Socialized Health Care

[mrhockey220]

Im from the U.S. and Im against socialized health care mainly because the quality of health care that you would get would be sub standard compared what you pay for to get now. I can understand how it would be good for students who couldnt afford it as they are trying to make ends meat in college but It wouldnt benefit everybody. For example I have relatives in Canada where health care is socialized. My relatives absolutely hate their health care system. The reason bieng that it takes hours of waiting to even get attention for your injury. In fact a close friend of one of my relatives has cancer and was planning to come down to the U.S. to get therapy because in Canada it would take too long. Im just saying that it doesnt really benefit everybody.

 

[S.H.A.R.P.]

I am all for it. I come from a moderately wealthy family, and I just finished studies and got myself a pretty good job. But I don't mind paying extra to ensure my fellow countrymen have the same care as I have. It might have been me who would be poor, and needed to rely on socialised health care. Not everybody has the luck of a positive environment to grow up, and proper intelligence to finish education and get a decent job.

 

[megalomania]

I'm going to put it quite simply so all the dummies out there can understand it:

Any society that has turned health care into a profit making venture has deep fundamental flaws.

Got it?

Exactly and this is why people who propogate this system like KSarty and Glenn Beck are fucking it all up. Just a bunch of Greedy Capitalist Swines that hate the lower Masses and feel the Upper Class should be only allowed Health Care. This is why America is such a stinking shithole with all the Elitism and Classism that literally keeps the system from working.

Well I wouldn't phrase it quite like that if I was talking to my mother...

 

[A random person]

I for one support universal health care. Health care is a necessity, and shouldn't just be another way for businesses to make money. However, I don't want a government monopoly, since if we have other health insurance companies they'll compete to provide better insurance than the government. There would be the good of competition and pushing to improve with less trying to milk you for your monies.

 

[ExodusinFlames]

I live in Canada. Free healthcare is your best damn friend.
There have been any number of times I've seen people hurt and rather than let it go, it was dealt with.
A good friend of mine in Nebraska severed part of a finger, and opted to clean it and hold it on with tape and gauze. Needless to say, it became very infected and said finger was lost.
He didn't go to the ER cause he didn't have the $600+ to go. Here it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[KSarty]

"Welfare bums leeching off the system"--- this problem is usually highly exaggerated and used as an excuse to shoot down social programs.
Don't skirt around what you are actually trying to say... you don't want to be pay taxes for socialized health care.

'Why should I help the poor or the less fortunate they don't deserve it?'
--Is basically the impression I get from reading between the lines of your posts in this thread.

I'd be lying if I said some of my argument isn't in my own interest. At the end of the year over 40% of my paycheck goes to taxes and I don't know where the fuck it is all going, so of course I don't want to pay any more. Part of it is realism though. The last time I had health insurance coverage, it cost me $23 a week for health, vision, and dental. That is not wallet-busting expensive, but I am willing to bet my taxes will go up more than $23 a week for social health care.

"Government controls enough already"--- I support people being involved in politics and questioning government decisions.
However, it must be understood that society does not function with everyone being completely independent.
Large scale public projects, socialized health care and other social programs require people to be collectivist.

This would be a great idea if it wasn't almost universally accepted that the U.S. government doesn't know it's ass from it's head.

KSarty, you have cited several cases where the benefits system is abused. Pray explain to me, then, how this bears any relation to how public healthcare could be abused.

If you are on welfare in the U.S., you pay reduced/no taxes. Social health care would come from taxes. Therefore if you are on welfare and don't deserve to be, you won't be paying into taxes or health care, but you will be receiving it.

 

[EzraPound]

Im from the U.S. and Im against socialized health care mainly because the quality of health care that you would get would be sub standard compared what you pay for to get now. I can understand how it would be good for students who couldnt afford it as they are trying to make ends meat in college but It wouldnt benefit everybody. For example I have relatives in Canada where health care is socialized. My relatives absolutely hate their health care system. The reason bieng that it takes hours of waiting to even get attention for your injury. In fact a close friend of one of my relatives has cancer and was planning to come down to the U.S. to get therapy because in Canada it would take too long. Im just saying that it doesnt really benefit everybody.

There's problems with wait times in Canada, and there's certain, particularist, procedures that we lack the facilities to treat as well certain private, American clinics. But the first point is a worthwhile trade-off, when you consider, for example, that the average lifespans of Canadians appears to benefit from socialized healthcare, and the second point has as much to do with the size of the United States versus Canada as with the fact they're system is private.

 

[JWAN]

I don't support it, if you need help and you go to a doctor they ask you if you have health insurance.

if you say yes: they ask you for your provider and then they give the bill for the expensive medication to your provider.

if you say no, you don't have insurance they send you the bill for a cheaper version of the medication and you can work out payment plans and file for medical bill payment assistance.

