Socialized Health Care

[Rolling Thunder]

Sorry Gibbs Larkin, you're wrong. I'm not entirely sure as to your sources, but the NHS still provides a decent standard of care, even compared to other EU countries.

Cheeze - Adam Smith was right. He was also an advocate of public healthcare and social security, as well as being the father of capitalism. The 'invisible hand' simply refers to the fact that the market will inavriably produce the best outcome in most situations. Smith never claimed it to be in the case of everything.

He was right is the key he has little that applies to today. Especially since a lot of his ideas had to do with people using fair play instead of fucking over their neighbors. Also a lot of people specifically American Capitalists believe the Invisible Hand solves everything thus they continue to favor more and more deregulation when it was the lack of regulation in the first place that got us where we are.

He beleived it would function where people abided by the law. And when the law is abided to, it does work (in most cases). That cannot be disputed.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Sorry Gibbs Larkin, you're wrong. I'm not entirely sure as to your sources, but the NHS still provides a decent standard of care, even compared to other EU countries.

Cheeze - Adam Smith was right. He was also an advocate of public healthcare and social security, as well as being the father of capitalism. The 'invisible hand' simply refers to the fact that the market will inavriably produce the best outcome in most situations. Smith never claimed it to be in the case of everything.

He was right is the key he has little that applies to today. Especially since a lot of his ideas had to do with people using fair play instead of fucking over their neighbors. Also a lot of people specifically American Capitalists believe the Invisible Hand solves everything thus they continue to favor more and more deregulation when it was the lack of regulation in the first place that got us where we are.

He beleived it would function where people abided by the law. And when the law is abided to, it does work (in most cases). That cannot be disputed.

Except Smith never foresaw the Government being run by corporations and their puppets thus allowing them to make laws to circumvent fair trade practice. Smith is completely and utterly outdated.

Similar to how Marx created the idea of making the workers' lot better with Communism he never foresaw it being used as a tool of repression. Theory is nice but should never be the complete basis of a government.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

If the Czars only have to listen to the President there will be SOME oversight, but only if it's in the news that they're doing a bad job. They only have to do enough work to make sure they're not being called nasty names by the press

And how is that different from the CEOs who only have to make sure they're not being called nasty names by the financial press? Ever heard of buying a company for salvage value, where the value of its assets are worth more on the market than capitalization of it's stock? The people who run corporations are a lot more like politicians in that regard than the people who run private businesses.

The difference is in how many people over see that job. How many people are looking over the shoulders of the average CEO? The customers, the stock holders, the government regulators. . . Now, how many will be looking over the shoulders of the Czar? The President. He's the only one that the Czar has to answer to. The President can say "No, I'm not replacing him." and boom! nothing happens. If the stockholders, customers, government want a CEO removed, how hard is it really going to be?

Also, I don't think the Federal Reserve is really doing its job all that well. It was created to help handle the peaks and valleys of the capitalistic system and, if the past 20 years are any indication, they're not very good at that. The tech. bubble, housing bubble, commercial real estate bubble(yet to pop). . .

It was not, however, designed to deal with the government not stepping in and making sure the peaks got so high that the valley when things burst would be so low--not really fair to blame the Fed for the Bush administration not doing their job with the rest of the government.

Funny. There was tons of government intervention in the Great Depression. Why didn't that work out?

I mean, can you really compare the tech bubble to the housing bubble? Where's the Google/Apple/etc. of banking?

So, the scope of the housing market going bust isn't as big as the tech bubble going bust so it's not a big deal? The idea isn't that one issue is going to destroy the economy, the idea is that it's not supposed to happen AT ALL with the Fed. That was the point.

Can we please stop talking about the Fed? It's pretty off topic.

Still, the major difference between private and public is that you have a choice of if you want to do business with the private sector. If a company doesn't meet your standards of what should be done, you can simply starve them of your money and move on. With the government, they're going to get your money even if they do a bad job.

With a market, they're going to get your money or you're going to have to do without. The market right now doesn't offer a company that meets anyone's standards and that doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. And doing without healthcare isn't really an option.

So make your own business that does offer standards or back people that do! If it's really a problem, you're going to see a massive influx of business when you let people understand that you're running things different then "those other guys that eat babies and are horribly unethical." How am I going to be able to start my own government that doesn't demand that I pay for socialized health care?

Markets work best when dealing with goods that are luxuries; least when dealing with goods that are necessities. Ever wonder why food is so cheap here in America? Food subsidies.

http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/images/pyramid.jpg

http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html

Not only that, but they'll take your money at the point of a gun.

A gun you can vote out of their hands, let's not forget. If you've got that big a problem with the government having the power of the gun to force you to pay for someone else's health care, are you as opposed to the idea of the government forcing you to pay for corn and beef subsidies?

