On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:21 AM, GS Chandy <email@example.com> wrote: ... > I generally agree that the US is in some ways *heartless* to its homeless and several less privileged groups. It is up to you citizens in the US to work to fix such inequities ... >> That's right. This is in the end about the morally of >> what we do with the right to vote - whether we vote >> and how we vote if we do vote. >> > To *some extent* there may be some truth in your above claim ... >> Because as I in my prior post >> >> "Re: WG 13 Announcement: CERME 8 [Turkey]" >> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7933893 >> >> and the prior post to that >> >> "Re: WG 13 Announcement: CERME 8 [Turkey]" >> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7933416 >> >> and other posts linked to proved via the unavoidable >> and inescapable mathematics, in the end in any given >> democracy it is the government that voters vote for >> that makes or breaks that society over which it >> governs, and even makes it so that other people in >> other societies benefit or not from what that >> government does and does not do in relation to the >> rest of the world. >> > I shall take a long and careful look at your above-noted postings. But, as I remember them: Nope; you've NOT proved you claims. >
Last part first:
I was talking about the brute mathematical facts, the mathematical data, saying what is clearly says: I was talking about the fact that the level of extra spending needed in the US to reach universal health care is about an extra 4-7% of GDP - depending on whether the efficiency I talked about comes about - where the sum total of all charity spending in the US has always been at only about 2% of GDP. Maybe 1/10 or so of all that mere 2% - that is, roughly 0.2% - could realistically be diverted to cover that 4-7% of extra spending needed. That 0.2% is only a tiny percentage of that 4-7% percent. Also, this: Note that government via Medicare and Medicaid finances about 40% of all health care in the US, all of which still covers only about 3/4 of the population. (This government involvement was brought about since private spending via private business and private charity has always only covered no more than very roughly half of the need.) This proves that only government has the capability of financing universal health care.
And this proof holds up when we look at the whole world - not once in history anywhere has there been true universal health care without government in some way financing very roughly at least half of it. Without government involvement, there is nowhere near universal health care.
And consider the epidemiological science that I've many times here at math-teach cited that uncovered the fact of the statistical correlation between government being involved in financing health care and lower health care amenable mortality rates, and the fact that the more government is involved in financing health care, the less there is any inverse correlation between income and health care amenable mortality. That is, on this last part: Less government involvement results in the obscene correlation that the poorer people are, the higher their health care amenable mortality, and more government involvement results in less of this obscene correlation. No government involvement maximizes this correlation, and sufficiently high amounts of government involvement abolishes this correlation. (Keep in mind that these correlations are statistical.)
Quote: "he United States places last among 19 countries when it comes to deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, according to new research supported by The Commonwealth Fund and published in the January/February issue of Health Affairs. While other nations dramatically improved these rates between 1997-98 and 2002-03, the U.S. improved only slightly.
If the U.S. had performed as well as the top three countries out of the 19 industrialized countries in the study there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths in the U.S. per year by the end of the study period." (Compare that to the deaths per year from car accidents, now roughly 32,000, and murder, roughly 16,000.)
See how the US is way behind France and Canada and all of Western Europe. All the countries showed improvement from 1997 to 2003, especially the UK. (The reason for this improvement in the UK is simple: The conservative government that was strangling to death their health care system by denying it the needed financing because of lower government revenues got replaced by the liberal government that raised government revenues and fully financed their health care system and the result was a massive explosion downward in health care amenable mortality in the UK.)
And so with respect to harsh light: Such light is the only proper moral response to the standing in the way of health care for all in the entire country, this standing in the way in the form of promoting no more and even less government financing for health care for all, by promoting that people use the power of their vote to not vote at all or to vote against those who would move things in the direction of providing health care for all in the entire country.
It all comes back to the power to vote. (That is, for instance, every advanced democratic country in the world with universal health care got it from enough people voting for people and parties that would move things in that direction, and every advanced democratic country in the world without universal health care got that from enough people voting against people and parties that would move things in that direction.)