Confused Briton seeks clarification from right -wing Americans

[Skutch]

First off just because I dont agree with democrats doesnt mean Im a watcher of "Fox News" and just because Im republican doesnt mean Im fucking evil. I also believe that Fox News is pretty radical at times. I mean Jesus Crist democrats all the time preach about accepting people and shit and yet people just assume what we have to say is lies and that we hate minorities. There are a few reasons why a lot of right wingers are against this, one reason is beacuse their policy is that the least government involved in a persons life the better which makes sense. Another reason is because when u have socialized healthcare sometimes you might not get the best healthcare possible and u would have to wait a long time to get it like in Canada. For example, one of my cousins in Canada wanted to fly to where I lived in California to get cancer treatment because it would take forever to get it up there. Another reason would be our country's economic status. The cost of taxes would skyrocket and since we are already trying to find our way out of a depression, why deepen it? My final reason would be that republicans are just scared of how Obama is increasing the governnment's role in more aspects of our daily lives which conflicts with the republican policy. Its a legitimate argument if you look at a historical stand point because in our revolution in the 1700's we fought the monarcy in Great Britain because we were opressed by their government that controlled everything the colonists did. Now we are starting to see that type of government which we fought against to gain our independence slowly come back again as Obama starts increasing the role of government in our lives. You'd think the constitution would take effect by now. I could go on but Im off topic. Sorry for the wall of text!

Speaking as someone that has many, many deeply conservative, Republican friends, I can assure you that not all of us Liberals think you are evil people. Conservatives come in all kinds of different flavors. And so do liberals.
That being said though, is your Canadian cousin rich or something? Treatment for cancer is one of the most expensive services you can get in the US. My grandfather underwent treatments and after all was said and done it cost $80,000. He had insurance, but it had a cap on services so everything after that had to come out of his pocket.
Also, you've got some funny and historically inaccurate views about the founding of the United States. And you should probably read the Constitution sometime, there's nothing in there about small government.
I hate to bring this up, but why is it most Republicans want to keep government out of our health care system and away from our guns, but they want government to decide who gets to marry whom, and whether a woman should be able to get an abortion or not? Isn't it kind of self-serving for someone to insist on government intervention only when it aligns with their particular beliefs?

Holy shit did i say 1800s i meant 1700s!!!! It was the heat of the moment, ill fix it. God im a fucking idiot. i usually lean towards the conservative side of the spectrum but im not completely republican and reactionary. I am pro choice by the way. I think stem cell resrearch is a good thing. Isnt it self-serving to jump the gun on somebody when they havent fully explained their beliefs?

Not at all. Or at least that wasn't my intent. It was an honest question, not an accusation. I'm genuinely curious about the modern face of social conservatism, because it strikes me as being disingenuous or at least slightly hypocritical. Or possibly lacking in self-awareness.
I try to avoid making generalities, but you didn't clarify what you meant by labeling yourself a Republican, and you must admit that the Republican party tends towards social as well as fiscal conservatism. I apologize if I have caused offense.

 

[Hearthing]

And sorry, arguments based on the conditions over 200 years ago are completely irrelevant at this point.

I disagree, cause I'm glad someone brought it up.

I want to look at some facts about that "Great American Victory".

Now, I'm British. And we have a history of stabbing each other other in the back, and taxing people.

Now then... 1700s... Ahhh yes, the BRITISH colonists, LOYAL THE MONARCHY OF BRITIAN BY BIRTH, commited several acts of treason. BUT it wasn't just the Americans. They got the french and other colonists to come give us a beating. We lost. After the REAL British were gone, the "Americans" then saw to it that all other people should be purged from their "land of the free." After they abolished BRITISH taxes on BRITISH PEOPLE LIVING ABROAD, they then carried on to tax each other as FREE MEN!!!!!!!! and then pay for their healthcare, while slowing sinking in the eyes of their allies.

And also, July 4th makes me laugh. You celebrate the seperation of you from your greatest ally, and the taxes we imposed on you. We didn't impose them on you, you're British. You just don't like the idea of conformity, so feel the need to be your own FREE MEN, despite the fact you have less freedom than we do :>

Ahhh america hate makes me feel refreshed - *sips tea*

Canada are okay to be Canadians. They where nice about things. They didn't go stabbing too many people in the back.

Still. America, you fail <3

[EDIT]

Oh damn, forgot one thing:

Freedom Fries!

