NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally feel that the nature of healthcare limits the freedom of the consumer by forcing them into situations where viable alternatives are not present. Since a free market is impossible, I believe that government should provide any and all healthcare needed by a citizen.

What are your thoughts?

as long as its a two tier system, sortof.

i dont think the government should pay for certain things like bypass surgery for a guy who has been ignoring his doctor and stuffing his fat ass with cheeseburgers., or jumping off a bridge etc..

things that can be directly related to ignoring what a doctor (or common sense) would say.

only emergency medical care...if even that

Adequate healthcare for all citizens makes sense. Not only do you ensure that worker dollars generally spent on health insurance can be realigned into consumer purchasing power, thus helping the economy, but you also avoid turning your population into a disease breeding ground as people who would not normally be able to seek health care to stem such disease will be able to. Furthermore, it eases the burden on small businesses in terms of not only providing health care to their workers (a huge chunk of change for any small business), but will save countless dollars in lost revenue from sick days.

However, there should be a sort of tier system involved. It is not the government's responsibility to pay for cosmetic surgeries or certain other medical procedures which are entirely voluntary (such as abortion). Those services should be available, but only obtainable by individual payment.

as long as its a two tier system, sortof.

i dont think the government should pay for certain things like bypass surgery for a guy who has been ignoring his doctor and stuffing his fat ass with cheeseburgers., or jumping off a bridge etc..

things that can be directly related to ignoring what a doctor (or common sense) would say.

First, I think there are too many problems that would stem from this system. It would be difficult to distinguish who was acting callously and who was acting ignorantly.

What is your ethical reasoning for this idea, though?

only emergency medical care...if even that

why?

It's been a while since I campaigned for this, but one of the things that struck me was we where one of the only industrialized nations not to provide for the health of it's citizens.

What disturbed me was the most common response was "I don't want to have to pay for someone elses' health care." I guess they'd much rather pay for insurance agents boats. So many things frustrating about that it's hard to focus on one.

However, there should be a sort of tier system involved. It is not the government's responsibility to pay for cosmetic surgeries or certain other medical procedures which are entirely voluntary (such as abortion). Those services should be available, but only obtainable by individual payment.

I agree that there should be some doctor input as to whether the healthcare is necessary to maintain a person's health or not, so that people are not given the funding for convenient healthcare as opposed to necessary healthcare.

However, with abortion, it is tricky, as completely privately funded abortions would put a large strain on the portion of the population which probably is in most need of safe abortions.

I know this thread is going to go straight into an argument over publicly funded abortion now, and there is nothing I can do about it but join in.

*hangs head*

First, I think there are too many problems that would stem from this system. It would be difficult to distinguish who was acting callously and who was acting ignorantly.

What is your ethical reasoning for this idea, though?

not really, just phone up thier doctor and ask, no doctor, no healthcare.

the reason is that i think people should have access to free healthcare, but shouldnt be allowed to waste money by ignoring thier physicians and not taking care of themselves.

They should give free healthcare to me but no one else.

I wouldn't support universal healthcare.

For emergency medial situations and those who are to poor too afford proper care, I would. Those above a given income level, who can support themselves, should support themselves.

For emergency medial situations and those who are to poor too afford proper care, I would. Those above a given income level, who can support themselves, should support themselves.

Why?

I love that question.

Tommy Douglas just happens to be my favorite politician.

In other words, hell yeah! And none of this two-tier crap either.

They should give free healthcare to me but no one else.

If by "me" you mean "everyone except New Genoa" then I completely support that. :)

Why?

I love that question.
I just don't think
the government shouldn't be paying for services for people who can pay for it themselves, in my opinion. Ultimately a properly-regulated medical market, which we don't have right now, would be better than a government-run monopoly.

I wouldn't support universal healthcare.

For emergency medial situations and those who are to poor too afford proper care, I would. Those above a given income level, who can support themselves, should support themselves.

I fundamentally agree with your assessment that the rich can support themselves, however, I would disagree with only making the rich pay, because through progressive taxation, the system can be the same for everyone, with the rich, those with the most money, are paying the most.

not really, just phone up thier doctor and ask, no doctor, no healthcare.

I really doubt it would be that easy.

the reason is that i think people should have access to free healthcare, but shouldnt be allowed to waste money by ignoring thier physicians and not taking care of themselves.

Do you believe that people should be denied healthcare because they are irresponsible?

Tommy Douglas just happens to be my favorite politician.

In other words, hell yeah! And none of this two-tier crap either.

Well, isn't it a little ridiculous for the government to pay for nose jobs or liposuction?

I wouldn't support universal healthcare.

For emergency medial situations and those who are to poor too afford proper care, I would. Those above a given income level, who can support themselves, should support themselves.
Nah, just put them in a higher tax bracket and plough that back into health care funding. It'll subsidise those too poor to afford adequate health care, and will cut off an argument on the rich bastards part, "Why should I have to pay twice?" Just tax the fuckers.

I fundamentally agree with your assessment that the rich can support themselves, however, I would disagree with only making the rich pay, because through progressive taxation, the system can be the same for everyone, with the rich, those with the most money, are paying the most.
With progressive taxation, basically only the rich are paying anyway.

I just don't think
the government shouldn't be paying for services for people who can pay for it themselves, in my opinion.

Do you think that it is ethical for poor people to recieve healthcare for free when wealthy people are required to pay for it?

Do you think that it is ethical for the wealthy to recieve better healthcare than the poor?

Not attacks, just questions, so don't get defensive.

Ultimately a properly-regulated medical market, which we don't have right now, would be better than a government-run monopoly.

I personally don't think that the medical industry can be properly regulated without nearly complete government intervention. Medical R&D companies could still be run privately, but I think the government needs to act as a go between to protect consumers.

Do you think that it is ethical for poor people to recieve healthcare for free when wealthy people are required to pay for it?
Yes. The same way poor people can get food stamps but rich people can't.

Do you think that it is ethical for the wealthy to recieve better healthcare than the poor?
To a certain degree, yes, as long as the poor still get adequate healthcare.

Yes. The same way poor people can get food stamps but rich people can't.


To a certain degree, yes, as long as the poor still get adequate healthcare.

Whys across the board.

Whys across the board.
What in particular do you want me to say? Its just what I think, I'm not sure if I can identify why, besides that my experiences and environment have made me this way. I think society has an obligation to the poor to fufill their basic needs, such as food or healthcare, and provide the poor with an opportunity to advance, with education, but not to force everyone onto an equal plane.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.




Basically, providing free healthcare to everybody would be attempting to usurp God's authority. If somebody comes down with a certain illness (STDs for example) they are meant to suffer and quite possibly die, since they did something great to offend the Lord.

If you get AIDs, it's your just punishment for some sin that you did. Although it really would suck if you got it from a blood transfusion and you hadn't even fornicated or adulterated, then I'd feel really bad for you and want to get you help in anyway possible. But as for most people who get AIDs, I believe they deserve it.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Lol. Great example of misquoting the bible.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Basically, providing free healthcare to everybody would be attempting to usurp God's authority. If somebody comes down with a certain illness (STDs for example) they are meant to suffer and quite possibly die, since they did something great to offend the Lord.

If you get AIDs, it's your just punishment for some sin that you did. Although it really would suck if you got it from a blood transfusion and you hadn't even fornicated or adulterated, then I'd feel really bad for you and want to get you help in anyway possible. But as for most people who get AIDs, I believe they deserve it.

Thanks for sticking in your oar...I guess...

It's interesting, your hang up on punishment. For if the Lord created us, then surely He created our intellectual ability to develop life-saving medical treatments. Therefore, to not provide those treatments is to basically thumb your nose at God's creation.

However, the God you're referring to seems rather viscious and bloodthirsty, so he's probably not worth considering anyway.

What in particular do you want me to say? Its just what I think, I'm not sure if I can identify why, besides that my experiences and environment have made me this way. I think society has an obligation to the poor to fufill their basic needs, such as food or healthcare, and provide the poor with an opportunity to advance, with education, but not to force everyone onto an equal plane.

Well, you gave straight yes answers and I just wanted to know the reasoning behind them. I couldn't really reply or think about yes or no answers.

When I discuss issues on here I take other people's reasoning and compare them to my own to see if it shows any flaws in my own reasoning. It helps me figure out contradictions and flaws in my own thought process.

For example, you pointed out the correlation between food stamps and healthcare and right now I am trying to determine whether my objection to food stamps and my desire for universal healthcare is consistent.

