Socialized Health Care - Good or Bad?

National Defense isn't a good reason?

There is a reason why we have the best military in the world....

The only real reaon it is this high is because of the wars. The wars cost over 150 billion a year more than what we used to spend.

We have plenty of money, it just gets funneled to the friends of congressmen. No need to cut important things. Stop earmarking money to you buddy's, and we could afford this socialized medicine that everyone that is too lazy to get out and get a job and work for a living, to pay their health insurance, want provided.

 

National defense is a good enough reason. But spending $500 billion per year? That is overspending simply put. You can have your "greatest military in the world", however you also have the greatest or highest deficit in the world; most of it owned by China. (Who are afraid of the US dollar going tits up) I hope Obama can get you out of these wars, as they are a huge drain to your economy, I mean the US has even spent more money in Iraq than you could sell oil (at current rates) at the amount they have.

Also... Ever think that people aren't lazy and life went bad for them? There are many reasons why people aren't able to find jobs or due to the recession have been sacked, but at least give them the benifit of the doubt that when a car hits them that they can at least afford to get treated.

"stop earmarking money to you buddy's"

Could you expand on that?

 

We'll keep our greatest military in the world.

I agree, we need to get rid of the deficit. But, this socialised health care isn't going ot work. Obama pledged to bring the deficit to half what it is now by the end of his first term. He's already on a great start, spent 3.5 trillion on new programs, thats 1.5 trillion more than we will gain. Cut out Iraq...that leave what? 1.35 trillion more? Not a big dent at all.

I agree, it is time to get out of Iraq, which is why we are starting that soon. You can see me talk about it here: http://www.texasdiscussion.com/2009/03/leaving-iraq-exit-stage-south/ I also went into a rant about other things I hate about the man lol, it's kind of a long article. He actually sat down with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and came out with a plan that the Chiefs thought was good, he actually listened, the only thing I can say I have agreed with the whole time he's been running for office/in office.

I don't know what it is like in the UK, but, in the US, most people want everything given to them now a days, that is wh yI don't give the average joe the benefit anymore, work ethic is out the window.

stop earmarking money to your buddy's....I'm talking about Congress. For every spending bill that passes, about twice as much money is spent than what the bill was originally for becuase Congressmen put money into their little agenda's that keep them elected and pay back friends, etc. Like the stimulus bill, which, btw, only gives about $12 a paycheck to the average American now, which does nothing to boost the economy what so ever. It had the socialised medicing tacked on, because the Democratic leadership whos bill is their baby wanted ot bypass the regular routes because it would "take too long" and "have a high chance of failure". Because, like I said, most American's want things handed to them, instead of working for them. I work for my money, I don't want the government blowing it on retarded things like their friends.

 

Oh stop whinging. I live in the largest socialised-health-state in the world and I can see how shit it is. The latter part of your post is completely irrelevant too. Health-care is being discussed, not generalisations of America.

I'll shed a tear for the liberated colonies when the day arrives bringing nationalisation of the private sector.

"Don't tread on me!"

 

Who the fuck are you to tell me to stop whinging and then go on to whinge yourself? I was asked for an opinion (as we all were) and I gave it.

Socialised health-care would have to be better than no health-care for the poor and if you don't agree with that then you must have a finger in the pie or a very sad life indeed !

Share the love, not your hate!

 

Some of you here have no idea what in the world you're talking about.

Let me tell you about my mom, since I know the only way I can communicate with you liberals is through your mismanaged emotions. She has narcolepsy, real bad, since she was a teenager. She CANNOT function without a certain drug (that's right, no other drug works) that is so heavily regulated, the effort she goes through just to obtain it is unbelievable. Every month she has to schedule an appointment to have a checkup and "make sure she still has the problem that necessitates the drug". Well it is no longer available through the doctor she was seeing, she now has to fork over the cash elsewhere, as well as go through all the regulatory bullsh!t to get some simple pills.

Why is it so regulated? Well since some people abuse drugs, as some do with everything, your government decided everyone should be punished by making it either scarce (expensive) or unavailable. What it comes down to is my mom paying ridiculous prices and going through endless hassles just to survive. Who does regulation serve?

The drugged out bum moving on to other drugs or the single mother with bad health trying to make ends meet?

Like i've said before, you'll get yourself killed in the real world (or someone else killed for that matter) if you run into problems blindly full of emotions. You socialists want to dictate how everyone else should act and function, and think if only everyone would follow your poor advice the world would be a better place - but you have no idea the people you hurt and the lives you destroy through these methods.

 

You obviously don't have any education in economics because this is really microeconomics 101 in college. I won't blame you though, a lot of socialists don't understand how markets work. Anyway, there is a thing called market equilibrium which is driven by the forces of supply and demand and is the point at which the quantity demanded equals the quantity supplied at a certain price. Supply and demand continue to fluctuate until the price level is matched. You do know that selling things at cheaper prices can sometimes make companies more money right (because more people buy the product)? Before you make the claim that these are vital goods and will be purchased anyway, let me ask you whether or not some people today forgo buying medicine because they can't afford it. They do don't they? So you can't make that argument.

Again, the market will always react to consumers and suppliers and an equilibrium is always reached. Why do you think every single world economy is based on the market system right now, even if some are more socialized than others? Because markets are efficient ways to distribute wealth and goods.