 

[mrhockey220]

First off just because I dont agree with democrats doesnt mean Im a watcher of "Fox News" and just because Im republican doesnt mean Im fucking evil. I also believe that Fox News is pretty radical at times. I mean Jesus Crist democrats all the time preach about accepting people and shit and yet people just assume what we have to say is lies and that we hate minorities. There are a few reasons why a lot of right wingers are against this, one reason is beacuse their policy is that the least government involved in a persons life the better which makes sense. Another reason is because when u have socialized healthcare sometimes you might not get the best healthcare possible and u would have to wait a long time to get it like in Canada. For example, one of my cousins in Canada wanted to fly to where I lived in California to get cancer treatment because it would take forever to get it up there. Another reason would be our country's economic status. The cost of taxes would skyrocket and since we are already trying to find our way out of a depression, why deepen it? My final reason would be that republicans are just scared of how Obama is increasing the governnment's role in more aspects of our daily lives which conflicts with the republican policy. Its a legitimate argument if you look at a historical stand point because in our revolution in the 1700's we fought the monarcy in Great Britain because we were opressed by their government that controlled everything the colonists did. Now we are starting to see that type of government which we fought against to gain our independence slowly come back again as Obama starts increasing the role of government in our lives. You'd think the constitution would take effect by now. I could go on but Im off topic. Sorry for the wall of text!

Speaking as someone that has many, many deeply conservative, Republican friends, I can assure you that not all of us Liberals think you are evil people. Conservatives come in all kinds of different flavors. And so do liberals.
That being said though, is your Canadian cousin rich or something? Treatment for cancer is one of the most expensive services you can get in the US. My grandfather underwent treatments and after all was said and done it cost $80,000. He had insurance, but it had a cap on services so everything after that had to come out of his pocket.
Also, you've got some funny and historically inaccurate views about the founding of the United States. And you should probably read the Constitution sometime, there's nothing in there about small government.
I hate to bring this up, but why is it most Republicans want to keep government out of our health care system and away from our guns, but they want government to decide who gets to marry whom, and whether a woman should be able to get an abortion or not? Isn't it kind of self-serving for someone to insist on government intervention only when it aligns with their particular beliefs?

Holy shit did i say 1800s i meant 1700s!!!! It was the heat of the moment, ill fix it. God im a fucking idiot. i usually lean towards the conservative side of the spectrum but im not completely republican and reactionary. I am pro choice by the way. I think stem cell resrearch is a good thing. Isnt it self-serving to jump the gun on somebody when they havent fully explained their beliefs?

Not at all. Or at least that wasn't my intent. It was an honest question, not an accusation. I'm genuinely curious about the modern face of social conservatism, because it strikes me as being disingenuous or at least slightly hypocritical. Or possibly lacking in self-awareness.
I try to avoid making generalities, but you didn't clarify what you meant by labeling yourself a Republican, and you must admit that the Republican party tends towards social as well as fiscal conservatism. I apologize if I have caused offense.

None taken, I was just trying to screw with you on that last question. Everybody makes generalities. The only reason I didnt clarify my position was because I would be going off topic and I had that huge paragraph that I put some thought into. (but apparantly not too much though cause I said the revolution happened in the 1800s. I apologize for that because it was completely stupid.)For my position I tend to lead on the conservative side although I do belive that the two parties shouldnt be fighting but colaborating to better our nation.

 

[Skutch]

None taken, I was just trying to screw with you on that last question. Everybody makes generalities. The only reason I didnt clarify my position was because I would be going off topic and I had that huge paragraph that I put some thought into. (but apparantly not too much though cause I said the revolution happened in the 1800s. I apologize for that because it was completely stupid.)For my position I tend to lead on the conservative side although I do belive that the two parties shouldnt be fighting but colaborating to better our nation.

You know, that's the dumbest part of modern day politics. Pretty much every reasonable person agrees that they want both parties around, and they want them to work together instead of just playing games with each other. But neither side can agree on what goals they think they should be working towards. Our political system is far too polarized right now.

 

[Cerebreus]

Most people fear that there won't be a private option if government gets involved because those companies will be forced out.

And there is reasonable skepticisim of government doing things correctly. The track record is not that good.

And no, I'm not railing on the NHS, since I don't know anything that system. I'm talking about the perception of governments in general (especially our own) by some americans.

It would be great to cover all people, but there is a fear that government will screw it up for everyone if it has the power.

Something should be done, but it should be well-planned. If it weren't for some democrats, we probably would not be talking about this because the bill would probably have been rammed through with little planning. This should be carefully thought out.