Universal? no.
for those unable to afford it? yes.
for operations not health-related (cosmetic surgery, most abortions, etc)? no.

basically, if it's life-threatening, coverage should be provided to those unable to afford it, but not for anything else

the government is the last thing I'd want involved in my health-care, or life in general, tbh. it's the least efficient thing when it comes to handling money responsibly

Do you believe that people should be denied healthcare because they are irresponsible?

only public care, but yes.

Basically, providing free healthcare to everybody would be attempting to usurp God's authority. If somebody comes down with a certain illness (STDs for example) they are meant to suffer and quite possibly die, since they did something great to offend the Lord.

If you get AIDs, it's your just punishment for some sin that you did. Although it really would suck if you got it from a blood transfusion and you hadn't even fornicated or adulterated, then I'd feel really bad for you and want to get you help in anyway possible. But as for most people who get AIDs, I believe they deserve it.

God would also be appalled, I surmise, were we to waste the faculties he has given us to help heal our fellow man. I also believe that that quote was referring to death as opposed to eternal life, in other words spiritual death, Hell.

Also, I believe Jesus did some healing in his short time on Earth.

God would also be appalled, I surmise, were we to waste the faculties he has given us to help heal our fellow man. I also believe that that quote was referring to death as opposed to eternal life, in other words spiritual death, Hell.

Also, I believe Jesus did some healing in his short time on Earth.

Depending on your source, he also did some fornicating.

Depending on your source, he also did some fornicating.

Good for him.

He really did have a rough existence on Earth, and it is nice to hear that he had a way to relieve stress.

God would also be appalled, I surmise, were we to waste the faculties he has given us to help heal our fellow man. I also believe that that quote was referring to death as opposed to eternal life, in other words spiritual death, Hell.

Also, I believe Jesus did some healing in his short time on Earth.


I'm not Jesus, nor would I blaspheme and claim to be.


If God wants them healed, they'll be healed (Just as Christ healed those whom He wanted to heal). Just as He made it clear though, "your faith has healed you" or "your faith has saved you" He never said, "I have healed you" He let them know, their faith did it. You need to have faith to be healed.

Universal healthcare would be a great idea. Though you can imagine the taxes that people would have to pay for it. The worst to bear the burden should be the middle income taxpayers.

The rich would just donate their money through other means and avoid paying taxes for healthcare. Because which rich person goes to public hospitals?

Depending on your source, he also did some fornicating.


Nope, He was blameless and without fault, what need would Christ Jesus have for fornication? None. Any who claim that Jesus Christ was anything other than God made Man and remained a pure virgin His entire earthly life, is never going to see the kingdom of God.

I personally feel that the nature of healthcare limits the freedom of the consumer by forcing them into situations where viable alternatives are not present. Since a free market is impossible, I believe that government should provide any and all healthcare needed by a citizen.

What are your thoughts?


It would be nice.

I'm not Jesus, nor would I blaspheme and claim to be.


If God wants them healed, they'll be healed (Just as Christ healed those whom He wanted to heal). Just as He made it clear though, "your faith has healed you" or "your faith has saved you" He never said, "I have healed you" He let them know, their faith did it. You need to have faith to be healed.

Then your saying Doctors are an abomination to God.

Which they are not. God heals through many ways, some through doctors, and some through miracles. Especially when all options fail.

Then your saying Doctors are an abomination to God.

Which they are not. God heals through many ways, some through doctors, and some through miracles. Especially when all options fail.


Some people though are meant to be left to "die in their sins" for they have "been given up unto their sins". Healing the truly wicked is against the commands of God.

Why would a free market be impossible? Different companies compete to provide healthcare. Sounds free-marketish to me.

I'm not Jesus, nor would I blaspheme and claim to be.


If God wants them healed, they'll be healed (Just as Christ healed those whom He wanted to heal). Just as He made it clear though, "your faith has healed you" or "your faith has saved you" He never said, "I have healed you" He let them know, their faith did it. You need to have faith to be healed.

So doctors are unnecessary?

How do you know that God doesn't work to heal people by granting doctors the ability that they have?

Nope, He was blameless and without fault, what need would Christ Jesus have for fornication? None. Any who claim that Jesus Christ was anything other than God made Man and remained a pure virgin His entire earthly life, is never going to see the kingdom of God.

Hmm, doesn't seem like such a great earthly life if you miss out on one of the biggest parts of it. Why is it so threatening to think maybe Jesus, who was God made Man, after all, got himself some while he was here? One of the largest parts of the whole "man" experience is sex.

Some people though are meant to be left to "die in their sins" for they have "been given up unto their sins". Healing the truly wicked is against the commands of God.

Yet if those powers come from God and those people are healed, then how can it be against God's intent? Furthermore, do try and remember that Jesus walked with the prostitutes, the downtrodden and those who needed his love the most. You seem to be far more interested in the letter of the law instead of the message, which is also something Jesus spoke against.

Hmm, doesn't seem like such a great earthly life if you miss out on one of the biggest parts of it. Why is it so threatening to think maybe Jesus, who was God made Man, after all, got himself some while he was here? One of the largest parts of the whole "man" experience is sex.


Jesus Christ was and is the Resurrection.


Matthew 22:23-33

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.



Quite simply put, Christ had no need for any of that, and there is absolutely NO indication whatsoever that He did any of that. God has no need for mortal sex, nothing at all like that.

Why would a free market be impossible? Different companies compete to provide healthcare. Sounds free-marketish to me.

Because:

1] the combination of the rapid advancement of pharmaceutical and medical technology, the intellectual property rights of these companies, and the inability of communities to support enough suitable healthcare facilities to create a market leads consumers to have extremely limited choices and alternatives

2] illnesses can force consumers into contracts under duress

snip

Martel and Berk, if this interests you that much, start a new thread. This is way off topic.

Btw, This is really sidetracking from the main topic. I won't go further unless you create another thread to argue this out.

Some people though are meant to be left to "die in their sins" for they have "been given up unto their sins". Healing the truly wicked is against the commands of God.

Then you have missed out on the second part of that verse.

The wages of sin is death.. True. Sin has been in this world since the beginning of man. We've all been dying. The world itself is dying.

But what is the rest of it? Read on the rest of Romans. You have totally missed out on the point of Jesus coming to die for our sins.

Should the government provide universal healthcare?

I don't mean to sound uncharitable, but the Universe is a really big place. I can't afford to have my tax dollars be spent fighting Gleeglob sickness on Antares XI. Take the Raelians for example: They spend 40+ percent of their health care budget on elective procedures like anal probing and cattle dissection. While that may be a priority for them, I feel it is not my responsibility to help pay for it.

capitalist!ism!

bump

I think that the government should provide for necessary surgery. But I don't want the gov to pay for plastic surgery, abortions and other unnecessary operations.

However, with abortion, it is tricky, as completely privately funded abortions would put a large strain on the portion of the population which probably is in most need of safe abortions.
That's why the abortion market should be deregulated. So that abortions would be cheap.

I think that the government should provide for necessary surgery. But I don't want the gov to pay for plastic surgery, abortions and other unnecessary operations.

I think it can be argued that abortions are a necessary surgery if only for the well being of the "unborn person".

That's why the abortion market should be deregulated. So that abortions would be cheap.

I doubt they could ever be cheap enough. But deregulation would be a better situation than what we have now.

Basically, providing free healthcare to everybody would be attempting to usurp God's authority. If somebody comes down with a certain illness (STDs for example) they are meant to suffer and quite possibly die, since they did something great to offend the Lord.
Does this only apply to STDs and other things people get by "sinning", or do you apply it to diseases across the board?

What in particular do you want me to say? Its just what I think, I'm not sure if I can identify why, besides that my experiences and environment have made me this way. I think society has an obligation to the poor to fufill their basic needs, such as food or healthcare, and provide the poor with an opportunity to advance, with education, but not to force everyone onto an equal plane.
Wow, I can't believe it. I'm agreeing with near everything you say in this thread.

You need to have faith to be healed.
Does faith in medical science count? ;)

Why would a free market be impossible? Different companies compete to provide healthcare. Sounds free-marketish to me.
When the customer has no way of knowing the quality of service until it's too late, the normal free-market principles no longer apply.

I think it can be argued that abortions are a necessary surgery if only for the well being of the "unborn person".
I never thought of it that way. Elaborate.

I have a wonderful quote for this topic:

"Nationalized health care would have: the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the postal service, the failure rate of government schools, the enforcement tactics of the ATF, and all at Pentagon prices!" -- Albert V. Burns

Ethics aside, from the long-run macroeconomy point of view, some degree of base health care makes sense. Healthy workers are obviously more productive than those who are ill. Also, workers who hold multiple jobs to pay for basic medical services are going to be fatigued and their productivity will likely be lowered.

