Socialized Medicine - Who has it - What do you think?

Exactly.

If people want to create a union of sorts and have voluntary "socialized" medicine, I don't see a problem. But when you have the collectivists (communists, socialists, welfare statists) forcing people to participate on penalty of prison, then it's an obvious violation of individual rights.

 

Whenever the government subsidizes something, costs go up. The only way to maintain service levels without increased taxation, is inflation, which again, hits the poor first and hardest.

We don't bring democracy to other parts of the world. Puleeeeeze.

And how is it a moral failure? Because we haven't adequately figured out how to take from the people who work, and cover the people who can't/won't pay for themselves? This blows my mind. The solution to health care issues, is theft.

Sure, cut them out of the picture. Cut the government bureaucracy that pays the bogus and wasteful medicaid and medicare charges!

You know who plugged HMOs into the system? The government. They thought it would help control costs. WRONG. Now they are promising to get even more fascist, and tie government, medicine and corporations closer together. That's wrong too.

As long as your system involved the government running healthcare (when they can't run anything else), as well as possibly increasing taxation, forget it.

This ties into a bigger problem. Why are we fighting senseless wars (we can't leave Iraq because it could get messy), sending foreign aid around the world, and then leaving American veterans in the street, and people without healthcare?

This country is prosperous enough to take care of it's own. But we're too busy implementing someone else's ideological agenda, or bailing out someone with a lobbyist, to worry about the man on the street.

If you want health care, look at what you can cut, not what you can take. We're giving enough already.

 

You allege it, so it must be true? I don't think so. The cost of administering Medicare is lower than private insurance administration costs.

Sorry, I slipped into sarcasm. Let me restate that, We ought to take care of ourselves and our country before we go blowing billions in other countries.

It's a moral failure to let people die if you could save them. So far I don't think we have really TRIED to figure it out. I'm advocating that we figure it out sooner than later. Are you saying we shouldn't even try???

Yes, I know that. So what are you saying? Are you saying that HMO's were bad, therefore we should never try to come up with any version of national health care?

It's not my system. There is no particular system that I have advocated. What I advocate is doing something, figuring something out that doesn't leave people with no coverage. I have confidence that we are smart enough to figure this out, if we just decide to do so.

Well we agree on that.

Again, health care costs would go down if we cut out the profits to insurance companies, the savings would be enough to cover everyone. That doesn't necessarily mean government control, it could be non profit, without government involvement. If you don't like those scenarios, fine, come up with something better. But if your version of something better includes letting people die, then I can't back down from my opinion that letting people die is a moral failure.

 

Nobody administers fraud like the government...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921/

But when government screws up, they get more funding.

No, I think we should try to help people. I do not think it is the government's job. I think it is my job, and your job. I think when the government gets involved, it becomes wasteful, it becomes inefficient, and it become politicized, all of which have NOTHING to do with helping people.

As far as morality, I don't believe that institutionalized stealing is a solution.

I'm saying HMOs are bad, and an example of why national health care fails. Because it becomes politicized and corporatized. If you don't have a lobbyist, you won't get anything done. The HMOs have lobbyists, the drug companies have lobbyists, and at the end of the day, they have bought our congressmen. So why trust these crooks with administering health?

IMO, that's like handing a murderer a loaded gun and sticking your hands in the air.

I can dig that.

The most important people do not. The county, district and state chairs of the parties do not. The national chairs do not. Washington does not, in the Senate, House or Executive. The lobbyists don't. They want fascism (corporate power through government). They want warfarism, and welfarism. They want to be able to send in statements and bills to the government, who will just cut checks with taxpayer money, perpetuating fraud and mis-billing.

You can bet that if you were paying the bills, you would look at them damn close, and get them sorted if there was anything funny on there...

Anyway, little ol' you and me care. Our first job is figuring out how to be effective, then we can figure out a plan.

It's a popular point of view, that somehow capitalism has failed. That profit is the evil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Profit = productive gain. If you worked and never got ahead, invested and never made any money, then your work and investments are not growing. No growth, no innovation, r&d or quality of life improvements.

So let's not rule out "evil profit". Let's talk about increasing profitability by leveraging economies of scale. We need more people using an affordable service. Right now, the issue isn't quality of care, it's afford ability. The price has to come down so more people can get in. And the people hurting most are the middle class.

