has to find balance through legislation and a public system of some kind.

Some countries like Canada and Sweden have solved the problem by going for a publicly run system. These systems are not perfect, and often the state is unable to provide all the services needed.

Other countries don't care at all and all medical services are done privately with minimal state intervention. I have been to developing countries where healthcare is chaotic because the state has little or no involvement at all. In these places millions of people die every year because of poor healthcare.

Other countries like the United States and Australia have both private and public health care and they seem to function well except for the segments of society with the lowest incomes.

The balance has to lie somewehere. I am of the opinion that the Obama administration should do its best to find a balanced approach in which both public and private interest should try to cooperate to find a solution to the problems, rather than playing to public passions to defeat one or the other side of the issue. Of course, in real life special interest and individuals put themselves ahead of an entire country's well-being.

Is healthcare a right? I think it is when people die as a result of poor healthcare. To me Article 3 of the Declaration of Human rights takes precedence over anything else.

Pedro Martínez: Right against....sorry

Czuch: People in the US have a right to unlawful search???

Czuch: You tell me, you say you know better

As for the other 2 questions.. read back and study some economics. Most people who like to talk about things do so.. so other don't keep having to explain the simple things and repeat themselves.

Only one minor thing.. I called it "maximum employment", while the term seemingly used (a bit of a rusty memory on the name) is full employment.. where as it is expected that some of the population will not be in employment as a natural event.

(V): I did, by using the term maximum employment


So you are telling me that the US doesnt have "maximum employment" because our health care system is not nationalized???

(V): One deals with health, one deals with post... can you see the difference??


So then, in your opinion, the government is good at running some things and not so good at others?

(V): Well if health care frauds were gone that save $1,000,000,000


Well, can we get rid of fraud and not go socialized at the same time?

Czuch: I did, by using the term maximum employment. I was taught it during classes in economics at the age of 14. If you studied and looked at the subject on the web, you'd understand.

Didn't I sorta say it was something we do as humans, and as such.. our governments are supposed to represent the will of the people.. doesn't it state so in your constitution?? Or did you skip that bit.

"Why/how are they to be different???"

One deals with health, one deals with post... can you see the difference??

"You say our postal under charges?"

Yes..

"and the US postal service is going bankrupt"

Well if health care frauds were gone that save $1,000,000,000

(V): That health care is not a right directly affects the ability of the population to meet the demands of the economy. It is NOT your mail service, which by the looks is very much undercharging.


Okay then.... If you want to make the argument that we need nationalized health care because our economy is suffering because our population is too unhealthy to maintain a productive work force... well then, make that argument. But dont try to convince me that we need it because it is some sort of fundamental government guaranteed right (not that I see our economy suffering because of a poor health care system)

...and maybe health care is not our postal system, but you need to do more than just say it wont be, for me to be convinced Why/how are they to be different???
You say our postal under charges? Based on what? I see the prices constantly going up.... to me its just the government running something more poorly than private ways... federal express and United Parcel service both make profits, and the US postal service is going bankrupt

“This resolution protects the FDA in its vital mission of ensuring that drugs are safe and effective. When manufacturers undermine the FDA’s rules, they interfere with a doctor’s judgment and can put patient health at risk,” commented Michael L. Levy, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. “The public trusts companies to market their drugs for uses that FDA has approved, and trusts that doctors are using independent judgement. Federal health dollars should only be spent on treatment decisions untainted by misinformation from manufacturers concerned with the bottom line.”

“This settlement demonstrates the ongoing efforts to pursue violations of the False Claims Act and recover taxpayer dollars for the Medicare and Medicaid programs,” noted Jim Zerhusen, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

“This historic settlement emphasizes the government’s commitment to corporate and individual accountability and to transparency throughout the pharmaceutical industry,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. “The corporate integrity agreement requires senior Pfizer executives and board members to complete annual compliance certifications and opens Pfizer to more public scrutiny by requiring it to make detailed disclosures on its Web site. We expect this agreement to increase integrity in the marketing of pharmaceuticals.”

“The off-label promotion of pharmaceutical drugs by Pfizer significantly impacted the integrity of TRICARE, the Department of Defense’s healthcare system,” said Sharon Woods, Director, Defense Criminal Investigative Service. “This illegal activity increases patients’ costs, threatens their safety and negatively affects the delivery of healthcare services to the over nine million military members, retirees and their families who rely on this system. Today’s charges and settlement demonstrate the ongoing commitment of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and its law enforcement partners to investigate and prosecute those that abuse the government’s healthcare programs at the expense of the taxpayers and patients.”