Some people are going to have to pay higher taxes, that's true. Some will argue it punishes the rich for making money since those in the highest tax brackets would end up paying a significant part of the bill for the scheme, but I retort that it's infinitely more unethical to punish those who are less fortunate by forcing them into lives of pain, suffering, and possibly death.

As far as innovation is concerned:
Given the fact that pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and the resources are produced by private industry regardless of whether a national or private provider pays for it, innovation is not going to stagnate. Firms are still going to want to produce the best equipment possible to win lucrative government contracts.

The increased demand for medical equipment, prescription drugs, and other resources will benefit the firms in these businesses because of increased demands for their goods and services. A potential market, for example, of 280 million Americans is better than a vastly smaller market of patients capable of paying for medical services. In other words, national health insurance will be a boon not a bane to firms like Pfizer, Hewlett-Packard, etc.

No. Don't need an inefficient bureaucracy deciding when and how I get health care. Think of it! A do-gooder politician decides that since we pay for your health care, we can tell you what to eat, drink, who to fuck, and the amount of exercise you get.

Government also stifles health care innovation by focusing on cost containment. Producers of drugs would have no incetive to innovate because of a lack of money.

Here's a nice article from the Cato institute.

Executive Summary

Almost everyone agrees that the U.S. health care system is in dire need of reform. But there are differing opinions on what kind of reform would be best. Some on the political left would like to see us copy one of the government-run "single-payer" systems that exist in Western Europe, Canada, and New Zealand, among other places. Proponents of socialized medicine point to other countries as examples of health care systems that are superior to our own. They insist that government will make health care available on the basis of need rather than ability to pay. The rich and poor will have equal access to care. And more serious medical needs will be given priority over less serious needs.

Unfortunately, those promises have not been borne out by decades of studies and statistics from nations with single-payer health care. Reports from those governments contradict many of the common misperceptions held by supporters of national health insurance in the United States. Wherever national health insurance has been tried, rationing by waiting is pervasive, putting patients at risk and keeping them in pain. Single-payer systems tend to leave rationing choices up to local bureaucracies that, for example, fill hospital beds with chronic patients, while acute patients wait for care. Access to health care in single-payer systems is far from equitable; in fact, it often correlates with income—with rich and well-connected citizens jumping the queue for treatment. Democratic political pressures (i.e., the need for votes) dictate the redistribution of health care dollars from the few to the many. In particular, the elderly, racial minorities, and those in rural areas are discriminated against when it comes to expensive treatments. And patients in countries with national health insurance usually have less access to critical medical procedures, modern medical technology, and lifesaving drugs than patients in the United States.

Far from being accidental byproducts of government-run health care systems that could be solved with the right reforms, these are the natural and inevitable consequences of placing the market for health care under the control of politicians. The best remedy for all countries' health care crises is not increasing government power, but increasing patient power instead.

Full link to article:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa532.pdf

Ethics aside, from the long-run macroeconomy point of view, some degree of base health care makes sense. Healthy workers are obviously more productive than those who are ill. Also, workers who hold multiple jobs to pay for basic medical services are going to be fatigued and their productivity will likely be lowered.

Some people are going to have to pay higher taxes, that's true. Some will argue it punishes the rich for making money since those in the highest tax brackets would end up paying a significant part of the bill for the scheme, but I retort that it's infinitely more unethical to punish those who are less fortunate by forcing them into lives of pain, suffering, and possibly death.

As far as innovation is concerned:
Given the fact that pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and the resources are produced by private industry regardless of whether a national or private provider pays for it, innovation is not going to stagnate. Firms are still going to want to produce the best equipment possible to win lucrative government contracts.

The increased demand for medical equipment, prescription drugs, and other resources will benefit the firms in these businesses because of increased demands for their goods and services. A potential market, for example, of 280 million Americans is better than a vastly smaller market of patients capable of paying for medical services. In other words, national health insurance will be a boon not a bane to firms like Pfizer, Hewlett-Packard, etc.


At the expense of the tax payer. A government run system would be abused and utilized as a political tool costing the public money and time.

I have a wonderful quote for this topic:

"Nationalized health care would have: the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the postal service, the failure rate of government schools, the enforcement tactics of the ATF, and all at Pentagon prices!" -- Albert V. Burns

Love the quote!

No, nothing beyond the most rudimentary, life-saving supplies. Subsidizing ANYTHING provides only short-term growth at the cost of long-term. And while we(the US) can subsidize some industries to the point where their supplies are cheap (like agriculture) for relatively low costs ($100 billion, IIRC), health care would be far more expensive.
If we implemented national health care in the United States at the per-person cost as we do medicare, every single American would have to increase his/her tax "bill" by 50%(as in, if you paid $2,000, you will have to pay $3,000 for universal health care)

The only sectors that should have that kind of money are the military (which improves technological/economic growth and defends the nation) and education (if you don't go to school, you will most likely be stupid. As long as you get some basic immunization at a young age and don't eat at McDonald's every day, you'll probably live for quite a while without having to go to a hospital)

As far as innovation is concerned:
Given the fact that pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and the resources are produced by private industry regardless of whether a national or private provider pays for it, innovation is not going to stagnate. Firms are still going to want to produce the best equipment possible to win lucrative government contracts.

The increased demand for medical equipment, prescription drugs, and other resources will benefit the firms in these businesses because of increased demands for their goods and services. A potential market, for example, of 280 million Americans is better than a vastly smaller market of patients capable of paying for medical services. In other words, national health insurance will be a boon not a bane to firms like Pfizer, Hewlett-Packard, etc.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely right. I have the great fortune to be British and we have a National Health Service. It is for all yet the private side still prospers. We have the second biggest phamacutical industry after the US. The NHS has faults but we are generally healthier than Americans, especially, obviously, the less well off. It's a matter of attitude, we choose to pay extra taxes knowing that we have access to some of the finest health care in the world from birth to death. The richer do not resent paying and can enjoy private treatment if they wish. Usually, this doesn't mean better care, just quicker and in fancier surroundings. To me, it's a mark of a civilised society that all are prepared to pay. If I'm ill, I go to the doctor and receive all the care I would get anywhere else and don't have to worry about the cost. Life is a lottery and none of us know if we're going to lead a healthy life or not. As for the so-called 'Christian' attitude here, why is it that so many people that ask us to believe in their faith have little or no symapathy for their fellow man? I don't care what my taxes are spent on as far as health goes, a cancer victim, accident, AIDS, obesity. Let the religious squabble about who gets what, doctors here just administer to the sick as required by Hippocraties.

As far as innovation is concerned:
Given the fact that pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and the resources are produced by private industry regardless of whether a national or private provider pays for it, innovation is not going to stagnate. Firms are still going to want to produce the best equipment possible to win lucrative government contracts.

The increased demand for medical equipment, prescription drugs, and other resources will benefit the firms in these businesses because of increased demands for their goods and services. A potential market, for example, of 280 million Americans is better than a vastly smaller market of patients capable of paying for medical services. In other words, national health insurance will be a boon not a bane to firms like Pfizer, Hewlett-Packard, etc.

Absolutely right. I have the great fortune to be British and we have a National Health Service. It is for all yet the private side still prospers. We have the second biggest phamacutical industry after the US. The NHS has faults but we are generally healthier than Americans, especially, obviously, the less well off. It's a matter of attitude, we choose to pay extra taxes knowing that we have access to some of the finest health care in the world from birth to death. The richer do not resent paying and can enjoy private treatment if they wish. Usually, this doesn't mean better care, just quicker and in fancier surroundings. To me, it's a mark of a civilised society that all are prepared to pay. If I'm ill, I go to the doctor and receive all the care I would get anywhere else and don't have to worry about the cost. Life is a lottery and none of us know if we're going to lead a healthy life or not. As for the so-called 'Christian' attitude here, why is it that so many people that ask us to believe in their faith have little or no symapathy for their fellow man? I don't care what my taxes are spent on as far as health goes, a cancer victim, accident, AIDS, obesity. Let the religious squabble about who gets what, doctors here just administer to the sick as required by Hippocraties.[/QUOTE]


Enjoy because we are not going to do this in the U.S. For the people in the U.S. who want national health insurance, go to England.

Most certainly. Healthcare is a basic human right. Except emergency care which you or your insurance company has to pay. Also, insurance companies must accommodate low income families.

I think that health care is a human right. I shouldn't have to fear for my life in this nation.

