Socialized Health Care - Good or Bad?

Localized "socialism" in my opinion, is not as bad..

The more out of touch with the people government is, the easier it is to abuse their power. So, I think this is why police and fire usually works.

I don't understand why socialists think everything has to be centralized, are you lazy or something? Work with your community, most of you claim to be "for the community!" anyhow.

 

Wow. Thanks for all the comments. I am definately more informed now. It kind of sounds like there is no real cut and dried answer to solve the problem. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that there is a problem with health care in the US.

 

Police and Fire are probably far less expensive as well

 

Volunteer fire departments work well.

You don't need police as long as you have a good Sheriff and everyone in town packs a six-shooter.

 

Ok Comrade BRUm. For the party right? The party, and therefor, the government, knows all right? Let them tell us what to think. Where is the USSR now? Just wondering.

 

Are you being funny or something? I can't tell whether you're referring to myself as "left" seriously or not.

I'm as Libertarian as they come. I'm saying it's a step in the right direction. I didn't say it should go no further. I was being realistic; you cannot privatise something so huge as our NHS over night. I was saying I think we should first continue with foundation trusts until everything "settles", then continue on to complete privatisation. Method first, not outcome, that was my point.

Honestly, we have a neo-labour government here run by Brown, at this point foundation trusts are the best we're going to get. Semi-privatisation may be better than no privatisation, right?

Was that not clear in my post?

Bogart, I agree. Police can't be there to protect you 24 hours a day, and they shouldn't have to either. Protect yourself and have an elected sheriff investigate afterwards. It's just a huge shame that we're completely disarmed here You lucky yanks, y'all better stock up on ammo!

 

I serisouly have misunderstood your posts in a couple threads now.

I agree, semi privatisation is better than none at all.

And yes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. It is every person's duty to protect themselves and their families, not the governments. It's great we have police, and like I've said in other posts, I used to investigate federal felony's. But, there should not be reliance on them to defend yourselves. Where I come from, Texas, we have whats called the Castle Doctine.

That means, if I am legally able to be where I am, such as my house, or a public sidewalk, and someone is about to hurt someone or destroy property, I do not have a duty to attempt to retreat, I can stay and fight. And, I can use any amount of force to defend my property, myself, or someone else, or someone else's property, including deadly force.

I think completely disarming citizens is violating the peoples' right to defend themselves. Even in the Army, we had strict rules of engagement in Iraq, but, we were never stripped of our right to defend ourselves.

I don't like hearing people say a gun should be banned because you can't use it to hunt. Or use hunting as a reason to have guns. The constitution spells it out clearly. In order to keep a well armed militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But, like everything else, there are exceptions, as well there should be, mentally ill, convicted felons that give up their rights to vote etc. However, just because a weapon is classified as an assault weapon, doesn't mean it should not be allowed to be owned by a private citizen.

We have to defend ourselves from our government as well. Another thing in the Dec. of Independance. The right of the people to change their government. Revolt, etc. Our country is getting close to that point unfortunately.

The government meddles too much in private affairs.

 

Aye, I know of the Castle Doctrine, it's an excellent liberty to have. Do you listen to Alex Jones?

 

No I do not. Too bad more states don't exerecise this doctine. And more country's. However, when you have country's that completely outlaw weapons, it's hard.

 

Sure is hard mate, sure is.

You should check Alex Jones out, he's a true icon for the Libertarian and Liberty Movement - www.infowars.com

He's a Texan too

I noticed you believe that some individuals shouldn't have the right to own weapons, as you said those mentally ill etcetera, but how would this be carried out? Do you agree with the background checks? The checks at the moment, are the done federally or state-wide? I wouldn't agree with federal background checks, then again I don't think I'd agree with them on any level. A convict or mentally ill person who tries something stupid with a weapon wouldn't be around for long, so I don't see how it would be much of a problem if they were allowed - also, the term "mentally ill" is vague and could be abused.

 

The idea that socialized health care is too costly is quite humorous considering that the United States spends more on health care than any country with national health care yet we rank well behind many countries in actual health care results.

How is it not "sustainable in the long run" ? The UK has had a national health care system for many, many years.

I don't see how you can make the statement that the quality of the system goes down when their health care system covers more people than ours does.

Your story about your mother is actually another good example of why we need national health care. In a well run national health care system she would simply get the drugs that she needs, no worry about pricing because it would be free. Using the price of medications as a reason to go free market is surely a bad move on your part. It's well known that drugs are far far cheaper (or free) in national health care systems while drugs are ridiculously overpriced here in America because of why? The so called "free market" (ie some corporation jacking up their profit margins.)

 

I think the fact of the matter is we are ALL right!

If everybody thought the same way then it would work out exactly as you think it would.

The fact is everybody thinks different and reacts differently to different circumstances. One solution will never suit everybody all at once. Some people like pain & suffering remember (BDSM etc.).

Do what you do well and make your decisions with love in your heart. Don't use hatred, lies & jealousy to decide your direction. Make your decision with an open heart, caring for yourself and your circumstances above all. You will come to the right conclusion in the end. Capitalism is NOT the answer for me.

 

Centralization of power for one person means centralization of power over all. Not EVERYone was right in the Soviet Union. What it seems like you're saying is, "well not everyone agrees, so live and let live" (which indicates a libertarian philosophy).