“Federal employees deserve health care providers and suppliers, including drug manufacturers, that meet the highest standards of ethical and professional behaviour,” said Patrick E. McFarland, Inspector General of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. “Today’s settlement reminds the pharmaceutical industry that it must observe those standards and reflects the commitment of federal law enforcement organizations to pursue improper and illegal conduct that places health care consumers at risk.”

“Health care fraud has a significant financial impact on the Postal Service. This case alone impacted more than 10,000 postal employees on workers’ compensation who were treated with these drugs,” said Joseph Finn, Special Agent in Charge for the Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General. “Last year the Postal Service paid more than $1 billion in workers’ compensation benefits to postal employees injured on the job.”

................... From the FBI press release..
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/justice_090209.htm on the Pfizer Inc. business.

Czuch: You don't get it do you? Our society as such relies on a certain level of health. What is called 'maximum employment' relies on health care as part of the figures. That health care is not a right directly affects the ability of the population to meet the demands of the economy. It is NOT your mail service, which by the looks is very much undercharging.

"put all your hope and faith in your government to provide for you."

Never have.. I am a natural sceptic when it comes to politicians, but those who run our NHS trusts have proven to give a damn, and kick butt as needed. Also, our NHS as a whole spent less then budgeted for last year. A surplus the trusts get to keep and invest into the system. No shareholders grabbing their piece of the pie here!!

"Well that would be fine with me, as long as they are competing on the same playing field."

It would mean that your health companies would have to get lean, it would mean that your silly fragmented insurance system gets a kick up the butt. It would mean health care companies would have to be able to offer a national service I hope.

.... And hopefully then they will stop defrauding the USA.

Ferris Bueller: You raise hypotheticals about not enough Drs. practicing to take care of everyone.


My point had nothing to do with not enough doctors, per se, it was just to make the point about the "health care is a right" crowd, that goods and services can never be a right, in the same sense that freedom of speech, or the right to unlawful search can.....


Its time at least for a public option to compete w/ the greedy & inefficient private payers.


Well that would be fine with me, as long as they are competing on the same playing field..... I have no confidence that the government health care will do any better than the US postal service when it comes to competing with private industry

Czuch:  Last time I checked the gov't was run by people as opposed to robots.  Yes, there exists corruption & inefficiency,.  But, it can't be any worse than private insurance companies.  You raise hypotheticals about not enough Drs. practicing to take care of everyone.  Well, its already happening because Drs don't want to deal with the red tape & dictates of the PRIVATE insurance cos.  They have to hire numerous office people to deal with the filing, & they may not get paid for many months while the insurance cos. question everything..  It's significantly simpler with  Medicare & Medicaid.

Its time at least for a public option to compete w/ the greedy & inefficient private payers.  If they can't compete with gov't & cover everyone effectively, let them go out of business & leave us with a single payer.  We will still be able see your private physicians under the system as it's proposed now.

(V): People caring is one thing... something I can agree with. But government is NOT people, government works for the people but they are not people, and they (government) shouldnt have the same responsibility (or more responsibility) than the people themselves, churches, people helping people, thats one thing, but when you rely and put all your hope and faith in your government to provide for you... well, to me that is a big mistake.

Czuch: That being one thing... I mean, you quite happily support your government re recent wars don't you?? Or has that changed??? Our Royal mail has been been pretty good, some troubles, but no way as bad as your system. Perhaps if your parties stopped arguing it could be sorted.

Oh I don't mind hypothetical, but can you name one realistic 'normal' event that would cause people to stop caring and wanting to help others? A sudden mutation in genes that cause us to become all psychotic maniacs? Some release of a nerve toxin that causes humans to stop being humans?

As I said.. caring is hard wired. That part of human nature has been documented for 1000's of years. Even Jesus commentated about Samaritans

(V): Well we have as many horror stories about the government spending 500 bucks for a bolt.... how about our US mail.... UPS, fed express, or the US mail? You tell me which you would first bet your money on??? The government is notorious for doing things wrong and too costly etc.... You take your government over private industry, I will continue to fight over here to keep government out of my life as much as possible!


Sorry you dont like hypotheticals, but you have to deal with them in philosophical debates

Czuch: Really?? Since when? I mean, isn't it true that many USA private individuals have been storing their 'cream' in offshore accounts to avoid taxes.. Over 100 big building companies over here have been caught fiddling the books. ... Madoff, etc, etc, etc. Believing something does not make it true.

And yes.. it is silly to presume that doctors will just dry up... unless someone invents some virus that attacks people who want to become doctors.. or.. a catastrophic event happens... but in such an event, everyone and everything has gone to the dogs as the infrastructure/economy will completely collapse..

But people will still care about people. It's hard wired into us.