I never thought of it that way. Elaborate.

Unwanted children will be entered into a system that does not have a good record for bringing up healthy contributing people.

Also, insurance companies must accommodate low income families.

As far as insurance is concerned, I'm not too keen on government regulation of the industry. I read a news item about a year ago where a church had gotten together and pooled their money to provide health care to their people. It was extremely cheap, since it didn't cover birth control, elective procedures, or anything that was generally a preventible disease (liver diease due to drinking, etc). The problem was that the government cracked down on them because they were effectively providing insurance, but they were not complying with regulations by not covering birth control and a lot of the preventible stuff.

I think that health care is a human right. I shouldn't have to fear for my life in this nation.


Is this the new socialist propaganda? Is everything now a human right? We'll be cold and poor together? f-that!

Is this the new socialist propaganda? Is everything now a human right? We'll be cold and poor together? f-that!

Explain why health should not be a human right.

Explain why health should not be a human right.

Because rights are innate. Healthcare is not innate. You have to gain this product from an outside source. To impose this as a right, you must force others to provide for it. The provision takes others rights to property away.

Rights: To be left alone. To do what you want as long as you don't "fuck" with someone else.

It is healthcare and not health. Healthcare is a commodity, which is a service to be provided.

Health is relative to the individual and soley dependent on the desires and wants of the individual.

Because rights are innate. Healthcare is not innate. You have to gain this product from an outside source. To impose this as a right, you must force others to provide for it. The provision takes others rights to property away.

Rights: To be left alone. To do what you want as long as you don't "fuck" with someone else.

Eh... you are right.

It doesn't conflict with my initial reasoning for universal healthcare, though.

Eh... you are right.

It doesn't conflict with my initial reasoning for universal healthcare, though.


The taxes you have to take violate an individual right to property. Also, is it not a right to know how your money is being used. What if someone had a problem with abortion? I don't. But why should a person be forced to provide for something they don't believe in?

At the expense of the tax payer. A government run system would be abused and utilized as a political tool costing the public money and time.

An independent board of governors modelled after the Federal Reserve Bank would prevent the national service being turned into a political bargaining chip.

No. Don't need an inefficient bureaucracy deciding when and how I get health care. Think of it! A do-gooder politician decides that since we pay for your health care, we can tell you what to eat, drink, who to fuck, and the amount of exercise you get.

And I suppose an inefficient corporate bureaucracy governed by do-gooder executives ruled by profit margins rather than the consent of the public is a much better entity for deciding what to eat, drink, who to fuck, and the amount of exercise we get.

Long time reader, first time poster.

The government has about as much responsibility to provide healthcare as it does defending you from someone who breaks down your door at night. None. A person is responsible for their own actions, their own defence, their own legal papers. Why is this not true with something like health care? Why, if I am incapacitated, should all my neighbors be forced to pay for my care if I was not smart enough to save some money or buy some insurance for myself?
I think that maybe people advocate universal health care because it surpresses character traits they don't like. Traits like self-reliance, personal responsibility, and Individualism.

An independent board of governors modelled after the Federal Reserve Bank would prevent the national service being turned into a political bargaining chip.

This sounds like a command economy. How hard was it to get bread in the Soviet Union in the day?

As far as the federal reserve, the system causes a decrease in the value of money.

Long time reader, first time poster.

The government has about as much responsibility to provide healthcare as it does defending you from someone who breaks down your door at night. None. A person is responsible for their own actions, their own defence, their own legal papers. Why is this not true with something like health care? Why, if I am incapacitated, should all my neighbors be forced to pay for my care if I was not smart enough to save some money or buy some insurance for myself?
I think that maybe people advocate universal health care because it surpresses character traits they don't like. Traits like self-reliance, personal responsibility, and Individualism.

It's not a matter of being able to save or not. My parents worked their asses off and yet it was impossible for me to be insured until I entered university.

As long as you are incapable of performing your own tonsil surgery, the issue of self-reliance is more or less moot, and the only personality trait national health service would suppress is a low life expectancy.

No one should have to choose between personal dignity and tuberculosis.

This sounds like a command economy. How hard was it to get bread in the Soviet Union in the day?

As far as the federal reserve, the system causes a decrease in the value of money.

It's not a command economy; at no point did I say private health insurance providers should be eliminated from the picture. If you don't want your insurance from the government at a subsidised rate, you're welcome to get raped by a private provider.

And without the Fed, our money would be worthless. Even Hong Kong, the freest economy on the planet has a central bank and subsidised healthcare.

And I suppose an inefficient corporate bureaucracy governed by do-gooder executives ruled by profit margins rather than the consent of the public is a much better entity for deciding what to eat, drink, who to fuck, and the amount of exercise we get.

Well, a company does not have sole dominion over a person unless it becomes the government. That only happens if you join state and company.

The choice of the free market is far better than the random democratic process. I have many choices in the free market. In a democracy, I only have a few.

The taxes you have to take violate an individual right to property. Also, is it not a right to know how your money is being used.

I personally feel that the ability of the healthcare industry to squeeze the consumers is also a violation of property rights as well. Forcing someone into a contract under a period of duress is theft. The most important thing the government can provide is freedom from theft, so if tax money goes towards protection from theft it should be done.

What if someone had a problem with abortion? I don't. But why should a person be forced to provide for something they don't believe in?

I personally don't agree that the Iraqi war was an effective foreign policy move. Unfortunately, since I agree to uphold my end of the social contract I must help foot the bill.

Well, a company does not have sole dominion over a person unless it becomes the government. That only happens if you join state and company.

The choice of the free market is far better than the random democratic process. I have many choices in the free market. In a democracy, I only have a few.

In a democracy, your choices are dictated by your involvment in the political process. If you don't like the choices available to you (or a lack their of), it's your own fault. It's not random. In case you haven't noticed, you're actually supposed to vote for these people. Nothing random in that.

The joining of state and economy already happened with the creation of this country's military industrial complex, subsidised agricultural industry, and public utilities. Show me a loss of personal freedoms due to subsidised agriculture.

I think that maybe people advocate universal health care because it surpresses character traits they don't like. Traits like self-reliance, personal responsibility, and Individualism.

That's silly and just plain wrong. Are you saying that Brits aren't self-reliant and responsible? We are at least as individualistic as Americans.

Perhaps we just have a stronger sense of fairness and decency.

See? That's just as stupid and insulting as your remark.

I personally feel that the ability of the healthcare industry to squeeze the consumers is also a violation of property rights as well. Forcing someone into a contract under a period of duress is theft. The most important thing the government can provide is freedom from theft, so if tax money goes towards protection from theft it should be done.



I personally don't agree that the Iraqi war was an effective foreign policy move. Unfortunately, since I agree to uphold my end of the social contract I must help foot the bill.

Sometimes I need a car. After I wrecked my car a few months back, I was unable to get to work. This was a problem because I must be at work no matter what. So what did I do? I was under duress....The answer. I shoped around for a rent-a-car. In fact, I did not have to pay for one because my insurance payed for it. I made it to work! No fear. Yes, I got my car fixed after paying a deductable of $500.

One day I was starving. What did I do? I hunted around through a variety of choices. Restaurants and food stores beckoned to me with choices at resonable cost for my state of being!

Hmmm, social contract theory is bull.

I think that maybe people advocate universal health care because it surpresses character traits they don't like. Traits like self-reliance, personal responsibility, and Individualism.

The nature of the healthcare industry causes a market that limits self-reliance, personal responsibility, and individualism.

The nature of the healthcare industry causes a market that limits self-reliance, personal responsibility, and individualism.

Which is why we should start to deregulate the healthcare and insurance industries.

In a democracy, your choices are dictated by your involvment in the political process. If you don't like the choices available to you (or a lack their of), it's your own fault. It's not random. In case you haven't noticed, you're actually supposed to vote for these people. Nothing random in that.

The joining of state and economy already happened with the creation of this country's military industrial complex, subsidised agricultural industry, and public utilities. Show me a loss of personal freedoms due to subsidised agriculture.

I don't have a choice on how my money is spent. I did not vote for this. The government just takes it. It takes it by force. If I don't pay, the government will come after me. I have no choice from birth to death. This does not happen when I make a choice between what shoes to buy. I buy what I want at a price I agree to pay.

Sometimes I need a car. After I wrecked my car a few months back, I was unable to get to work. This was a problem because I must be at work no matter what. So what did I do? I was under duress....The answer. I shoped around for a rent-a-car. In fact, I did not have to pay for one because my insurance payed for it. I made it to work! No fear. Yes, I got my car fixed after paying a deductable of $500.