So why not make health insurance a 100% tax deduction?

We don't want a single plan, we want 100 plans. 1,000 plans. 1,000 insurance companies, all bidding for your business. They offer different levels of care. Maybe they only cover major injury or illness. Lots of options, variety etc. Heck, maybe I could get coverage for natural medicine treatment...

You see, these are creative ideas (not my own). These are the kinds of solutions I expect from Americans. Let everyone else get into mono-care. We'll excel at personalized care!

But we need lots of providers, treating lots of people. Competition drives prices down and improves service. And consumers deserve choices. There are no choices with government care...

Letting people die is a moral failure. Using that moral challenge as justification to steal (via taxes) pisses me off. Sorry, I assumed that was your solution, and it seems you're quite a bit more open minded that that. My bad.

 

No problem.

I would vote for national health care if we had a referendum. But that's not going to happen anyway. And again, I'm not saying that's the best or only solution possible.

I see sick people with no insurance at my job, and I have to ask them a lot of questions. Many of them make the mistake of thinking I can help them somehow with their insurance/health care problem. Of course, I can't.

It's disturbing to me that many of the people I talk to don't clearly understand that there is no health care safety net, no guarantee of coverage or care no matter what. They are left out completely, and many of them are confused and surprised when they finally realize it. One young man in his 20's I talked to recently said "I've been trying to get help and no one will help me" He had applied for Medicaid & been denied. In my state, Medicaid applications are not always accepted, sometimes the program is closed until further notice. He has marginal intelligence, well documented since childhood, and now he has significant health problems. There is no way he would ever be able to take care of his own health care.

I talk to many people who have unresolved health issues with no insurance. They could take care of the health problems and get back to work if they had insurance. But if you are in a low wage bracket and even in the middle class, once you lose your job, you lose your insurance, and people like that cannot afford to pay $400 a month for Cobra. So they don't get any medical care and that's often the end of their productive working life.

It disturbs me that I can't help them, although it's not part of my job to do that. It disturbs me when I talk to someone who is in the process of dying, when a different system would have given them a chance to live.

I'm tired of hearing criticism of Canada's system, as if that means we have to stick with what we have. Can't we do better?

OK, good ideas, it's a start. But how does that help the young man I spoke to recently? How does that help people who get sick and lose their jobs? It doesn't help people with little or no resources.

There's a difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit. Deductions only benefit people who itemize their tax return. If you don't have a huge mortgage interest deduction, you probably don't itemize. So that won't help people who were conservative in home buying. A tax credit is available to all.

Sounds great. But the insurance companies could be doing that now. Why aren't they? Nothing stopping them, but profits. They don't see any profit in that model. How would it happen then?

You would feel more like I do if you saw the parade of suffering I see 5 days a week. I just believe we can do better somehow if we try. And I do believe we have an obligation to try harder.

 

There are people in need, who require charity. This is a social problem. As long as people think the government provides this, or that their taxes pay for solutions, then no one will take personal responsibility.

Fine, a tax credit then. But you get my drift.

Regulation, and the fact that they have to compete against the government. The government has unlimited staff, unlimited funding, and they drive prices up in the marketplace. I mean, if you're trying to make money, wouldn't you take someone from a government program over private insurance? The insurance company is going to harass you to make sure you aren't overcharging.

If you are UNLUCKY, the government will catch you overcharging.

How do you know that I don't feel like you do, without coming to the same conclusion as you?

There are people counting on your compassion eventually turning into hysteria. They need you to be impatient, and ready to jump at any solution, without thinking about how hard it is to turn off socialized medicine if it doesn't work out, once is has come into existence. It's not a decision to be taken lightly by which ever generation will make it.

Problem => Reaction => Solution

The government competes with and heavily regulates the free market.

This creates access problems, and drives prices up.

So their solution is to eliminate the free market and take total control.​

Read the article I posted? $60 billion in fraud. Could have helped a lot of people.

So remember, it's a big decision to make. Once they get their hooks into the system, it will be very hard to return to the free market later. You might help people today, just to damn people tomorrow.