Doctors have sworn an oath to help whoever needs help, that means that money is not the issue, meaning that if you need help you can get it. The problem with this is that the argument is a person will not get help if they need it, the dangerous part of this is that people will be afraid to ask for medical assistance even though they will be able to get the help.
The other dangerous part of the equation is that if you start up a government business they will take over the market, why? because there the fucking government, they control the banks now.

can someone post some stories that show a person being turned down by a doctor for medical aid because of lack of insurance?

we have 14 million illegal immigrants, many of them using our medical assistance programs right now and they aren't even citizens. if anything we should be kicking them out so our own people can get help.

 

[pirateninj4]

I've experienced private healthcare. It was crap. The doctors were apathetic, the nurses robotic, and they tried to prescribe me antibiotics to clear up a few spots. No wonder MRSA is spreading.

I also experienced the NHS. The hospitals were as clean, but less cheerful-looking, the standard of care was better and the waiting times were the same. Oh, and I didn't have to pay.

In summation, I like the NHS.

This. America's healthcare system is predatory and not in the best interest of the people. I had this argument with a retarded cop this weekend, who had the gall to say that he'd rather pay 4k for an operation/medicine for his childs illness. Yes, yes if you had to choose you'd definitely choose to pay out of pocket. The tit.

 

[JWAN]

As for my opinion of the Obama plan, I'm in support of it. I don't know if it'll work but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

"The benefit of the doubt?" So, you're willing to support a plan because you like the guy who came up with it? What happened to being informed?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is where democracy goes to hell.

Considering the system works in several first world countries just fine, I think giving Obama's plan the benefit of the doubt is alright.

its failing in Canada and Britain, and that's where he got the model from

 

[EzraPound]

I don't support it, if you need help and you go to a doctor they ask you if you have health insurance.

if you say yes: they ask you for your provider and then they give the bill for the expensive medication to your provider.

if you say no, you don't have insurance they send you the bill for a cheaper version of the medication and you can work out payment plans and file for medical bill payment assistance.

Doctors have sworn an oath to help whoever needs help, that means that money is not the issue, meaning that if you need help you can get it. The problem with this is that the argument is a person will not get help if they need it, the dangerous part of this is that people will be afraid to ask for medical assistance even though they will be able to get the help.
The other dangerous part of the equation is that if you start up a government business they will take over the market, why? because there the fucking government, they control the banks now.

can someone post some stories that show a person being turned down by a doctor for medical aid because of lack of insurance?

we have 14 million illegal immigrants, many of them using our medical assistance programs right now and they aren't even citizens. if anything we should be kicking them out so our own people can get help.

...If your conditions are life-threatening, they'll help. But maintaining good health has a lot to do with regular check-ups and being screened for diseases you're unsure whether you have. As it stands, one implication of private healthcare is that Americans are categorically less apt to use their system with the same frequency as Canadians, resulting in - among other things - a lessened average lifespan.

One could argue government healthcare's a monopoly, but the consequent effect - a healthier populace - is difficult to argue with. And in any case, there are alternatives to absolute socialization: two-tier medicare, for example, or providing something analagous to "education vouchers."

 

[Baby Tea]

Well universal health care here in Canada has saved my life twice, and my dad's once.
I'd be dead and my wife would be broke without it, so I'm a fan.

 

[mrhockey220]

Im from the U.S. and Im against socialized health care mainly because the quality of health care that you would get would be sub standard compared what you pay for to get now. I can understand how it would be good for students who couldnt afford it as they are trying to make ends meat in college but It wouldnt benefit everybody. For example I have relatives in Canada where health care is socialized. My relatives absolutely hate their health care system. The reason bieng that it takes hours of waiting to even get attention for your injury. In fact a close friend of one of my relatives has cancer and was planning to come down to the U.S. to get therapy because in Canada it would take too long. Im just saying that it doesnt really benefit everybody.

There's problems with wait times in Canada, and there's certain, particularist, procedures that we lack the facilities to treat as well certain private, American clinics. But the first point is a worthwhile trade-off, when you consider, for example, that the average lifespans of Canadians appears to benefit from socialized healthcare, and the second point has as much to do with the size of the United States versus Canada as with the fact they're system is private.

I just think it ends up benefiting some people more than others. Another reason why im not for it is how much it will set us back in our deficit, our economy couldnt take it. Maybe if the idea were put out there a few years down the road where we did have money for it I'd be more open to trying it but as of our current situation im against it.