One day I was starving. What did I do? I hunted around through a variety of choices. Restaurants and food stores beckoned to me with choices at resonable cost for my state of being!

You were able to study the various options in both and make a reasonable decision that didn't harm you any more than you already were. The free market does not protect you from mishap, it protects you from theft. In the healthcare industry, there are many factors that lead to theft through coersion.

Hmmm, social contract theory is bull.

That simply will not do, so please elaborate.

Which is why we should start to deregulate the healthcare and insurance industries.

It is true that deregulation would also improve the situation. However, like I said before, the combination of:

1] The low level of competitors of healthcare providers and technology producers due to high start up costs and economies of scale

2] The rapid advancement of healthcare technology and medicines

3] Intellectual property rights

4] The necessity of medical treatment

creates a situation where the consumer is in a position of dire necessity with very few option to turn to. That is not a free market.

The answer. I shoped around for a rent-a-car. In fact, I did not have to pay for one because my insurance payed for it. I made it to work! No fear. Yes, I got my car fixed after paying a deductable of $500.


Hmmm, social contract theory is bull.

America has one of the highest rates of poverty in the western world. Literally millions of people would not be able to follow your analogy. Not all poor people are stupid and not all stupid people are poor. Overall, a national health service costs no more than a 'private' one and is bloody fairer. I don't understand why a nation of people that believe deeply in rights and responsibilities resists at least an attempt at social health care. Or, maybe I do. Perhaps the word socialism pops into peoples minds and that is a dirty word in the States.

I don't have a choice on how my money is spent. I did not vote for this. The government just takes it. It takes it by force. If I don't pay, the government will come after me. I have no choice from birth to death. This does not happen when I make a choice between what shoes to buy. I buy what I want at a price I agree to pay.
And at any rate, your political participation still dictates what sort of government you end up with. If you're anti-tax, vote for the most anti-tax candidate, vote libertarian, run for office, start an anti-tax political party. Also if you live in a state that uses referenda as I do, you have a choice in how your money is spent.

Honestly. Your lack of respect for the power of our democracy is troubling.

Where were all you guys for that Communism thread I started? It seems like you guys would enjoy that one.

Where were all you guys for that Communism thread I started? It seems like you guys would enjoy that one.

This discussion has nothing to do with communism. Why don't we keep humour out of this?

This discussion has nothing to do with communism. Why don't we keep humour out of this?
Because if we don't have a sense of humour we'll all go insane.

This discussion has nothing to do with communism. Why don't we keep humour out of this?

It is quite similar to a conversation about communism. It deals with wealth distribution and whether it is justifiable.

You were able to study the various options in both and make a reasonable decision that didn't harm you any more than you already were. The free market does not protect you from mishap, it protects you from theft. In the healthcare industry, there are many factors that lead to theft through coersion.



That simply will not do, so please elaborate.

Most individuals' states health are not on the brink. People are given a dx and a prognosis. They have time to study and find a second opinion for thier condition. Yes, this maybe hard but people make hard choices every day. I would suggest having variety in how you pay for health care. For a young healthy person, maybe he can go with having insurance that only covers costs above what he can pay or none at all. My brother is now 40 and he has never been sick. Since birth and a few immunizations, he has never used the healthcare system. But he still has insurance.

Social Contract: Individuals only have an obligation to themselves unless they agree to be bound by a contract. The contract can be either formal or informal. If they don't follow the contract, they suffer the results. The individual always consents.

America has one of the highest rates of poverty in the western world. Literally millions of people would not be able to follow your analogy. Not all poor people are stupid and not all stupid people are poor. Overall, a national health service costs no more than a 'private' one and is bloody fairer. I don't understand why a nation of people that believe deeply in rights and responsibilities resists at least an attempt at social health care. Or, maybe I do. Perhaps the word socialism pops into peoples minds and that is a dirty word in the States.


By who's standards? The government or a minion of the state? In reality the cost of health care will go up under government control.

In reality the cost of health care will go up under government control.

Proof?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa532.pdf

Read this study. Tells you all about socialized healthcare myths.

By who's standards? The government or a minion of the state? In reality the cost of health care will go up under government control.

According to the 2004 statistics, about 12 percent (about 30 million) of the population lives below the federal poverty line. The number has actually grown 5 million individuals since 2000.

And a conservative think-tank like the Cato Institute is no place for objective information.

It is quite similar to a conversation about communism. It deals with wealth distribution and whether it is justifiable.

That's true enough but every penny we give (and give it is) in tax is redistribution of wealth isn't it? We're a strong nation militarily but I'd rather see more of my money spent on health care than Trident nuclear missiles and warships and tanks, that's distributing my money into a deep, dark pot that I can't scrutinise.

According to the 2003 statistics, about 12 percent (about 30 million) of the population lives below the federal poverty line.

And a conservative think-tank like the Cato Institute is no place for objective information.

What's the source of the stats?

What's the source of the stats?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line_in_the_United_States

That's true enough but every penny we give (and give it is) in tax is redistribution of wealth isn't it? We're a strong nation militarily but I'd rather see more of my money spent on health care than Trident nuclear missiles and warships and tanks, that's distributing my money into a deep, dark pot that I can't scrutinise.

If you can't scrutinize that "deep, dark pot" now, how well can you do it when you throw more money in that pot. The military is ran by the government.

Should the government provide universal healthcare?

I don't mean to sound uncharitable, but the Universe is a really big place. I can't afford to have my tax dollars be spent fighting Gleeglob sickness on Antares XI. Take the Raelians for example: They spend 40+ percent of their health care budget on elective procedures like anal probing and cattle dissection. While that may be a priority for them, I feel it is not my responsibility to help pay for it.

rofl

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa532.pdf

Read this study. Tells you all about socialized healthcare myths.

No, it's extremely subjective and gives me facts that are untrue.

If you can't scrutinize that "deep, dark pot" now, how well can you do it when you throw more money in that pot. The military is ran by the government.
Good point, but do you think the annual federal budget might be a good indicator of the pot's contents?

What's the average poverty rate of the world? How about that rate in countries with socialized medicine. I'm looking but I can't find that info. Do you have a source?

If you can't scrutinize that "deep, dark pot" now, how well can you do it when you throw more money in that pot. The military is ran by the government.

I may not be making myself clear. The military budget of both our countries is notoriously difficult to make sense of. We're given basic stats but the government hides what it cares to. With our NHS, every penny is accounted for and well observed. Of course there is waste, the day any government department or big businees can do away with waste will be a bloody miracle but I like to see my money being well spent on medicine and good health care if I have to accept 'on faith' that it is also going to 'good causes' in the military.

Good point, but do you think the annual federal budget might be a good indicator of the pot's contents?

Sometimes, but I think those facts are often skewed.

Where's your self reliance? You elect politicians who tell you to retreat and call the police when attacked.

Where's your fairness and decency when you force someone to pay into something they don't want? If you want fairness and decency go and start up a charity into which people can donate of their own free will.

If you read my post, you will see it is directed at universal health care proponents. It is not directed at Brits (excepting those advocating universal health care), but I guess you've picked your battle.

Self reliance is in no way moot, it is at the core of the issue. Because you haven't enough money does not discharge you from the responsibility. Example: Here in the United States, our right to self defence has not (yet) been stripped away. However, if you cannot afford the best tool for the job, you either settle for something less expensive or go without. The government does not provide you with the tool or the money to buy it.

America has a higher poverty rate because we have a different standard of poverty. Half of our impoverished would count as middle class in any country in Europe.

A universal health care system may be bloodier, but not fairer. Where is the fairness in forcing someone to pay for someone else's operation? On top of that it would be unconstitutional (not that that matters in this day and age, look at some of the things we already have: foreign aid, gun control, paper money, a federal department of education)
Of course socialism creeps to mind, and all the government control that comes with it. Only those who want to control other people want government control, because that is the best way to control other people.

What's the average poverty rate of the world? How about that rate in countries with socialized medicine. I'm looking but I can't find that info. Do you have a source?
Got to admire a person who likes to be armed with the facts. :) I've been looking for the same stats myself.

The World Bank puts it at about 8 per cent, but the World Bank benchmark is different than that which we use in the U.S. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20194973~menuPK:34463~pagePK:64003015~piPK:64003012~theSitePK:4607,00.html As for the rate in countries with socialised medicine, I can't find stats. It's a mixed bag though. For example, Britain has socialised medicine and their poverty rates are low. But the People's Republic of China has public healthcare and their poverty is obviously crushing. Public healthcare is ultimately no magic bullet for poverty.