Despite the stereotype that conservatives are selfish rich people who don't care about the poor, many of us would like change. We're just wary of everyone getting screwed over by a government who has a poor track record.

EDIT: There is some concern about costs and deficits. People say Bush blew it, and Obama seems to be continuing the trend at a higher rate.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Well, you make the "cake and eat it too" comment, but look, most people arguing against the proposal don't want more laws. More laws means more government interference with our lives. We hold to the old fashioned lassiez-faire attitude that the government was originally built on. It has it's own problems, but we were okay with that.

And as for your last comment about government controlling things, I can't remember the last time that americans fled to Cuba for their health care, and Fidel Castro got his top notch health care.... in Spain. Cuba really isn't a good example because look at how poor the country really is, because it isn't an analogue.

well i guess you don't know your laws very well then, since it is illegal for americans to travel to cuba, so they really can't go running off to Cuba for health care

however i DO have a good example and that is the movie Sicko cause they do exactly that. also the free health care they received actually FIXED some of the conditions the people had who went there

This is a very important subject to me because right now I am in college studying to be a doctor, and the result may prevent me from finishing that goal, and switching it to one better suited. There are also stories from Canada and England of how long the waiting lines are for simple procedures, and it's also a system that does not promote people becoming doctors. In England, for example, once you study and become a doctor, you cannot start practice in your field until someone else in that field retires or dies, and there are countless seasoned professionals waiting for years and never actually able to practice.

ok since you are training to become a doctor you will know about something called triage. since you also don't know about how the Canadian and UK system works, i'll explain it and it's also a good example cause it affected a friend of mine.

my friend got a rare form of chicken pox, he was above 30. now it's something that can be rather dangerous at that age. he ended up having a heart attack and then his liver shutdown. at this point he was in the hospital and needing a liver transplant. did he have to wait months to get this? no he didn't, since it was life threatening at this point they put him at the top of the list for transplants.

sadly they couldn't find a donor in time and he died but the whole "months to wait" thing is a bunch of total bullshit. yes there are times where you need to wait for procedures HOWEVER they are also non-life threatening things, the higher the priority the faster you get in for the procedure.

also you DO have to wait for the same surgeries in the states AND you have to pay for them. look at people who need knee surgeries, they have to wait for months in the states and still have to pay for it

in Canada and the UK they might have to wait the same time or longer but they don't have to pay for it.

as for the glutton of doctors, maybe they shouldn't become doctors if there are too many

In the whole country of Canada there are less neurosurgeons than in the city of Los Angeles because the reward (I.E. payment) for becoming a doctor do not outweigh the price of becoming one in too many peoples minds because the payment they receive is not enough. For both of these points I reference When the Air Hits Your Brain, by Dr. Frank Vertosick jr. http://www.amazon.com/When-Air-Hits-Your-Brain/dp/0393330494/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250288403&sr=8-1

funnily enough a lot of neurosurgery breakthroughs have come from Canada, on stuff like epilepsy and other such things

so while they might be earning big bucks in the states, we're actually SAVING lives

The easiest way to reduce costs for doctors, right now, is to limit malpractice reward amounts, because right now doctors are paying so much for protection to prevent every little case from becoming a multi-million dollar malpractice suit that ambulance chasing lawyers are so quick to jump all over, that it is raising the individual costs associated with general health care. That law could be imposed without too much issues because it is Law regulating Law, not Law regulating Health.

how about getting competent doctors who actually help out the patients AND putting limits on the amount of money you can receive from a settlement. having a bunch of regulations and other such things to limit the lawyers

also with your whole a "law regulating a law" who would regulate it? the only one proven to work is the government as industry doesn't work when money is involved. the fact is health care is coming to the states and there's not much any one can do about it. you guys are the only first world nation that is doesn't have it and has an even worse health care system than those that do have government run ones

 

[BarkBark]

It is not so much that free health care is evil. I think
the proper argument is that this current 1018 page health
bill is not polished to its best. I think the American
representatives are not even trying to fully put this plan
to it's best by rushing to pass it without reading it.