 

[Sanaj]

"Government controls enough already"--- I support people being involved in politics and questioning government decisions.
However, it must be understood that society does not function with everyone being completely independent.
Large scale public projects, socialized health care and other social programs require people to be collectivist.

This would be a great idea if it wasn't almost universally accepted that the U.S. government doesn't know it's ass from it's head.

If you are on welfare in the U.S., you pay reduced/no taxes. Social health care would come from taxes. Therefore if you are on welfare and don't deserve to be, you won't be paying into taxes or health care, but you will be receiving it.

I understand how welfare works, I don't need that explanation.

I wasn't saying that no one will try and take advantage of the system.
I will state again that the amount of people on welfare who aren't deserving of welfare is a lot smaller than what most people think.

As for problems with the U.S. government, well...that's up to the people.
If more people were better informed and involved with politics and a greater percentage of the population voted...
then changes can be made for the better.

 

[j0z]

Okay, here is a perspective from an American

I don't think it is a good idea. I know that it will help peoplewho are otherwise uninsured have health insurance. I will not deny that. Buy, BUT, I fear that it could push the private health insurance companies out of business, which is a bad thing. Because then the government would have a monopoly on the healthcare insurance industry, and monopolies are not good things.
Because how are private insurance companies supposed to compete with a compete with a company that has unlimited money? (the government)
So, I understand why people will think it is a good thing, but they must understand that our government already has a multitrillion dollar debt, and every year we sink farther and farther, imagine what paying for everyone's healthcare is going to do to the US budget.

I'll admit that I'm not anywhere near as informed on the health care debate as I should be, but there's an obvious flaw in your reasoning there. Since when does the government have unlimited money? To compete with a national health service, private health care companies would either have to lower their prices accordingly, or offer superior care and specialized services that those with enough money will pay for.

Okay, let me rephrase that, because it is not very clear. Okay,the government does not have unlimited money, but they often act as if they did.
Most companies, if they operated at the same deficit as the United States government would have gone bankrupt, because of such operating losses. But most bussinesses when faced with such a shortfall would tighten their belts (okay, not all of them did, but those companies aren't around anymore are they? Except for those the government bailed out.) because they want to make a profit, they want to have a surplus. But the government can, instead of balancing the budget, print more money, which is called monetizing the debt , which it a very bad thing because it screws with the value of the currency. Since the government is basically making more money to pay for its debts.
You said to compete with the government, the private companies would have to lower the cost of their coverage, they could, but then they might be operating at a loss, which they don't want to do, but the government can do because they don't care.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Okay, here is a perspective from an American

I don't think it is a good idea. I know that it will help peoplewho are otherwise uninsured have health insurance. I will not deny that. Buy, BUT, I fear that it could push the private health insurance companies out of business, which is a bad thing. Because then the government would have a monopoly on the healthcare insurance industry, and monopolies are not good things.
Because how are private insurance companies supposed to compete with a compete with a company that has unlimited money? (the government)
So, I understand why people will think it is a good thing, but they must understand that our government already has a multitrillion dollar debt, and every year we sink farther and farther, imagine what paying for everyone's healthcare is going to do to the US budget.

I'll admit that I'm not anywhere near as informed on the health care debate as I should be, but there's an obvious flaw in your reasoning there. Since when does the government have unlimited money? To compete with a national health service, private health care companies would either have to lower their prices accordingly, or offer superior care and specialized services that those with enough money will pay for.

Okay, let me rephrase that, because it is not very clear. Okay,the government does not have unlimited money, but they often act as if they did.
Most companies, if they operated at the same deficit as the United States government would have gone bankrupt, because of such operating losses. But most bussinesses when faced with such a shortfall would tighten their belts (okay, not all of them did, but those companies aren't around anymore are they? Except for those the government bailed out.) because they want to make a profit, they want to have a surplus. But the government can, instead of balancing the budget, print more money, which is called monetizing the debt , which it a very bad thing because it screws with the value of the currency. Since the government is basically making more money to pay for its debts.
You said to compete with the government, the private companies would have to lower the cost of their coverage, they could, but then they might be operating at a loss, which they don't want to do, but the government can do because they don't care.

Have you actually ever, y'know, even read an economics textbook? Asked an economist a question? Studied history? If you had, you'd know that deficet finance is, in times of recession, a splended idea. The only problem is that your retard-President Bush pushed the damn thing through the ceiling fighting wars he couldn't afford.

We have the HSE. It is the single most useless healthcare system on Earth. Not because of the Doctors and Nurses but the managers.

You sir, have clearly never visited South Africa. Let me put it to you like this: In South Africa, the standard of the top private healthcare provided, is below the standard set by the NHS. I assure you this is the case. Antibiotics are handed out liek candy, hospitals are shiny and well-decorated but poorly cleaned, and you'll wait just as long for care. And you'll damn well pay.