In the end, the thing to remember is that such statistics tend to be highly politicised things and therefore always flawed in the eyes of someone.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/pov-m14.shtml

Where's your self reliance? You elect politicians who tell you to retreat and call the police when attacked.

Where's your fairness and decency when you force someone to pay into something they don't want? If you want fairness and decency go and start up a charity into which people can donate of their own free will.

If you read my post, you will see it is directed at universal health care proponents. It is not directed at Brits (excepting those advocating universal health care), but I guess you've picked your battle.

Self reliance is in no way moot, it is at the core of the issue. Because you haven't enough money does not discharge you from the responsibility. Example: Here in the United States, our right to self defence has not (yet) been stripped away. However, if you cannot afford the best tool for the job, you either settle for something less expensive or go without. The government does not provide you with the tool or the money to buy it.

America has a higher poverty rate because we have a different standard of poverty. Half of our impoverished would count as middle class in any country in Europe.

A universal health care system may be bloodier, but not fairer. Where is the fairness in forcing someone to pay for someone else's operation? On top of that it would be unconstitutional (not that that matters in this day and age, look at some of the things we already have: foreign aid, gun control, paper money, a federal department of education)
Of course socialism creeps to mind, and all the government control that comes with it. Only those who want to control other people want government control, because that is the best way to control other people.

I want to 'control' nobody, I am happy that here, we have a fully functioning and accountable government. It's clear that you want zero governmental input into your life, fine, take to the hills.

You elect politicians who tell you to retreat and call the police when attacked.
What's that supposed to mean?

If you read my post, you will see it is directed at universal health care proponents. It is not directed at Brits (excepting those advocating universal health care), but I guess you've picked your battle.
I am a Brit and we have 'universal health care' and I'm bloody grateful for it. What's your point?

foreign aid, gun control, paper money, a federal department of education
The fact that you see these as negative shows that we could never agree in a million years. Which is sad because I'm not a commie and nor are over 90% of Brits. Socialism is at the heart of any and all decent government, it's a shame that it's a dirty word there.

Got to admire a person who likes to be armed with the facts. :) I've been looking for the same stats myself.

The World Bank puts it at about 8 per cent, but the World Bank benchmark is different than that which we use in the U.S. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20194973~menuPK:34463~pagePK:64003015~piPK:64003012~theSitePK:4607,00.html As for the rate in countries with socialised medicine, I can't find stats. It's a mixed bag though. For example, Britain has socialised medicine and their poverty rates are low. But the People's Republic of China has public healthcare and their poverty is obviously crushing. Public healthcare is ultimately no magic bullet for poverty.

In the end, the thing to remember is that such statistics tend to be highly politicised things and therefore always flawed in the eyes of someone.


Nice to see the world is getting wealthier! I think we can agree on that. At least I hope we can.

Nice to see the world is getting wealthier! I think we can agree on that. At least I hope we can.
Of course! I'm not completely stubborn.

Of course! I'm not completely stubborn.

Africa is not fairing too well. I read a report that subsides and tarrifs in Europe and the U.S. have added to the plight of Africa.

Africa is not fairing too well. I read a report that subsides and tarrifs in Europe and the U.S. have added to the plight of Africa.

Yeah, I've heard that too. Mostly the problem stems from the fact that the European Union and the U.S. heavily subsidise agricultural goods. It's an unfair and unnecessary safety net and it prevents African producers from getting any kind of foothold in the world market since they can't compete with our artificially low prices.

See, Calculatious, the thing you need to know about me is that fundamentally speaking, I have faith in markets. If I didn't I wouldn't be studying to be an economist. The thing is, I'm fully convinced that a compromise can be reached, in terms of society, where a minimum standard of living can coexist with responsible free market policies and social freedom. It worked for Hong Kong, Japan, and Britain, and I'm confident the same is possible in the States if we play our cards right. That doesn't mean I want to *hand* wealth out to anyone or redistribute it. I just feel like it's one of those base services, along with mass transportation like subways and busses.

I have a wonderful quote for this topic:

"Nationalized health care would have: the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the postal service, the failure rate of government schools, the enforcement tactics of the ATF, and all at Pentagon prices!" -- Albert V. Burns

For a good example of this, look at Canada.

50% of each province's budget goes to health care.

In ten years, that's estimated to rise to 85%.

And then we have striking doctors, striking nurses, striking support workers, enormous waiting times, and more and more laws restricting personal behaviours because "it will cost the health care system too much money, so we can't afford to let you do that."

You want to eliminate choice, bankrupt your country, and ruin quality of service? Set up universal health care.

What's that supposed to mean? You say you take responsibility but then elect politicians who tell you not to rely on yourselves, but on what they will provide for you.

What's my point? Not all universal health care advocates are Brits, and not all Brits are universal health care advocates.

Any decent government leaves its people alone to the extent it can while still protecting its citizens rights.
How can these not be a negative? Paper money is an insidious (yet ingenious) system of taxation. The government controls the value of the currency. Gold is inflation proof. Foreign aid is handing over our tax money to foreign governments to use as they will. Gun control starts from an irrational fear of weapons and disregard of property rights, and ends in disarmament of the populace, near exponential increases in crime rates, and genocides. Lastly but not leastly, a federal depatment of education usurps the parent's responsibility to educate their own children.
Not to mention that all of those four examples are unconstitutional (in the US).

You want to eliminate choice, bankrupt your country, and ruin quality of service? Set up universal health care.

Gosh, we here in the State seem to be able to accomplish all this without universal healthcare and still find time to piss off the rest of the world.

Gosh, we here in the State seem to be able to accomplish all this without universal healthcare and still find time to piss off the rest of the world.

And the way to rectify this is to make it worse?

It's past 1 AM local time so I'm leaving the debate for the night. Thank you all for actually debating with me instead of pulling an "OMG N00b!!!111" like I have had happen on so many other boards.

Do we have a right to healthcare? I think that I can agree with that.

We also have the right of free speech, but that doesn't mean that the government is going to buy the TV ad every time that I have something to say.

Do we have a right to healthcare? I think that I can agree with that.

We also have the right of free speech, but that doesn't mean that the government is going to buy the TV ad every time that I have something to say.

Interesting analogy. I'm not sure I quite agree with it.

But anyway. Maybe instead of national healthcare, how about some sort of limit on what private insurance providers can charge to people of certain economic brackets? I mean, there are differences between free enterprise and usury.

Interesting analogy. I'm not sure I quite agree with it.

But anyway. Maybe instead of national healthcare, how about some sort of limit on what private insurance providers can charge to people of certain economic brackets? I mean, there are differences between free enterprise and usury.

A little frugal spirit among people would also drop rates like crazy, too. For example, let's say that I was smart enough to save a few thousand dollars in case of emergency. Maybe enough to cover a broken leg, but not heart surgery. Let's also say that I got some health insurance that covered everything above that amount, say about $5000. This is opposed to the current common palns which have deductibles in the area of $100. I don't know for sure, but I would bet that the plan given above would run me very cheap. Plus, if I was very frugal, I know that I can save up that $5000 in 6 months or so. What's so wrong with just telling people to be smart aobut it instead of just relying on the government for everything?

A little frugal spirit among people would also drop rates like crazy, too. For example, let's say that I was smart enough to save a few thousand dollars in case of emergency. Maybe enough to cover a broken leg, but not heart surgery. Let's also say that I got some health insurance that covered everything above that amount, say about $5000. This is opposed to the current common palns which have deductibles in the area of $100. I don't know for sure, but I would bet that the plan given above would run me very cheap. Plus, if I was very frugal, I know that I can save up that $5000 in 6 months or so. What's so wrong with just telling people to be smart aobut it instead of just relying on the government for everything?

Nothing at all. In fact, I suppose what's needed then is a rethink of peoples' behaviour then. There probably ought to be mandatory high school classes in personal finance.

Well this article can be intersting to read http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/opinion/22krugman.html?ex=1271822400&en=c801ae54c0a01618&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
And just check up it on worldfactbook that USA have lower lifeexpectancy then for example my country Sweden even if they are the richest country in the world. That private and incurancebased healthcare is just good at getting the rich get really good healthcare to a small cost. While the cost for middleclass will probably be higher and really more for the poor and the people really needing it.

Well, isn't it a little ridiculous for the government to pay for nose jobs or liposuction?

Those wouldn't be classed as healthcare [well, reconstructive surgery would be included I suppose].

As for liposuction - the argument could be made that liposuction and weight loss programs are cheaper than long-term diabetes or cardio care in certain cases.