First off, can you give my proof instead of just talking from your personal thoughts? Also, did you ever think of the possibility that perhaps the government was losing money in these businesses which is why the price was so low? That debt would build up and in the end the people would still pay it. Also, maybe the government should cut taxes on these companies in order to bring prices down naturally.

Actually it is irrelevant because this is an opinion of yours- that the Iraq war is a less important issue.

As for the rest of the debate going on here, I am going to go with ncz_nate and say that a lot of you are really mistaken because you either don't really understand how markets work or because you fail to realize the inefficiencies of socialized healthcare. National defense is a totally different issue and you can't really criticize spending on that for the sake of building an argument to spend for socialized healthcare. If anything fight for nat'l defense spending to be lowered (if you support that,) but just keep it a separate issue- in no way does it help build an argument for spending the money for socialized healthcare.

 

We're spending trillions of dollars on medicare/medicaid so in a way we already have a semi-socialized system. Spending more money isn't doing to solve the problem of healthcare affordibility. What we need to do is to increase the supply of doctors so that we can bring costs down. Build more medical schools and shift all the grant money that we are alrady spending to educate people with skills that we need.

 

Good Post Bogart!!!

 

how could more hiring bring cost down?

 

I assume it would force wages down (and efficiency/skill up?) via competition.

 

The government is spending billions or dollars giving free education to people studying basket weaving, and people that drop out after a couple of years. The resources are already there to build new medical schools and train thousands of doctors.

The law of supply and demand. The American Medical Association restricts the supply of doctors to keep the costs up.

 

Aye, that's what I meant Bogart - supply and demand - just couldn't get it out

 

I've had some experience with Socialized care and it ended up killing a very close family friend. The Canadian healthcare system decided to give my friend, Doug, 3x the amount of blood thinners than he actually needed for a clot he had in his leg. There were MANY times they didn't even know how to treat/prescribe for him because they couldn't find his medical records. He overdosed on blood thinners, making his blood like water and quickly bled out from a stroke. He died in my Grandmother's arms....

I've also been reading up on the New Zealand health system, which was one of the first socialized systems set up. I personally wouldn't want my government deciding what prescriptions I can use or not, based on what costs the most. I've also read many articles from outraged citizens on how the government is now trying to control what they eat, drink, and do in order to cut healthcare costs. Sounds like their government is trying to control EVERYTHING to me. No thanks....

 

Exactly Firegirl. It starts with health care. Then moves onto taking our guns, thus, effectively, cancelling out our right to revolt and over throw a government we don't agree with. After that it's other basic freedom's such as speech and religion. Before long, we're Iran. Or how China and N. Korea are, or, how about the Soviet Union was.

 

Firegirl, while the loss is tragic, I don't think the reason your friend died was due to the funding of the health-care. That could have happened just as easily in a private hospital.

I live in England where the infamous NHS is. Clement Attlee established our nationalised health-service in 1948.

How do you Libertarian Americans feel towards your Fire and Police Departments? They're 'socialised' right?

 

Yes, they are. But, does that mean that we should continue to socialize everything because socialization in one sector "works"?

I'm actually kind of mixed on the subject of police and fire, but most hardcore Libertarians would want to see some sort of privatization, or volunteerism, of these departments.

 

I think the term "socialized health care" is wrong altogether. It has connotations of being like a communist former eastern-bloc system.

Public services can either be publically or privately funded. In my opinion, healthcare should be publically funded as it is here in the UK.

In the US, the system is a joke. I find it incredible that on the one hand you have some people receiving the best treatment there is in the world. And in the same city, you have people who will wait for 3 hours in a line to visit a charity doctor in a local community centre. It looks more like Africa than Alabama.

From what I hear, insurance costs an incredible amount. I also have a good friend who has worked the same job for 20 years. He has a long term health condition. When we were talking about him moving to California, he says its not possible because he will lose his insurance, sponsored by his job. I found this incredible how one's freedoms can be so restricted in this way.

The health system here in the UK works pretty well, all in all. We spend half as much as the US on healthcare and everybody gets decent care. Yes, some waiting lists are still too long but if you have an urgent problem then you will get seen fairly quickly. What holds back our system is bureaucracy and also incompetent trust management - an unfortunate feature of any public sector department and not just health. In a privately funded system, money talks and bullshit walks so bureaucracy doesn't come into it - this is one advantage of privately funding.

But take a look at the Dutch system, they have recently introduced private insurance. It is compulsory to have insurance, you cannot choose not to. But it is affordable so I imagine they have 99% take-up, unlike in the USA where many people cannot afford insurance.

The Dutch have just two prices, one for people with preexisting conditions and one for everyone else. There is not much difference between them. And everyone must offer the same price which I think (not sure) is set by the government.

Whichever way you look at it, the UK and Dutch system are both superior to the American system.

Basically the only people who win in the American system are the rich. What a terrible way to look after the health of your citizens, from a governmental point of view.

 

A socialised health care system is inherently flawed in a society which is expanding and also becomng older due to people living longer. The costs of supporting such a system are ridiculous and so to 'give' healthcare to everyone is a goal that shouldn't be even thought of.

However, that is not to say that we shouldn't provide emergency health care and care for those people on the poverty line for free. Protecting these people is part of what should our society should build itself on and to fail to do so is something which I do not advocate in anyway

 

Those connotations would be true. The USSR was the second state to have a purely public funded health-care system.

My mother works in the NHS and tells me that more and more units are being sold as "foundation trusts" which are hospitals and such which are essentially private, but are overseen somewhat by the state. I welcome this, it's a step in the right direction.