Correct. The AMA does the same in the US and look at what's happened .
Yes, it does seem that associations and unions have a similar effect on resource allocation efficiency as govt's. It does seem like the cost of funding medical schools and their students would be small compared to having a doctor/nurse/technician shortage.
However, it should be rememberd that in a managed, non-competitive market like the market for medical services, more practitioners may actually wind up costing more money rather than less, as more Docs are out there ordering tests etc. to be sure they can meet their financial obligations and Mercedes payments.
It's possible that the poll outcome you mention is not the result of irrationality but instead reflects a mistrust of politicians and government.
So when I talk about being irrational, I am talking about people who deliberately distort the facts. If you read the pages on the matter of "End of life Counceling", there is nothing proposed that remotely suggests euthanasia. It is about filling out forms and taking care of end of life decisions, which everyone should be doing anyway. So when people say this is euthanasia, and use this as an argument against the bill, I say their statements are irrational. (assuming they can read)
So when I talk about being irrational, I am talking about people who deliberately distort the facts.
However bail outs (the economy issues) is not the same as Health Care Reform.
No party, whether Democrtic or Republican has no good ideas.
Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they don't.
This is all fine and good if the sick and dying person already has an advanced directive of their own. When my dad had terminal cancer he had an advanced directive that indicated DNR and no heroic measures to prolong life -- just medications to make him more comfortable. That's fine and good when it's patient-driven.So when I talk about being irrational, I am talking about people who deliberately distort the facts. If you read the pages on the matter of "End of life Counceling", there is nothing proposed that remotely suggests euthanasia. It is about filling out forms and taking care of end of life decisions, which everyone should be doing anyway. So when people say this is euthanasia, and use this as an argument against the bill, I say their statements are irrational. (assuming they can read)
The "Do Not Call List" came close - that was wildly supported by the public. But Congress played politics with it and exempted themselves. What better way to tell us that they are "above the law", than by making lawmakers exempt from a law?
We’re mostly in agreement - I wasn’t being critical. One has to work hard to find rational, reasonable and well-articulated argument on both sides. Certainly the media seems to have no incentive to promote this, politicians even less so.So when I talk about being irrational, I am talking about people who deliberately distort the facts. If you read the pages on the matter of "End of life Counceling", there is nothing proposed that remotely suggests euthanasia. It is about filling out forms and taking care of end of life decisions, which everyone should be doing anyway. So when people say this is euthanasia, and use this as an argument against the bill, I say their statements are irrational. (assuming they can read)
I am not stating that people who don't agree with my way of thinking are irrational. I am saying that some of the statements I have heard "opposer's" use in their argument is irrational and unfounded.
"[Congress] can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny." -- James Madison, Federalist #57
No, I'm not saying that at all; the Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. And there is no Constitutional requirement that Congress bind itself to the laws they pass. As much as I agree with Madison in principle here, this passage does not have any legal standing.Are you saying that the political exemption to the Do Not Call law is (may be) unconstitutional? Fascinating if that's the case. And I think Madison has an excellent point (not surprisingly).
The problem is, in the absence of such directives, someone other than the patient has to make these decisions, and if the government is involved in the decision there will be a vested financial interest in choosing to let the patient die -- not just in terms of saving health care costs but other things as well -- Social Security, public pensions, et cetera.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to forego "heroic" measures with relatively low chances of a positive outcome, but to me it's a little scary to think the government has a vested interest in letting you die.
However, what has priority in spending?
But, somehow not a damn thing was said about the federal government taking money from some people in order to give it to other people. There's nothing in there about the government establishing a health care system for all Americans. All these other "good ideas" have been somehow seen as having been implied by the very innocent and innocuous "promote the general welfare" clause. Talk about driving a battleship through the eye of a needle . . .
They use private insurance companies, but everyone is required to carry insurance, same as having to carry insurance if you drive a car. However, no one is singled out because of pre-existing conditions or price gouged, or denied because of it. No insurance company is allowed to drop a person because they are too ill.
If this is a more preferable solution, why has this never been proposed when the Rebublicans were in power?
OK -- so if you're not one of those people who claim the 16th Amendment was never really ratified, if we accept the Constitutional legitimacy of a federal income tax, what about other forms of taxation proposed for health care such as payroll taxes and value added taxes?The 16th Amendment allows the Federal Government to levy an income tax. If that's not taking money from someone and giving it to someone else, I don't know what is.
The question was about government spending priorities. The Constitution goes into some depth in describing the functions of the various branches of the federal government. I think it's safe to assume the taxes collected under the 16th Amendment and all other levies by the Government support these functions enumerated within the Constitution. I was pointing out that, though the Framers went to considerable lengths to specify these functions, a federally-mandated transfer of assets from some citizens to others and/or provision of medical care was not among the things they mentioned. They could have penned it in, but they did not.??
The 16th Amendment allows the Federal Government to levy an income tax. If that's not taking money from someone and giving it to someone else, I don't know what is.
When Clinton was in office and we were in much better financial shape. They were still successful in defeating it.
You've said this in more than one thread now and I'd like to challenge because you're misleading by leaving out the concept of equal ownership. Citizens already substantially own the means of production in our country, but some own much more than others. In socialism, we'd share ownership equally, with political leadership/operatives having control.
In Canadian healthcare, my perception is that all Canadians "own" the health care system equally. The govt controls it.. . .
So, it sounds like the current Medicare funding of one discussion with a doctor during the Part B physical about getting an advance directive is a good thing, and the proposed law to fund discussions 'as often as' every 5 years is probably a good idea as well, in case the patient changes his mind.