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

I recently saw the documentary by Michael Moore called Sicko. It was very interesting, It basically stated that all the horrible stories about socialized medicine were a lie. And that in fact Doctors do make more money, medical services are better and faster than American medicine. I have been told this documentary is full of propaganda and lies. So i ask DP. DP in a national forum, with many users I'm sure that are a part of socialized medicine. Whats your take? Is it good? Bad? OK? What do you think?

 

It's a great thing. We get treatment when we need it regardless if we can pay for it. Any nation that bases the medical treatment someone is entitled to on the amount of money they have should rethink their morality.

A friend of mine (56 years old) fell ill at work. within 8 hours he was in surgery after being picked up by helicopter and having his quadruple heart bypass, He would have got exactly the same if he was a millionaire or a homeless guy. Now when he goes to collect his medication he pays £5 ($10) regardless what medication he collects and regardless how much of it he gets.

Sure, It could be improved and there are some areas where spending could be lessened. But as a whole id much rather have socialised medicine that can be improved than a system where medical treatment is for those who can afford it.

 

This is the only thing in a country i would vote for socializing if i would because of the fact that it treats each person equally as a human being
and it would actually bring in the doctors that actually care for their patients instead of the ones who just want to become rich.
My grandma told us about the old when she came to america at the beginning of the 20th century when the doctors were kind and caring enough to come to your home and treat a family member personally and leave with a warm handshake.
Its a shame the medical industry has become such a big business


We recently met someone at church who is new here from france and he loves the sicial medicine system they have there. The only drawback is that the taxes are higher, but it doesnt seem like many in france are complaining because he said if anyone there is out of a job and homeless on the streets, the government seeks the homeless puts them up for room and board and then proceeds to find them a new job. Very compassionate and caring if u ask me

 

I forgot to mention i heard that there was a 40% income tax that actually helps pay for this system, does anyone know the truth in that?

 

Its a good thing, although it has its disadvantages... Waiting lists, prioritisation, higher taxes etc, (not as high as 40% tho!)

 

It's paid for using a national insurance stamp which is 11% of your taxable earnings above £105 ($210). It's paid automatically if you are on PAYE.

Last week my sister called out the family doctor at 10pm, The same guy who gave me my shots when i was a baby, because my niece had a temperature. He was there within 20 minutes, Stayed for a cup of tea and wrote a prescription. Not a single penny left her hand and because she is a "new mother" the medication on the prescription is free.

Helping people who are sick should not be considered a "business".

 

I am against it.

Just as a warm-up (since it seems I will have lot of people to debate with)

Medical care is not a right. If you think it is a right, then eating must be a right. Clothing must be a right. Education must be a right. Housing must be a right. Transportation is a right. Comfort is a right.

Maybe sex is a right too?

Where do you draw the line on human needs?

When you guys are ready to explain how you can pay for medicine for all of the people who can't pay for themselves without pseudo-communism, let me know.

@stOx, don't bother replying. You refuse to argue without insults, which ruins the opportunity for intelligent discourse.

 

Would you be against it if your child was dying from a curable condition simply because you can't afford the treatment?

I don't see how you can morally justify leaving someone to die over something as trivial as money.

 

In Semi-Communist AKA Socialist India --- Food, Clothing, Shelter & Education are basic rights.

UK is Socialist

France is Socialist

More than half of Europe is Socialist, where they have upto 50% Taxes in various forms...

 

I'll respond as long as you're not going to be insulting.

Yes.

The alternative is to endorse all sorts of undesirable things, and creates a slippery slope, from which I could construct my own emotional challenges.

For instance, someone needs a kidney, you have two. Does he have a right to your kidney? You have two working eyes, a blind man has none, does he have a right to one of your eyes? You lose depth perception, he gains sight.

When you endorse the right to take from others for your own need, you destroy the right to property. The right to earn the food you grow. The right to own the house you live in. The right to the clothes you wear.

I don't morally justify it. If you have the means (money) to help your fellow man, you should. But I have no right to take from you by force or theft.

What sort of society endorses the looting and pillaging of others whenever people have need? If I mismanage my money, play video games all day and do not work, do I have a right to medical care at your expense?

Sure, "free" medical care for everyone sounds great. In a society where we could re-arrange matter and create food, materials, drugs from thin air, it would be a super thing.