 

[mrhockey220]

First off just because I dont agree with democrats doesnt mean Im a watcher of "Fox News" and just because Im republican doesnt mean Im fucking evil. I also believe that Fox News is pretty radical at times. I mean Jesus Crist democrats all the time preach about accepting people and shit and yet people just assume what we have to say is lies and that we hate minorities. There are a few reasons why a lot of right wingers are against this, one reason is beacuse their policy is that the least government involved in a persons life the better which makes sense. Another reason is because when u have socialized healthcare sometimes you might not get the best healthcare possible and u would have to wait a long time to get it like in Canada. For example, one of my cousins in Canada wanted to fly to where I lived in California to get cancer treatment because it would take forever to get it up there. Another reason would be our country's economic status. The cost of taxes would skyrocket and since we are already trying to find our way out of a depression, why deepen it? My final reason would be that republicans are just scared of how Obama is increasing the governnment's role in more aspects of our daily lives which conflicts with the republican policy. Its a legitimate argument if you look at a historical stand point because in our revolution in the 1700's we fought the monarcy in Great Britain because we were opressed by their government that controlled everything the colonists did. Now we are starting to see that type of government which we fought against to gain our independence slowly come back again as Obama starts increasing the role of government in our lives. You'd think the constitution would take effect by now. I could go on but Im off topic. Sorry for the wall of text!

America already devotes more of its GDP toward health care than almost every nation in the world. Moving to a government backed system allows you to apply economies of scale to the problem -- something you can bet that the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industries do not like. So saying that extra taxes will deepen the recession is nonsensical. Unless you think that when the government taxes you it then just burns the money. Governments may not be the most efficient organizations, but I think the last 8 months have shown us that private businesses aren't a whole lot better at managing money either.. just they happen to be smaller and more specialized so that when they have problems it doesn't effect everybody like it does when a government has problems.

The idea that the less government involved in a person's life the better is an ideological statement, not a fact. The fact is that if you look at countries with a higher government involvement in people's lives, many of them actually score higher on developmental indexes, precisely because the government intervention, while it may prevent the very rare capitalist from achieving multi-millionaire status, also prevents great masses of people from having to live in abject poverty. (The fact is also that some of them score much lower, usually coinciding with a dictatorial system).

While it is true you may have a fairly long wait in Canada for non-emergency procedures, for anything that is critical in nature, the waiting time is quite short because you get bumped to the head of the line -- which is why the less urgent stuff can take a while. (Although if you look at recent studies, our wait times are actually dropping.)

And sorry, arguments based on the conditions over 200 years ago are completely irrelevant at this point.

Taking on extra taxes to the common consumer plays a huge part in the economy. Hypothetically speaking, lets say the tax for healthcare was $500. I know the number isnt spot on but its an example. So lets say the tax hasnt been put into effect, the consumer can do multiple things with his money: invest it, spend it, give it away, whatever. Say he spends the money on stock in a company along with about 100 other people who invested the same amount. Thats $50,000 dollars the company has to hopefully put towards a product. Say the product hits it big in the market and loads of people buy it. That company then does well. Even if the consumer decides not to buy stock he can still buy that product that the company made and that money would make its way into the market. Now lets say the tax is on and he has to give that $500 to the government and it goes toward a budget that they split up to spend on different things including healthcare. But how much of that goes to healthcare? Thats for them to decide. There are tons of factors and different senarios for this but I will stop with these.

I never said that the least government intervention the better was a fact. I said its what the Republican party belives and that I agree.

Also how is the revelution not relevant? (besides the technological advances and that our system of government works differently) I believe it is relevant because the government is slowly turing into dictatorship of the majority.

 

[mrhockey220]

None taken, I was just trying to screw with you on that last question. Everybody makes generalities. The only reason I didnt clarify my position was because I would be going off topic and I had that huge paragraph that I put some thought into. (but apparantly not too much though cause I said the revolution happened in the 1800s. I apologize for that because it was completely stupid.)For my position I tend to lead on the conservative side although I do belive that the two parties shouldnt be fighting but colaborating to better our nation.

You know, that's the dumbest part of modern day politics. Pretty much every reasonable person agrees that they want both parties around, and they want them to work together instead of just playing games with each other. But neither side can agree on what goals they think they should be working towards. Our political system is far too polarized right now.

True, true. They should make a list in the senate that lists the problems from major to minor. Lol

 

[DrDeath3191]

What I'm worried about is choice: can I choose how I'm covered by a National Healthcare System, or whether or not I'm covered at all? Insurance companies offer customization to meet exactly what you need, while from what I heard a NHS does not.

 

[Skutch]

None taken, I was just trying to screw with you on that last question. Everybody makes generalities. The only reason I didnt clarify my position was because I would be going off topic and I had that huge paragraph that I put some thought into. (but apparantly not too much though cause I said the revolution happened in the 1800s. I apologize for that because it was completely stupid.)For my position I tend to lead on the conservative side although I do belive that the two parties shouldnt be fighting but colaborating to better our nation.