To a certain degree, yes, as long as the poor still get adequate healthcare.

This I quasi-agree with. The actual *healthcare* should be identical - if those with high incomes wish to "top up" their care, e.g. by paying for a nice room or more TV channels, fine.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Basically, providing free healthcare to everybody would be attempting to usurp God's authority. If somebody comes down with a certain illness (STDs for example) they are meant to suffer and quite possibly die, since they did something great to offend the Lord.

If you get AIDs, it's your just punishment for some sin that you did. Although it really would suck if you got it from a blood transfusion and you hadn't even fornicated or adulterated, then I'd feel really bad for you and want to get you help in anyway possible. But as for most people who get AIDs, I believe they deserve it.


Ironically, this guy actually provides the best argument FOR universal healthcare.

As long as access to healthcare is restricted in any way, sick people will be denied treatment by people like *that*.

I'm not Jesus, nor would I blaspheme and claim to be.


If God wants them healed, they'll be healed (Just as Christ healed those whom He wanted to heal). Just as He made it clear though, "your faith has healed you" or "your faith has saved you" He never said, "I have healed you" He let them know, their faith did it. You need to have faith to be healed.

If that were true, there would be a correlation between religion and health. There isn't. In fact, medicine works just as well regardless of one's "faith" or lack thereof.

Universal healthcare would be a great idea. Though you can imagine the taxes that people would have to pay for it. The worst to bear the burden should be the middle income taxpayers.

The rich would just donate their money through other means and avoid paying taxes for healthcare. Because which rich person goes to public hospitals?

The UK already has universal healthcare. Ireland approaches that level [hospital care is provided, primary care is means-tested for funding] and most European countries have varying levels of public healthcare.

Why would a free market be impossible? Different companies compete to provide healthcare. Sounds free-marketish to me.

I don't much like it when people scrimp on my coffee - I *definitely* don't want them to cut the same sorts of corners on my healthcare.

Healthcare is not a product.

By all means let people compete to provide non-therapeutic medicine such as cosmetic surgery, but leave actual healthcare as a regulated, controlled service.

To me, it's a mark of a civilised society that all are prepared to pay. If I'm ill, I go to the doctor and receive all the care I would get anywhere else and don't have to worry about the cost.

Before moving to the UK, I could say similar things about the Irish health service. The NHS was just the British equivalent as far as I was concerned.

It isn't. It urinates copiously all over the Irish system, which in turn appears to urinate copiously all over the US system.

Frankly, the thought that a person should be denied access to healthcare by virtue of their economic situation is abhorrent.

I also second Globes' assessment of the "christian" attitude. Lovely people.

Universal healthcare doesn't go far enough, as private companies will gouge the government at every turn. See: the Pentagon.
State-sponsored medicine is the way to go.

Yes, primarily because the publicly funded services on offer alleviate the real effects of that poverty.

I'd rather be poverty stricken in Europe than the US.



America has a higher poverty rate because we have a different standard of poverty. Half of our impoverished would count as middle class in any country in Europe.

The fact that you see these as negative shows that we could never agree in a million years. Which is sad because I'm not a commie and nor are over 90% of Brits. Socialism is at the heart of any and all decent government, it's a shame that it's a dirty word there.


[Hands Globes a cookie]

If the opposing argument had merit, the standard of living would be exponentially higher in the US compared to Europe. It isn't. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it's the other way round.

[QUOTE=Triskeloin] You say you take responsibility but then elect politicians who tell you not to rely on yourselves, but on what they will provide for you.
Two points there.
First, I take the responsibility to elect who I like and as I want my NHS, I vote for the party (labour) that will ensure its continuity and growth. I think I'm quite responsible thank you, I don't tell other people how to vote.
Second, Learn a bit about that which you want to pontificate. No politician tells me or us that we have to have a NHS, it was demanded by the people in popular elections after WW2. We have had ample opportunity to vote for parties that would scrap it but the British people (not noted for being 'soft' or needing looking after) vote again and again for the NHS. The government provides what it is asked to.

Not all universal health care advocates are Brits, and not all Brits are universal health care advocates
And?

Any decent government leaves its people alone to the extent it can while still protecting its citizens rights.
So you rely on your government to protect your rights do you? That's a dangerous thing to do.

Paper money is an insidious (yet ingenious) system of taxation. The government controls the value of the currency. Gold is inflation proof.
Ah, I see. You want us all to lug a barrow of gold around with us. How convenient. And if you think gold is inflation proof, you misunderstand economics.

Foreign aid is handing over our tax money to foreign governments to use as they will.
I think you'll find our governments are rather choosy about whom they give our money to. It often has little to do with need, more to do with politics and promoting trade.

Gun control starts from an irrational fear of weapons and disregard of property rights, and ends in disarmament of the populace, near exponential increases in crime rates, and genocides.
You don't perhaps think that's a rather sweeping statement?
I'm not sure I understand what an irrational fear of weapons is but gun control starts from a disregard of property rights? You're being too Americo-centric. We have extremely small gun ownership and most of that is illegal and like the US, only the criminal disregards private property rights.
Gun control brings a near expotential increase in crime? Our crime rate fluctuates over the years just like yours and our gun control is consistant. That's nonsense.
Gun control leads to genocide? I'm sorry, you need to study history and sociololgy as well as economics.

Lastly but not leastly, a federal depatment of education usurps the parent's responsibility to educate their own children.
Dear god, no wonder American children are so far behind the rest of us.

No, nothing beyond the most rudimentary, life-saving supplies. Subsidizing ANYTHING provides only short-term growth at the cost of long-term. And while we(the US) can subsidize some industries to the point where their supplies are cheap (like agriculture) for relatively low costs ($100 billion, IIRC), health care would be far more expensive.
If we implemented national health care in the United States at the per-person cost as we do medicare, every single American would have to increase his/her tax "bill" by 50%(as in, if you paid $2,000, you will have to pay $3,000 for universal health care)My employer pays almost $400 a month for my healthcare, $1000 a year is chump change comparitively.

Dear god, no wonder American children are so far behind the rest of us.

Yep - I'm bloody grateful my parents had no control over my education whatsoever.

Well, my mother did get to pick the paper to cover my books.

Yep - I'm bloody grateful my parents had no control over my education whatsoever.

Well, my mother did get to pick the paper to cover my books.


My mum was an evil mum, she made me cover mine in wallpaper, about half an inch thick.

We will simply not do it in the states. But we will continue to pounce Europe with our GDP.

Most individuals' states health are not on the brink. People are given a dx and a prognosis. They have time to study and find a second opinion for thier condition. Yes, this maybe hard but people make hard choices every day. I would suggest having variety in how you pay for health care. For a young healthy person, maybe he can go with having insurance that only covers costs above what he can pay or none at all. My brother is now 40 and he has never been sick. Since birth and a few immunizations, he has never used the healthcare system. But he still has insurance.

It does not matter if they are on the brink or not, people still need healthcare, and quite often they have very limited choices in where to turn and very limited choices in how to finance it. More than 500,000 middle class families in 1999 declared for bankruptcy due to medical bills.

Social Contract: Individuals only have an obligation to themselves unless they agree to be bound by a contract. The contract can be either formal or informal. If they don't follow the contract, they suffer the results. The individual always consents.

It is a reasonable choice to enter into the social contract to reap the benefits of society. People enter into society for the benefits, but they must also abide by the rules of the society. But it is true that if there was ever a forced contract, it would be the social contract.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have."

-Barry Goldwater

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have."

-Barry Goldwater

Read the initial post. I am not advocating a big government, only one that protects the freedom of consumers.

Read the initial post. I am not advocating a big government, only one that protects the freedom of consumers.

That was my way of saying "no, I don't support universal healthcare provided by the government."

No, it's outside the realm of what I believe government's role to be.

Read the initial post. I am not advocating a big government, only one that protects the freedom of consumers.
The freedom of consumers will be to purchase their healthcare from whomever they please, without the government nabbing their money to use on a service they will not.

I wouldn't support universal healthcare.

For emergency medial situations and those who are to poor too afford proper care, I would. Those above a given income level, who can support themselves, should support themselves.

Did you know that health care costs of serious illness is the cause of 50% of all personal bankruptcy in the United States?

We will simply not do it in the states. But we will continue to pounce Europe with our GDP.

Presumably that's "trounce".

I'd rather take the education and healthcare.