 

Seems ive hit on a touchy subject. I have friends that are totally against socialized medicine, yet after i watched sicko, though its obviously a lot of propaganda, there is some truth in it. In the way our (American) health care system is currently operated. So many people who really need the insurance are denied and cant go to the doctor for serious ailments, when healthy people who can easily obtain the insurance, are able to go for a tummy ache. Its pretty backwards.

The friends i mentioned are pretty informed on the matter, but they have never experienced it themselves. The reason i started this poll was to see what those who have it now, really think. And it seems that those who have it, really like it. How can those of us who have not experienced it, say its bad? All we know is what we are told and what he have heard.

Im a very open minded person, but it seems both systems have their flaws, one argument is that socialized medical professionals, aren't as good as American, or that the drugs aren't as effective. Heres the thing. If my mother was having heart issues, and she had no insurance, i would rather her have a little help that was only slightly effective, rather than no help at all due to insurance not covering her "pre-existing conditions". So im still undecided on this.

Good arguments on both sides though.

 

This is for JohnScott, no relation to Ronald Belford I am sure.

Not so fast on the health insurance mandates
Are they constitutional? Clinton and Obama need to ask the question.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-court24mar24,0,204686.story?track=ntothtml

Very interesting article, that Clinton's fascist health care plan may in fact be unconstitutional. And for good reason. The federal government has no right to force you to buy something.

If you're really interested in national health care, you should take a read through this article.

 

clinton is all for force. Isn't she the one who wants to force the big oil companies to give her their profits? If clinton isn't for a form of communism or an extreme form of socialism, than what would her style of government be called?

 

Clinton is without a doubt a fascist. Her system involves forcing people to buy products from corporations. Obviously the businesses people would be forced to buy from would have all sorts of unfair advantages, like virtual monopoly, and coercive power of force.

If you read the article, it's barely a step away from healthcare companies being able to tax citizens, by law. This is fascism personified IMO.

 

Who was the philosopher and what was the title of the paper, please.

 

Let me tell you about a recent incident. Low wage employee approaches 1st anniversary at job. After one year, due for a raise, due for a weeks vacation, and due for the employer to pay a higher percent of health insurance premiums. The employee got sick in February, like several other people there. Worked on 2/21/08, off day 2/22/08, called in sick on 2/23/08, and was fired 2/23/08. The employer cancelled the health insurance effective 2/21/08, and sent out the notice of cancellation on 2/28/08.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this case. My opinion is that it is immoral, unconscionable and reprehensible that they canceled the insurance retroactively, to the last day worked, not just with the day fired. They informed the former employee of the cancellation after the fact, not before. Fortunately this employee did not go for medical treatment on the 2nd or 23rd prior to being told of the firing. But that could have happened.

How would no regulation help solve these kinds of problems?

 

No one would work for an a#&*ole like this.

Certainly the employer is a jerk. But regulation just pushes the costs of compliance onto someone else (not necessarily the employer).

But what is the exact issue here? That the employee got terminated I'm assuming, for being sick, or that the coverage was terminated retroactively?

 

Having seen both sides of the coin, I would have to ask was the employee missing quite a few days before? Like every Monday calling in sick (hang overs, etc) and was the employee told, "one more time at you are fired" because they constantly were a no-show?

I have seen way too many complaining employees in my life (not as the employer either) they wanted to show up whenever they felt like it and expect not to get fired. They would be "sick" so often (especially Monday mornings) and because of drug use they had no immune system and would get sick for a week at a time.

Now I won't say there are jerk bosses out there too, I have had my share.

 

I find it very interesting that of the 11 people who have voted who do have it, there have been 10 positive votes. And of the 10 people who don't have it there have been only 2 positive votes (and one of those is mine.) I think this has to do with the misinformation we have received in the United States about universal health care from the insurance companies that are making so much money off of the current system (or lack of system.)

It's clear that people in countries with universal health care are far more satisfied with their health care than those of us who do not have it here in the United States. I'm not just saying that from this poll, either, there is much evidence of this.

I really suggest everyone who is against universal health care watch Sicko. Try to put your biases aside for a moment and think rationally about the situation.

We have socialized education, socialized fire department, and socialized police department... why cant we have socialized medicine? It seems just as basic and obvious to me.

 

I don't think people voted on the right option. And the "herd" is not necessarily the right way to go.