I don't like being forced to pay most of everything. My ideal government is one in which the vast majority of the Federal Government is gutted. However, the difference between corn and beef is those programs aren't going to possibly bankrupt the US. Socialized health care(along with all the other recent government spending) might do just that.

Did you even care before I mentioned them?

Please don't presume to know what I do and do not care about. I live in a rural area with a lot of farming and ranching and I'm not happy with the way the government controls things. I don't like the corn for ethanol programs, paying farmers not to plant, or the subsidization of a lot of the crap going on around here.

Which leads me to the rest of your post: you spoke of how you really didn't know much about the things you were complaining about. Isn't that the real problem in this debate? That conservatives have framed this as some kind crazy bleeding heart liberal idea to steal from the rich to give to the lazy, while they take your tax dollars and subsidize industries that are important to the states where they get their votes from?

I said I don't know much about Social Security. I'm terribly sorry for being honest. I can explain why I don't like Social Security, though. However, it's quite a bit off topic so I didn't see the purpose of it.

I mean you had Sarah Palin going on and on about 'socialism' while she governs a state that basically just HANDS YOU MONEY FOR BEING ALIVE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund#Permanent_Fund_Dividend

I don't understand what that has to do with the conversation at hand. I don't know if you know this or not, but I didn't vote for Palin or McCain. I also don't care what the liberals OR the conservatives have to say on this issue. I care about what I believe.

This isn't about republican or democrat. This isn't about theism or atheism. This isn't even about Czars, which I was stupid enough to bring up. This is about health care and if it should be controlled by the government. I don't care who was in power that decided to subsidize beef and corn. I don't care who was in power that decided to give Alaskans money for being alive. I don't care where George W Bush touched you. I don't care about the Federal Reserve and how well they have handled the economy. I don't care about the price of a hamburger vs the cost of a salad. I don't care if conservatives are painting liberals as crazy bleeding hearts that like to dress up and play like Robin Hood. Why? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT AT HAND.

Please, for the sake of a rational discussion, stop fighting the GOP and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for 5 minutes while we discuss if health care should be in the hands of the government.

Edit:

I honestly don't even care anymore. Forget I ever said anything.

 

[A random person]

I live in Canada. The pros of our socialized health care system are that it provides quality care to everyone for a modest cost in the form of taxes and super-cheap insurance. The cons are that you'll have to wait a while for elective procedures (as it should be, frankly) and that you can wait for several hours in the ER if you're not a triage priority (not a huge problem, if you ask me). Sure, there are horror stories (although I hear them a lot more in the States) and some ridiculous oversights (somehow, insulin pumps aren't free - who the hell made that decision?), but on the whole it's a very, very good system that pretty much meets everyone's needs.

I don't understand the fear over GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING OUR LIVES when it comes to health care. Socialized health care hasn't made Canada, England, France, or any other country I can think of any worse off. This isn't government choosing who does and doesn't get penicillin, this is government giving you free penicillin. I also don't get this bullshit about "people will pretend they're poor and scam the system." Isn't it better to have a couple of people scamming the system and everybody being covered than it is to have nobody scamming the system and thousands of people dying because they couldn't afford proper health care?

This man is smart, listen to him.

 

[Quotation Marx]

?I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.? -Thomas Jefferson

For those of you who are so anti-government and pro-individual choice.

"Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity." -Karl Marx

The logical fact in a capitalist country. Why give something away when you can easily sell it?

"All the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway." -Harry S. Truman

On the topic of presidency.

"For every talent that poverty has stimulated it has blighted a hundred." -John W. Gardner

Supporting the view that leaving those poor people to wallow in self-pity and disease is a bad thing.

 

[Plinglebob]

I work in a low level accountancy/admin position in the NHS and so you may think what I will say next is bias but I've tried to avoid that.

I work in the NHS and have been applying for NHS positions for years because I believe it is one of the best ways to do medicine. It means that if you get sick or are injured you don't have to worry about being able to afford it and you know that everyone is getting the same treatment as you. A company CEO who gets treated for cancer by the NHS will get the same treatment as his lowest employee would. On top of this, there is also private healthcare for those rich enough to want to pay for it and you can now "Top up" for NHS care if you want a drug that the NHS won't pay for without affecting your NHS care.

However, its biggest problem is that people think they pay their taxes (20% total if you're earning less then £40k a year) and so the NHS should give you whatever treatment you want. Sadly this isn't the case because they don't have unlimited money. While this thinking doesn't cripple the NHS, it does bleed money badly meaning money is used up when it could be used elsewhere and the constant complaining by the press and public and as such the constant pushing by MPs for more and more medications and services to be paid for by the state means it is in danger of bleeding out. I also agree that the beaucracy can get a little insane (as with all government bodies) which is a waste of funds and waiting times for non-urgent procedures can be long, but this is more due to not enough staff and equipment rather then malice.