(V): All I was saying is that people around here are carrying sign in protest of our health care that read "health care is a right" and it cannot be a right and there is no way a government can give that guarantee

Just because you think something is silly does not make it impossible...


and to answer your question.... why do you want a system that is abused by fraud to the cost of billions of dollars?


I just happen to believe that the government is far more fraudulent and full of abuses than most private industry's. I think we can fix what needs fixing, but we dont need to throw the baby out with the bath water

Czuch: In your hypothetical situation, no-one can guarantee someone will become a doctor, but many feel it is a vocation being a healer. But since many people want to be doctors, nurses, etc... your hypothetical is kinda silly. There have been healers of sorts since the beginning of recorded time.... somehow I don't think that is suddenly going to change.

And I think an answer deserves an answer... why do you want a system that is abused by fraud to the cost of billions of dollars? Why do you say such abuse by private individuals and companies is a good thing?

And by your hypothetical.. no private company can guarantee health care either, or any service. well... they don't anyway!!

(V): "at least not my government.....

When I say this, what I mean is not the government I envision....


Ohhhhhh yes it is. And at less cost then your current system, and with less fraud then your current system.


You still havent answered my hypothetical question.... what if you have no doctors, can your government force someone to become a doctor? How can you grant someone a right, when you cannot ensure it can always be provided????

Again, it is not possible to have a "right" to goods or services, since no government can possibly guarantee to provide those goods or services

Czuch: Ohhhhhh yes it is. And at less cost then your current system, and with less fraud then your current system.


"at least not my government....."

And since when have you run America? I've never heard of President Czuch!! Also, since your constitution says for the people, then the government has to listen to the people... which requires a certain amount of sensitivity.

... If you feel you don't need healthcare.. go without.

Ferris Bueller: Well, I'd rather be called an "idiot" than behave like an insensitive "moron".

Sorry, I can be insensitive, but liberals have cornered the market on sensitivty anyway, I am not sure that sensitivty is a requirement of government, at least not my government.....


but I was not calling you a moron, personally, but simply anyone who believes people can have inalienable rights to goods and services, IE health care, ones sensitive side may wish this could be the case, but it is just not possible

Übergeek 바둑이: Sorry I was not around to help clean up what I started earlier....


My point was not that the US has all the good chemists, it was about the companies, and even you admitted that it was a US company that develops a majority of drugs
You claim they make billions in profits, maybe so... but explain why then, if a government like Canada can make socialized medicine a part of their way, why doesnt the same government spend the money and time to develope their own drugs?????


Also, the question about health care being a right, my point was also missed..... we can have rights like the right to free speach, or the right to unlawful search or seasure etc, but how can we have rights to a service like health care?

Lets just say for instance that we are given health care as a right, like the right to free speach.... but now assume that nobody wants to go to school to pursue the medical field anymore so now you have a right to medical care, but nobody to give you that care.... does the government force people to study to become a doctor? What about an MRI, do I also have a right to an MRI? What if the MRI isnt invented yet?

Point is, its not possible to bestow any rights to services or material objects, because there is no way for any government to guarantee those services will be available

Übergeek 바둑이: Yes. It's the trap of primus leadership tradition I like to see broken. Its an instinct I guess but certainly a perverted one. The longer the power addicted can shut up their mouth, the sooner also simple Joe will start to tell his doctor a strait opinion. For this perverted instict: I instictively don't like people who want to govern a place they never saw, have no idea what's going on, never drunk my beer, well, this place I can call my own, the space I know somethings about. We have nowhere to adress our complaints as leadership gets masked by routine. A Merkel for instance governs by filtering the infos she gets, she has no idea how Germans feel about Germany. Not as this would be an excuse, I think she is dumb.

Looking at the news.. It looks like the FBI and other gov depts are cracking down on medicare fraud.

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june09/healthcare_062409.html

Übergeek 바둑이: Not just the doctors, but anyone involved in inappropriate money making. Management, politicians.. anyone. Also if doctors are caught red handed.. they ought to be struck off.

I've heard talk since the Clinton admin of how health firms buy people off. Such is the profit available that a few million here and there is nothing to them.

Ferris Bueller:

One thing bothers me about this. Have any doctors been prosecuted? It takes two to tango. If doctors are taking perks and kickbacks, the doctors should be liable too. I think a message should be sent to the medical profession too. Being participants in illegal marketing of drugs should have consequences. I think the penalties on Pfizer were warranted and other drug companies should be throughly investigated and fined accordingly. Doctors should be heavily fined too. Their job is to heal people and save human lives. Their job is not to go to resorts and get royal treatment for promoting drugs to patients illegally.