Mind you, if you go into a government hospital over there, don't expect to come out again.

KSarty, you have cited several cases where the benefits system is abused. Pray explain to me, then, how this bears any relation to how public healthcare could be abused


*Crickets*

Will you accept Worst Healthcare in Europe?

Including Poland, Czech/Slovak Republics, Spain and so on? No. And the reason it's crap is because we pay far less than any other nation, per capita.

 

[Agent Larkin]

We have the HSE. It is the single most useless healthcare system on Earth. Not because of the Doctors and Nurses but the managers.

You sir, have clearly never visited South Africa. Let me put it to you like this: In South Africa, the standard of the top private healthcare provided, is below the standard set by the NHS. I assure you this is the case. Antibiotics are handed out liek candy, hospitals are shiny and well-decorated but poorly cleaned, and you'll wait just as long for care. And you'll damn well pay.

Mind you, if you go into a government hospital over there, don't expect to come out again.

KSarty, you have cited several cases where the benefits system is abused. Pray explain to me, then, how this bears any relation to how public healthcare could be abused


*Crickets*

Will you accept Worst Healthcare in Europe?

Including Poland, Czech/Slovak Republics, Spain and so on? No. And the reason it's crap is because we pay far less than any other nation, per capita.

Yes including them. Hell I would rather go to one of them at least there you are due European standard Healthcare.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

I'm against socialized health care for quite a few reasons.

First, government is not anywhere as efficient as the private sector. When you're operating with a bottom line then you're forced to make cuts to make your business more effective. The government has no such bottom line because they can always borrow money from other countries(which they'll never pay back, by the way) or tax the citizenry. Thus, the government has no real incentive to actually make what they do efficient or cost effective.

Second, there are other alternatives to public health care which would actually be better for the health care system. A torte reform(which will never happen because the government is made up of lawyers and they're not about to kill their cash cow just because it'll help the little people) would drastically reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance, thus lowering the cost of health care. It could be done easily and effectively. It just wont happen.

Third, I don't agree with eugenics and this is another step on that path. I could explain this more in depth, but I don't care enough to actually do so.

 

[minignu]

its failing in Canada and Britain, and that's where he got the model from

Both countries have a higher standard of healthcare for a much lower price per capita. So I dunno where you got that one from. Don't listen to the horror stories, find the actual facts first. A

R.E. Not trusting the government with healthcare: I dunno guys, but I trust a large non profit organisation more than I do companies whose primary concern is, above all else (and has to be for the system to work) making huge piles of money. And, hey, you can always just get private healthcare if you wanted it (which I believe would be subsidised by the government) meaning healthcare insurers wouldn't go out of business, they'd just have to step the hell up/ Also, you have all the other sides to it such as economies of scale and such, but I can't be arsed to go into that.

 

[Anarchy In Detroit]

I've been to the supposedly slow and terrible death sentence hospitals in socialist pinko countries and I survived to tell the tale... they were better in every way. For me it has been in Germany and Canada. Each time I was in and out quickly, everything was clean, everyone was professional. Sure the hospitals might be more utilitarian (I guess that's the word I'm looking for) but they did what I needed and they shouldn't be any other way. Americans still shouting and whining about supposed socialism need to get a clue.

My brother is having some health issues he has absolutely no control over and is going broke trying to pay that off in between running his own business and substitute teaching. So if you're going to call us lazy leftists go ahead. If he can't make it with how hard he works something is not right here.

I'd rather have to deal with possibly inefficient government stuff than with business interests that only exist to fuck me over for a bigger profit. In this country ever since Reagan we've had this idea that government can't do anything right. Quite frankly that's like blaming a gun for shooting someone. Whoever is in charge is responsible. I don't see you denouncing restaurants even though we've all been to crappy ones. This is a stupid, lethargic, defeatist mentality that has to go. It's not proactive it's just bitchy and pathetic. I dispute this whole notion that businesses can handle things better than the government. That is simply not so. Ask some of those soldiers of ours who got electrocuted by shoddy electrical work in Iraq. I'm sure that contractor saved money in the long run. Sure there's problems with both but to pretend that business is saintly is naieve. If we're not going to keep our government on task of course it's going to run like shit, nothing else is any different. But here we are voting in the same right wing (Republican) and center right (Democrats) candidates hoping for new results with the same tired douchebags.


Socialized medicine is purely better, and as a plus (in my mind) it's there to help absolutely everyone and not just who can pay.

and here's a tip: Get off your fat asses. It decreases costs over all and will improve your quality of life regardless of which system we have.