My employer pays almost $400 a month for my healthcare, $1000 a year is chump change comparitively.
You only pay $2,000 a year in federal taxes? :confused:

Did you know that health care costs of serious illness is the cause of 50% of all personal bankruptcy in the United States?
Well, there's more to it than just the health care costs. Often involved are factors such as being out of work due to the serious injury, previous overborrowing and the like.

The freedom of consumers will be to purchase their healthcare from whomever they please, without the government nabbing their money to use on a service they will not.

But there are situations where there are not adequate choices. Would you agree with a voucher system to allow people to choose family doctors?

having a monopoly gives economies of scale. a government owned healthcare monopoly would not intrinsically have the same profit-maximising motivations as a private firm, and hence will be less likely to act as a price-setter even in the single-firm market. thats 'protecting the interests of the consumer'.
by pooling your money together, you can achieve this public monopoly, enjoy the economies of scale, and all get more bang for your buck.


all it requires is giving to the system as a whole even when you're not using it. some people might have a problem with that and not want 'other people using their money'. the thing is you're making a long-term investment in the system - these people only see the short term part. in the long term, over your life, you're probably going to need that healthcare. so when you're able to contribute through taxes, you do; when you need the healthcare and, maybe, cannot contribute, then other people pay for you just as you paid for them. and because of the economies of scale reasons above, this public healthcare could be cheaper than private, too.

whats the problem? one of choice? the government could run the national health programme as a quasi-market with different firms, each with differing emphasis (on the family, the elderly, etc) and quality levels, and rid the system of the x-inefficiency that so often plagues public organisation (through the quasi-market)

having a monopoly gives economies of scale. a government owned healthcare monopoly would not intrinsically have the same profit-maximising motivations as a private firm, and hence will be less likely to act as a price-setter even in the single-firm market. thats 'protecting the interests of the consumer'.

Now see, we can agree on some things.

Now if only I could convince you that the suppression of any individual is bad.

You only pay $2,000 a year in federal taxes? :confused:
If you're referring to my federal taxes without Social Security and other things, just the pure tax, then I pay less than that a year.

But there are situations where there are not adequate choices. This is true. Such as a situation where a pharmaceutical company manufactures a new lifesaving drug that's the first of its kind. The choice is either: buy this or die. And of course that would trickle into whichever prescription plan you purchased.

All necessary health services should be provided, free of charge, to everyone. There. Easy.

Now see, we can agree on some things.

Now if only I could convince you that the suppression of any individual is bad.
nevar! down with the individual! :mad:

(j/k ;) )

It does not matter if they are on the brink or not, people still need healthcare, and quite often they have very limited choices in where to turn and very limited choices in how to finance it. More than 500,000 middle class families in 1999 declared for bankruptcy due to medical bills.


People need food, too. Should food be free? Most people also need cars. Lets give them away also. This idea of a commodity as a right stinks to high heaven of kumbaya socialism. What a sorry story of anti-capitalism. In the states, we have seen socialist systems like public education, socialist insecurity, and mediscare cost the tax payer trillions and fail the people. I don't want cradle to grave government and neither do most Americans.

All necessary health services should be provided, free of charge, to everyone. There. Easy.

All economies should be free markets, with everything for sale. Yes, even your momma.

People need food, too. Should food be free? Most people also need cars. Lets give them away also. This idea of a commodity as a right stinks to high heaven of kumbaya socialism. What a sorry story of anti-capitalism. In the states, we have seen socialist systems like public education, socialist insecurity, and mediscare cost the tax payer trillions and fail the people. I don't want cradle to grave government and neither do most Americans.

I am not saying the government should regulate commodities based on need, I am saying that the government should regulate commodities based on the level of competition to fill the need. Consumers can easily find suitable alternatives for any type of food or cars. They can't find suitable alternatives for some types of medicine and medical care. When the consumer cannot find suitable alternatives, prices are not fairly set. When prices are not fairly set, either the consumer is paying to much or the company is losing money. Companies wouldn't sale the medicine if they were losing money, so it is guaranteed that, if prices were not fairly set, that consumers are getting screwed.

I am not saying the government should regulate commodities based on need, I am saying that the government should regulate commodities based on the level of competition to fill the need. Consumers can easily find suitable alternatives for any type of food or cars. They can't find suitable alternatives for some types of medicine and medical care. When the consumer cannot find suitable alternatives, prices are not fairly set. When prices are not fairly set, either the consumer is paying to much or the company is losing money. Companies wouldn't sale the medicine if they were losing money, so it is guaranteed that, if prices were not fairly set, that consumers are getting screwed.

Hmmm, I'd much rather see generic companies play a more active role to provide choice. Government price setting is a bad way to go. Anyways drug prices are not the major drain on consumers. The bulk of the cost being hospitalization and care. What would happen if it was free?

Being a military man I know a little about how government run healthcare would work. Most of the care given in MTF's is free to active duty, dependents, and retirees. Because the care is free, the hospital is jamed packed with all sorts of people with all severity of problems. "If it is free, I'll over use the system." The system runs like a buffet. Cost to the military stands around ~36 billion dollars now with a projected increase of more than $30 billion in just a few years. The people who use it have no sense of responsibility for thier own health. They just want it free and fast.

Retired individuals utilize most of the healthcare resources because of this buffet behavior. Depending on the acuity of care, stays in the hospital may range from $2000-$9000.00 for a short period of time. (I'll try to find stats. Data from personal knowledge). Pharmacotherapy seems expensive but in relation to acute care it is not. This is true for drugs for the management of chronic conditions like hypertension and diabetes. The chronic nature of the disease process requires close monitoring by patient. Poor management by the patient results in progressive emergent situations that drives the costs up for the consumer.

In order to reduce costs, healthcare needs to be consumer driven. Reality dictates that the individual is responsible for his health.

I'd have to have some specifics before I decided yay or nay.

If there is a need, the market will fill it. The system fails when a wall is hit. The most likely culprit is over regulation and political manipulation by industry.

Just as Christ healed those whom He wanted to heal

Jesus healed whoever asked to be healed. He did not deny healing to anyone who asked, nor did He intervene when people did not request His healing.

Being a military man I know a little about how government run healthcare would work. Most of the care given in MTF's is free to active duty, dependents, and retirees. Because the care is free, the hospital is jamed packed with all sorts of people with all severity of problems. "If it is free, I'll over use the system." The system runs like a buffet. Cost to the military stands around ~36 billion dollars now with a projected increase of more than $30 billion in just a few years. The people who use it have no sense of responsibility for thier own health. They just want it free and fast.

Retired individuals utilize most of the healthcare resources because of this buffet behavior. Depending on the acuity of care, stays in the hospital may range from $2000-$9000.00 for a short period of time. (I'll try to find stats. Data from personal knowledge). Pharmacotherapy seems expensive but in relation to acute care it is not. This is true for drugs for the management of chronic conditions like hypertension and diabetes. The chronic nature of the disease process requires close monitoring by patient. Poor management by the patient results in progressive emergent situations that drives the costs up for the consumer.


By making this argument you must either accept that a significant portion of the population enjoys going to the hospital even though it provides no utility, or under the present system, people who need care are not receiving it because the price is prohibitive.

By making this argument you must either accept that a significant portion of the population enjoys going to the hospital even though it provides no utility, or under the present system, people who need care are not receiving it because the price is prohibitive.


Sadly though, in the US the former is probably true. People do enjoy medical care in the US. Having lived both here and in Europe, I am constantly shocked by the amount of medical therapy in the US seemingly healthy people procure as a matter of course.

Christ, you can't even turn on the TV without seeing a million commercials for pills that will help you out "because you feel a little down."

If we are going to have socialized health care, it is going to have to be rationed. (And old people are going to have to chill about how much treatment they get too.)

All economies should be free markets, with everything for sale. Yes, even your momma.
Aren't you a clever boy/girl then.
:rolleyes:

People need food, too. Should food be free? Most people also need cars. Lets give them away also. This idea of a commodity as a right stinks to high heaven of kumbaya socialism. What a sorry story of anti-capitalism. In the states, we have seen socialist systems like public education, socialist insecurity, and mediscare cost the tax payer trillions and fail the people. I don't want cradle to grave government and neither do most Americans.

Fine. Those of us in the developed world will continue to enjoy our high standard of living, safe in the knowledge that if we get sick in the morning, it's no biggie.

By making this argument you must either accept that a significant portion of the population enjoys going to the hospital even though it provides no utility, or under the present system, people who need care are not receiving it because the price is prohibitive.


Precisely. Either way he's using an inaccurate baseline.

Besides - overuse is supposed to be taken care of by triage staff anyway.

All necessary health services should be provided, free of charge, to everyone. There. Easy.

Agreed.