If that isn't interesting. Sarcozy, Merkel and suddenly Brown too want to limit boni in the banking branch undefined appropriately.. The message to me is the story of the ongoing crime. The globalized finance sector is drowned in money. Tax money, crime money and despots money is raining down on +250K problems. It is common knowledge that we need a system change. Is it really worth saving faces of these people who profitated formidably, like Sarcozy, Merkel or Brown? I remember 2007 when Greenspan blubbered something about this dreamteam. Lets not forget that all the mentioned are moraly broken figures.

(V):  Here is an article about Pfizer settlement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090902/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_pfizer_settlement

Artful Dodger: In certain respects, the stripping of Germany's forces after WWI gave them the advantage of starting afresh in their war machine building. It's why Dunkirk happened. Luckily we had a channel!!! Not just for us, but for the rest of the world.. as a fallen UK would have led to a very horrible battlefield logistically for the remaining Allies.

Übergeek 바둑이: The guys themselves may not have worked for the USA.. but an incomplete (not assembled together) plane was exported to the USA.. As such, it would have given ideas on what could be done.

The fighter/bomber was designed to break the British radar defences and neutralise them. Without them, the air defences that relied on the radar system were 'blind' and would have been unable to stop the German airforce effectively.

(V):

I wouldn't say that modern stealth tech is based on Nazi tech. The Horten brothers developed for the Nazis the first flying wing design andf that design hasn't changed much since then. Since it could fly lower and create less drag, it was about 80% less visible by radar than conventional bombers of WW II. Of course, it was all made of wood and not the carbon fiber composite materials used in modern stealth bombers. Those two brothers were brilliant. I find it interesting that nobody scooped them up after the war like they did with many other Nazi scientists. My understanding is that they were hobbyists and not trained aeronautical engineers. Their designs were unconventional, so they probably were seen as more odd than revolutionary in their designs. It is possible that they might have been unwilling to work for a third party. That design certainly is amazing.

(V):  I would have told you that you were nuts for that last comment.  But ya learn something new everyday.   I can't believe how close they were at developing this bomber.  Like decades ahead of the game it seems.  Here are pics of an exact replica:

1
2
3
4

Übergeek 바둑이: Well I guess it is fair to say that the USA's stealth tech is based on Nazi tech.

Pfizer agrees record fraud fine ...

£1.4 billion pounds... in related news, the drugs companies by blocking generic versions have cost EU healthcare providers £2.5 billion from 2000 - 2007

Fraud seems to be ripping off billions of dollars each year from the USA people through scams by healthcare companies.

And this is great by those who protect it, or just a thing that stays under the carpet?

Übergeek 바둑이: try this link it has even more information.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529548,00.html?test=latestnews

Übergeek 바둑이: Patato peels are interesting too. Once I read about that Hitler casted spells over masses with sonoric voice effects, I can't reproduce what Werner Maser was saying in his book now.

For those that did not knwo what V is talking about, the plane he is referring to is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

Germany also had another similar prototype bomber designed to reach the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_H.XVIII

Very interesting stuff. You learn something new every day!

About the Nazi nuclear energy project and where Nazi scientists ended after the war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project

gogul: Thats like the Swiss "liberals" (Europe liberals, right from center), who are troubled because it's about time to take away their control of money making through nuclear power plants or the overboarding urbanisation of little narrow Switzerland to give just two of many examples. Our liberals and christian people party are really morons.

To me it is pretty amazing, Europe talking now, how some countries make obvious mistakes in "fixing" their health care system, and then to observe (that's the point now) how other countries seem to want to repeat these errors (and indeed do!), as if we wouldn't be able to learn from each other. Nope, if certain political tendencies smell money, they'll start the enrichement tour at disadvantage of the populace.

maybe he's hiding my posts lol

(V) to Pedro Martínez: Everyone has the option of joining a private health scheme here if they want.

(V): You too? How does that work and how much would you pay for? And paying cash money (50£, 120£, 150£) to even get the appointment, that's a priviledge for healthy, young and well earning this private health sheme for everyone you are talking about. Right?

Bernice: I didn't say it was carrying nukes, I said they were close.

And they did fly the stealthy fighter/bomber, and the guys who work for the USA stealth manufacturers built a replica to see it's radar image. It worked!! ...seeing as the USA captured an incomplete test plane and other material related... Amazing what you can build from wood!!

Czuch:  Well, I'd rather be called an "idiot" than behave like an insensitive "moron".

(V): You may not share our intellect which might explain your disrespect for all the natural wonders that grow around you.

?????really???? don't you mean the Germans were closer than anybody else to having nuclear weapons, the Jet Bomber was NOT carrying nukes.

it is all talk, Big talk about a plane that never flew (and still hasn't).

Now before you pounce on me about what has been written, I have just typed this as a WW2 pilot, who flew for germany was telling me. He wants to know where you got your misleading statements/information from?