But there is a cost to producing those things, and they are finite and certainly not free.

So back to socialized medicine, where do we get the medical care from, that people cannot themselves afford? Does it come at someone else's expense? And if so, and it is not given voluntarily, is this not theft?

 

Here is the fallacy of your argument. Even though they complain (complaining is part of the human nature I guess) MOST people agree that taxes should be paid.

It is not INVOLUNTARY, ergo no, it is not theft.

Some don't agree? Well, I guess those are the perils of democracy.

 

people are already paying for the care given to the uninsured that can not or do not want to pay for their medical treatment.
uninsured use the emerigency rooms and hospitals to gain the medical attention that they need and the cost is distributed among others in the form of higher cost.
it is also important to note that the cost of medical treatment is much higher for the uninsured.[insurence companies pay less to the hospitals and doctors for the same treatment]
so considering all this a single payer system or a non for profit insurer for the entire population can probably cover medical needs of all citizens for the same cost as we pay now.
of course insurance companies will lose

 

As simplyg123 suggested there is a price to pay... higher taxes

 

Here is the fallacy of your statement. You have no idea what complaining people agree or not.

It's not theft? How exactly do you avoid paying taxes if you object to them?

What is the definition of theft?

What is "democracy"? Would you define it please?

You're using an argument similar to stOx's. He's trying to create moral hazard based on inaction, you're trying to say that moral hazard is inevitable.

I'm saying, that you cannot solve moral hazard by creating it for someone else. I have no right to one of your eyes because I am blind, so why do I have a right to an equal share of the healthcare?

 

Firstly, I don't believe you. If your child was sick and dying (i don't know if you have children) there isn't much you wouldn't do to help them. If you were honest you would say you would accept free medical treatment from a socialist system to save the life of your child, And so you should, As a decent parent.

Don't you want to live in a society where those who are unable to provide for themselves are provided with the basics? Think about what you are saying. You are putting your personal wealth in front of the well being of fellow humans. You are saying children should die because you don't think taxation is fair.

I recently read a philosophy paper on taxation and it stated that wealth can not be accumulated in isolation. it requires a society for it to exist and a society for it to have worth. and as such dues should be paid on that wealth to cater for the society which enabled it.

 

Correct, its a 50% tax rate in france, good point and thast what our friend was saying.

 

Good point also Guerilla, in a free market society people will have the option to care for each other also and that is how america was 70 to 100 years back.

 

That isn't entirely true. If you earn over 50,000 euros ($80,000) it's around 48% but you can pay as little as 6%, Or even 0% if you earn under 4500 euros ($7,000).

 

Whatever. It's not "free". There is a difference between charity and socialism. Charity is given voluntarily, freely. Socialism is coerced.

Here we go with the outrageous strawman arguments.

Yes, I do want to live in a society where the less fortunate get help. But that doesn't require socialism. It requires charity. The notion that goodness can only come as a result of government doesn't credit individuals (you and I) with the ability for compassion or moral judgment.

The question is, do you care about others because you are human, or because the government requires you to do so?

This has nothing to do with my personal wealth or level of compassion. I have and will continue to try and help others every chance I get. With my time, my energy, my creativity, and my wealth.

I'm not saying that children should die, and it is ridiculous to make that statement. I'm saying that taxation is not the only way to prevent children from dying, and I don't think it is the best way either.

This is incorrect. It comes down to how you define wealth.

I live in isolation. I harvest fruit from a nearby tree. I eat 8 fruits a year to survive. But I work hard and harvest 12. Those 4 additional fruit are wealth. They have value because now I can trade days harvesting next year for another activity. Maybe sleep, maybe singing, dancing, painting, or I can use those "savings" as capital, trading the time saved growing 8 fruit next year to 4, and spending that time working on improving my shelter, perhaps building a bed of some sort, so I don't sleep on dirt.

Now, absent a society, that bed still has worth. Heck, absent any other human being on the planet, I now no longer have to sleep with bugs and worms. I no longer get wet when it rains from water running across and seeping through the ground. That bed has value to me, and it is the product of the time I worked to make it, and the time I spent building the food capital by harvesting more than I consume.

Trust me, a lone man in isolation, has wealth when he has more apples than he can eat, as opposed to less apples than he needs. Dare I say that if he has oranges and bananas as well, he is incredibly wealthy.