Couldn't have said it any better, this is why I'm a libertarian. Socialism is great if it is voluntary or restricted to communities. Why don't we ever talk about that kind of socialism, you know, the kind where power is least likely to be abused?

 

American companies are building private hospitals in Mexico. A procedure can cost as little as 1/3 the cost of an operation within the United States.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/169827

 

Zibblu, he was using that story to show how the over regulation of the medication made it tough and a drawn out process for his mom to get the medication, not because of the price. Please, read more carefully.

Federal Background checks are actually a necessity when checking for a felon's background. All crimes get reported to the FBI, however, states don't often talk between each other when it comes to these things. I used to work as a patrol in Ft. Hood, TX. We had access to the Texas Criminal Information Center and the National Criminal Information Center and used it on every encounter it was lawful to check a person's history and for warrants. Each state uses a seperate system to track things. A warrant or conviction that happened in another state would not appear in TCIC. However, NCIC would display that information. It would be too costly to revamp the system, and the current one works.

Mentally ill would have to be legally defined. Generally it is determined by a licensed shrink. However, it still needs to be defined, and since gun laws prohibiting felons, domestic violence, etc. it would need to be federally defined on the federal level as well. I'm not too keen on using the big government to take care of this kind of stuff, and completely and thoroughly am for states rights here, but, unfortunetally, when it comes to federal law, it trumps state law. That is why the DEA rounded up so many Dr.'s in California when they decided it was ok to prescribe Marijuana for medicinal purposes, even though under the Controlled Substance Act, Marijuana is placed as a Class I drug, signifying no accepted legitimate medical use by the US Government.

I am really against any control on weapons to be honest, but, as a compromise, I'm willing to agree on this bit right here. Merely because common sense says you should not be allowed to posess a firearm with these history's. However, at the same time, it needs to encompass things such as cars, they can be used as a weapon.

Checks are done federally. And you have to have a federal firearms dealing license to sell firearms as well. And the ATF (Sounds like a convenience store to me) does random audits to ensure you are following all the crazy laws there are.

Zibblu, have you ever used a foreign socialist healthcare system before? One of my children was born in a German Hospital. It is nothing to brag about.

And it would be quite costly indeed. Considering we have a much larger population than the UK or most any other country. Especially one with socialized health care. And that doesn't include all the ILLEGAL immigrants that will also be allowed to use the hospitals at no cost under this new system. Jesus, can we stop giving all the illegals all this stuff when we can't even afford to provide for our own legal residents and citizens?

 

Wow, how did I miss this thread....

In any case. I notice the anti-socialized medicine peeps like to point at any country who is not doing it right and claim look it's not that great!

Problem for your argument is that we as a nation have the privilege of looking at all the nations of the world who are doing it and pick the best options. I happen to think the British NHS is a good example to look at. Too bad it "won't last because it's too expensive"....

Oh joy, that's right.... you just made that up! lol the British NHS has been in existence since the beginning of Democracy in Britain....

And the cry of illegal immigrants drowning us in medical costs is a weak copout and you're only using it as a thin veil for argument's sake. Because if you were being intellectually honest you'd call it what it is. 2 problems that BOTH need fixing. Sure socialized medicine would amplify the problem stemming from illegal immigration but it would also amplify the incentive to fix it....

You all claim that we need to "take responsibility" and that our government should "take responsibility" for itself too. How about we not claim you can't have socialized medicine because of some other problem and instead be honest, take responsibility, and say we need to fix both. Now there's a crazy idea

 

Imagine that, we need to fix both. bush dropped the ball big time with immigration. The problems are intertwined with the plan that is going to be put into use right now. As they will be eligible for health care paid for by you and I.

Look a little closer and you will see that. Good try trying to lower one of my arguments against socialized health care, but, it didn't work, but merely lowered the value of a "for it" argument.

Yes they are both seperate, but, they are together at the same time. You can't have this socialized health care and give it to illegals at the same time. If they kept that out of the bill than it would be a lot easier to accept. But with the curretn health care plan they passed...not so much.

 

George. I'm from England and have therefore used the NHS and such. I simply oppose its system and idea because I don't want my money spent on it so others can be treated. It may seem harsh and selfish, but I think everyone should step up to their responsibilities and should make sure they can afford to receive treatment, should they ever need it.

If individuality is to be preserved, as it should, then when the individual has a problem with a system that attempts (and will always fail) to cater for everyone's need, then a problem arises. It's a flawed concept, we need to let the individual decide. It should be about choices. I don't see a problem with the government acting as a competitor to private institutions such as hospitals, but it should use its own-gained finances to fund them, not ours.

For those affected in such that they unavoidably cannot support medical fees, then I feel charities should provide help, or local governments could provide services paid with their own money - after all, just because a government is meant to serve their people, it doesn't mean that they cannot borrow money from us (with interest) and use the loan to invest and generate their own independent finances. I believe that would be better than taxing us.

 

BRUm think about it like this, think of the money you're paying through NI as a down payment on the treatment you will receive later in life. I should probably point out now that the NHS is a poor example of socialised health care too, we charge failed asylum seekers to access the system, we charge for non essential procedures etc.

 

Haha nah mate. I certainly don't look at it as a "down payment". I'll pay medical bills when I need and want medical attention. We should have a choice, and we don't. That's why socialism is so, so very bad. I should be able to refuse to have a portion of my taxes paid on the NHS because I don't believe in it, but I can't. the government make choices for me. That can never be right.