The problem in America (and with the modern western world) is that a lot of very vocal individuals think that each of us are the centre of the universe and everything should revolve around us first. This, coupled with the USA's fear of anything that even hints of the evil red menace, means its hard to convince people to think about and so try and do and support things for the greater good. The NHS was set up straight after World War 2, but I doubt that if it was suggested now in the UK people would vote for it.

This is where America could lead the way in Socialized Health Care. What needs to be done is elimination of the current insurance system and an increase in taxes to cover care up to a point. This means treatments which have a chance of saving a life or significantly extending your life (3 years plus) get paid for, but treatments which only extend your life for a while (like most cancer drugs) or arn't needed for your own health (cosmetic surgery, IVF) have to be paid out of your own pocket.

In response to the fears about "Scamming the system", how? Treatment is only given to those who a doctor has seen and agrees is sick and I seriously doubt someone is going to go without a job so they don't have to pay tax just so they can get the same healthcare everyone else is getting for "free"

Edit: @Quotation Marx. I personally prefer "Taaxes are the price we pay for a civilized society"

 

[asinann]

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.

Socialized health care isn't going to make doctors care more or make nurses friendlier.

I'm not for NHS at all, but I argued this to death in another thread here not too long ago so I will summarize my opinion and I will leave it at that. NHS will end up being abused just like every other form of social financial assistance program such as welfare and social security. The end result will be that middle/upper-class citizens will end up paying for the health care of millions of people who do not deserve that charity to begin with. I'm sick of giving the government a blank-check and just expecting that they will do what is best for us, and that all this will end up being, again.

Except that the upper and middle class already DOES pay for all that medical care, they just pay more than they need to. The government pays hospitals that serve large portions of lower class people with huge subsidies every year to cover the costs of those "charity cases."

Usually those subsidies cover about 80% of all that charity work and the other 20% never gets paid for.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

In Australia, if you are thinking of going to the USA, the travel agents will actually tell you straight up "whatever you do do not get sick, and if you do get sick come home first, THEN get treatment if possible". People in the USA don't realise how shockingly bad their health care services are, and have been for a long time... Obama is doing you a good turn here, go with it.

Actually, we have the best health care in the world. It's just that it's very, very expensive. That's why travel agents to the general public tell you to come home--you can't afford the best care the U.S. has to offer. On the other hand, those advising the rich often send people to the U.S. for treatment.

This is something I agree on, in the U.S you get what you pay for. Why? Because you pay for it. You maybe turned away for a myriad of reasons when it is free, but when you use your own money? You have are given a choice.

 

[Quotation Marx]

Bah. I'm not working on huge accuracy here. But according to our vice president, paying those taxes is patriotic!

"It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

 

[asinann]

An insurence company is a buisness, and paying for your cusomer's treatment is bad for buisness, so most try their best to avoid doing so. If the government can offer a free option (even if it doesn't work as well) then it would bring insurence companies down to their knees and force them to improve to the point where the quality of insurence is worth the price.

This problem has actually gotten so bad that some states have actually made it illegal to deny coverage based on family history and DNA tests.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

I'm from England where we have the NHS, and it's okay, but it does come with some drawbacks.

Firstly, there's what's actually happening to it. It is currently in serious trouble (Or at least used to be).

Then there's the waiting list for it. If your injury isn't serious then it will be at the bottom of the list of people to treat. I almost experienced this once, as I needed a foot operation but because it wasn't very serious, if I hadn't been covered on my dad's health insurance, it would've taken months to get an operation.

Also, there was the proposal for an NHS database, which just sucked. As it turned out, it was very unreliable, wouldn't function properly, could easily be hacked, was an exploitation of privacy and was a pain in the ass to change any information on it.

However, it is still a good system. It means that anyone can be cared for, no matter who they are, and that all people are equal.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

An insurence company is a buisness, and paying for your cusomer's treatment is bad for buisness, so most try their best to avoid doing so. If the government can offer a free option (even if it doesn't work as well) then it would bring insurence companies down to their knees and force them to improve to the point where the quality of insurence is worth the price.

This problem has actually gotten so bad that some states have actually made it illegal to deny coverage based on family history and DNA tests.

Which is complete and utter bullshit. A business should be able to serve how it wants as long as it is legal. You may call them evil if you would like to if they want, but they are a business, First and foremost.

 

[Quotation Marx]

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." -Barry Goldwater

An effective statement because walls of text suck.