I wish someone else would come out with a movie about this, because Michael Moore is a left propagandist, and it is very hard to take his work seriously, when he lives his own life in contradiction to the principles he tries to advance with his movies.

Who said any of those was a good idea? Socialism is a real boon to the people on the receiving end, not the giving end. You and me, we need to have this debate. Soon.

 

Do you really think the police and the fire departments should be privatized? So that only those who can pay for it receive police protection or can have their fire put out? I think as with all things there needs to be a balance. Absolute libertarianism taken to these extremes would make for a really nasty society. A place where there are the very rich and there is everyone else.

Do you really think that only children whose parents can afford to pay for schooling should be able to go to school?

I just can't jump on that sort of wagon. I think it perpetuates a class society where upward mobility is nearly impossible. I think there is a place for government in providing basic human necessities. This is what creates a rich society and I believe a man can only truly be rich in a rich society.

I don't see these sorts of governmental programs as being the opposite of freedom. A good example is the Netherlands where they do have many governmental programs but they also have a very high degree of social liberties (in comparison to the United States.) To me that's the government's place. To provide some sort of framework so that all people have an opportunity to succeed. I don't think it's the government's place to GUARANTEE success, only to help create a society that provides those opportunities. I see education, health care, and safety (from violent crime) to be basic components of what a government should provide.

A free market economy is a great thing that encourages creativity. I am not against that, but I do think there should be some limits on it. And I just can't buy into the idea that financial freedom is the same thing as social freedom (this is Ron Paul's view) ... I just don't think it's the same thing. Money only exists within the framework of a society.

 

Hey, Mike Gravel is a Big "L" Libertarian now. So watch yo'self!

Are we gunna have the debate? 'Cause I don't want to trash this thread having it because it will probably go way off topic. I'm cool, but you gotta back me up if the forum whiners come after me for thread-jacking.

 

I think Mike Gravel is a big L Libertarian the same way that I am... ie he believes in a non-crazy foreign policy and civil liberties but isn't so into the 100% free market there's absolutely no place for Government stuff.

I respect economic libertarians a lot. I think they tend to be very intellectually curious and intelligent. That's why I like to have discussions with them. They tend to be the most ideologically pure with the least contradictions. I'll admit that some of my ideas contradict each other and take some rationalization to make sense. That's what I like about Ron Paul's ideas. They are very pure. But... I just don't think all of them work in a real world application. And I suppose I think some things are more important than intellectual purity, like education and health care for example! I just don't want to live in a society where poor people can't go to school or be healthy. I think that ends up being a poorer society for everyone (even the rich.) ... I'm starting to ramble a bit here... As is usual for me. I must work on that, eh? Or maybe not. This is just a forum. I'm supposed to be here looking into information on internet marketing you know. I keep on ending up here in P&R. It's a bit addictive.

Um... Anyway, I'm not sure about whatever kind of debate you are talking about guerilla. I think I pretty much know where you are coming from and I think that a lot of what you think makes perfect logical sense when looked at on paper. When it comes down to it though I just have too much "bleeding heart liberal" in me to go along with it. I think in reality there are certain things that need to be guaranteed in a society to make it function for everyone's well being. What it comes down to is this: I'm willing for a society to have slightly less overall wealth if that wealth is shared more equally. You will say that it's stealing from the rich to give to the poor... But I think it's just being a part of a society. The rich benefit from being a part of society too. That's all a tax is really. I just don't believe in equating a tax with a restriction in freedom. I don't think it's comparable. ...

I will admit right now that I am not making my case very well. I'm about to order lunch, all I've had is an apple all day, and I'm not focusing well.

So ... I will leave it here. A civil libertarian-non interventionist foreign-socialist vs libertarian argument is fine to have. I would consider myself the former (it's a mouthful... I wish there were a party that really embodied my views but I don't think there is... I think that's the problem that Mike Gravel is running into too.) That may be a good idea to have that in a new thread.

 

No, they did not miss a lot of time. In fact, had just been told they were going to be promoted from head cashier to floor manager about 2 weeks before the firing. Didn't mention it because I was thinking it wasn't relevant to the health insurance issue.

I just don't see how no regulation makes things better. Regulations happen because of injustices. If we had no regulations, I can't imagine the insurance companies and employers being more fair and compassionate.