You know, that's the dumbest part of modern day politics. Pretty much every reasonable person agrees that they want both parties around, and they want them to work together instead of just playing games with each other. But neither side can agree on what goals they think they should be working towards. Our political system is far too polarized right now.

True, true. They should make a list in the senate that lists the problems from major to minor. Lol

Not a bad idea. Except I'd bet they would just argue about what order to put things in. XD

 

[Skutch]

What I'm worried about is choice: can I choose how I'm covered by a National Healthcare System, or whether or not I'm covered at all? Insurance companies offer customization to meet exactly what you need, while from what I heard a NHS does not.

Why would you want to be covered for anything less than everything? For that matter, why would you want to have zero coverage?

 

[mrhockey220]

None taken, I was just trying to screw with you on that last question. Everybody makes generalities. The only reason I didnt clarify my position was because I would be going off topic and I had that huge paragraph that I put some thought into. (but apparantly not too much though cause I said the revolution happened in the 1800s. I apologize for that because it was completely stupid.)For my position I tend to lead on the conservative side although I do belive that the two parties shouldnt be fighting but colaborating to better our nation.

You know, that's the dumbest part of modern day politics. Pretty much every reasonable person agrees that they want both parties around, and they want them to work together instead of just playing games with each other. But neither side can agree on what goals they think they should be working towards. Our political system is far too polarized right now.

True, true. They should make a list in the senate that lists the problems from major to minor. Lol

Not a bad idea. Except I'd bet they would just argue about what order to put things in. XD

Well, theres that. XD

 

[DrDeath3191]

What I'm worried about is choice: can I choose how I'm covered by a National Healthcare System, or whether or not I'm covered at all? Insurance companies offer customization to meet exactly what you need, while from what I heard a NHS does not.

Why would you want to be covered for anything less than everything? For that matter, why would you want to have zero coverage?

Because I don't think I need insurance for something that will never happen, or I don't want to pay for insurance.

 

[DrDeath3191]

What I'm worried about is choice: can I choose how I'm covered by a National Healthcare System, or whether or not I'm covered at all? Insurance companies offer customization to meet exactly what you need, while from what I heard a NHS does not.

Nah, the NHS doesn't customize. They just treat everyone for everything.

So you essentially have to pay extra for something that you don't need? I don't need everything, so why should I pay for everything?

 

[Skutch]

Taking on extra taxes to the common consumer plays a huge part in the economy. Hypothetically speaking, lets say the tax for healthcare was $500. I know the number isnt spot on but its an example. So lets say the tax hasnt been put into effect, the consumer can do multiple things with his money: invest it, spend it, give it away, whatever. Say he spends the money on stock in a company along with about 100 other people who invested the same amount. Thats $50,000 dollars the company has to hopefully put towards a product. Say the product hits it big in the market and loads of people buy it. That company then does well. Even if the consumer decides not to buy stock he can still buy that product that the company made and that money would make its way into the market. Now lets say the tax is on and he has to give that $500 to the government and it goes toward a budget that they split up to spend on different things including healthcare. But how much of that goes to healthcare? Thats for them to decide. There are tons of factors and different senarios for this but I will stop with these.

I never said that the least government intervention the better was a fact. I said its what the Republican party belives and that I agree.

Also how is the revelution not relevant? (besides the technological advances and that our system of government works differently) I believe it is relevant because the government is slowly turing into dictatorship of the majority.

The US economy is centered around consumer spending, not the stock market. And guess what, when the government spends tax money, they are a "consumer". The money doesn't just disappear down a well somewhere, it gets injected back into the economy.

 

[mrhockey220]

. Also all the lives it could save? Think of how many people would die just waiting to get it?

But thats the thing, They WOULD get it. How many people would get that healthcare without a Health system?

Ya you can have a procedure done to you and leave without paying. If your in the E.R. they have to take you no matter what. You just have to pay at some point.

Yes, But instead people getting bills for $1000's that they cannot pay, they'll be paying for it through taxes. I just think it's really selfish that for the sake of some extra tax dollars means that lives will be saved. Alright, Granted, Paying for some drunken idiot's fall is annoying.

I thought you could opt out if you had your own insurance plan?

Still those dollars add up and a lot of people cheat their taxes so its not the safest way. You could opt out although you would still have to pay the tax.