NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, here I am a guy from across the pond who is wondering why the USA doesn't have a National Health Service. IS it because of taxes or government interference? I'm curious to know. And you citizens of the USA and other nations without one, would you like a NHS or not? And to the nations who do have an NHS do you want to keep it or get rid of it?

Poll Coming

Because poor people do not deserve health care, the bums.

i'm from the UK and i say there's no question that the NHS should be kept here.

as for the US, the usual arguement i've seen is that it'd be impossible to organise in a country of that scale. however, there'd be nothing stopping the control being local state/county level and funding still coming from central govt, i say.

IS it because of taxes or government interference?
Yes.
[/not an American]

And to the nations who do have an NHS do you want to keep it or get rid of it?
:eek: Keep it!

Well, here I am a guy from across the pond who is wondering why the USA doesn't have a National Health Service. IS it because of taxes or government interference? I'm curious to know. And you citizens of the USA and other nations without one, would you like a NHS or not? And to the nations who do have an NHS do you want to keep it or get rid of it?

Poll Coming

Because a lot of people think that the private sector should take care of it.

There is a limited version of a public health system, for the poor (Medicaid) and the elderly (Medicare).

Naughty Hot Sluts?

Because it would bankrupt the US, just as it has done to various European countries before reforms were enacted. Then there's the problem of waiting lists, not enough equipment, and quality issues.

Oh, and the most important: it is nothing more than theft and slavery. To forcibly take money from people and put it toward a fund to allow others to have something resembling access to healthcare is stealing and the enslavement of those who had the money forcibly taken no matter what guise or supposed "humanitarian" face might be put on it.

It's because good Christians don't believe they should have to help other people through proxy.

To forcibly take money from people and put it toward a fund to allow others to have something resembling access to healthcare is stealing and the enslavement of those who had the money forcibly taken no matter what guise or supposed "humanitarian" face might be put on it.
Because it's not like the people giving money will ever need healthcare or medicine or anything. Medical shit costs alot less when its split 300 million fucking ways.

Australian, we have an equivalent to the NHS, most definitely keep it.

Because it's not like the people giving money will ever need healthcare or medicine or anything. Medical shit costs alot less when its split 300 million fucking ways.

Hush, now. Taxes that go towards the military and death = good. Taxes that go toward healthcare and preservation of life = bad.

Medicare nad Medicaid are national programs that are administered by the States. They are specifically for the poor and elderly.

Is that what you mean by NHS? Or are you refering to Socialized healthcare for everyone?

I think the introduction of Naughty Hot Sluts via a national income tax would be largely supported by any government.

Because it would bankrupt the US, just as it has done to various European countries before reforms were enacted. Then there's the problem of waiting lists, not enough equipment, and quality issues.

Oh, and the most important: it is nothing more than theft and slavery. To forcibly take money from people and put it toward a fund to allow others to have something resembling access to healthcare is stealing and the enslavement of those who had the money forcibly taken no matter what guise or supposed "humanitarian" face might be put on it.

Can't the same priciple be applied to other public services, say the police? Some people will never need protection or help from the police, some may need it all their lives.

Well, here I am a guy from across the pond who is wondering why the USA doesn't have a National Health Service. IS it because of taxes or government interference? I'm curious to know. And you citizens of the USA and other nations without one, would you like a NHS or not? And to the nations who do have an NHS do you want to keep it or get rid of it?

Poll Coming
Apparently Americans are content with stuffing billions of dollars into the pockets of insurance agents and nefarious lawyers rather then investing that money into a universal health care system. :eek:

The NHS makes baby Jesus cry.

The NHS makes baby Jesus cry.

Baby Jesus doessn't like Naughty Hot Sluts?


Just wait till he turns into Adolescent Jesus.

Well, here I am a guy from across the pond who is wondering why the USA doesn't have a National Health Service. IS it because of taxes or government interference? I'm curious to know. And you citizens of the USA and other nations without one, would you like a NHS or not? And to the nations who do have an NHS do you want to keep it or get rid of it?

Poll Coming

I worked in the paper end of health care

every time the government put in a "reform" to help make health care more affordable it would work for a year or two and then make health care even less affordable then it was before

somewhere between half and 60% of the cost of doing health care buisness in this country is government compliance costs

which is why some doctors are now opting out and providing people with ludicrously cheap health care

more government will only make it worse

Baby Jesus doessn't like Naughty Hot Sluts?

Of course he doesn't, seeing as his mother was one.

Because it would bankrupt the US, just as it has done to various European countries before reforms were enacted. Then there's the problem of waiting lists, not enough equipment, and quality issues.

Oh, and the most important: it is nothing more than theft and slavery. To forcibly take money from people and put it toward a fund to allow others to have something resembling access to healthcare is stealing and the enslavement of those who had the money forcibly taken no matter what guise or supposed "humanitarian" face might be put on it.

everyone needs healthcare at one point in their lives or another. to take a long term view over one's lifetime, your paying for others to use it will be repaid when you may use the service with others paying for you. a narrow or short-termist approach will obviously seem unfair.

good health is a necessity of life and (should be) a human right. as such it is the government's responsibility to provide free healthcare for citizens at the point of consumption.


issues to do with practicality are just that... practical issues. the idea and requirement is sound, and problems (such as scale of the country or cost issues you outlined) can be dealt with as problems, and fixed in time.

The biggest problem in the US is that the Federal Government has a "One Size Fits All" approach. So, rather than let the hospitals or the medical community dictate its own costs (free market), the US government, thru its Medicare and Medicaid programs have caused the cost of medical care to sky rocket.

For example, many years ago, the average cost of an ambulance transport in the area of the US where I lived was about $90.00. Then, Medicare decided that they were going to drop their reimbursement rate to 50% of the costs. That meant that everyone was going to loose. However, the Feds said that if you are taking Medicare patients, you cannot bill them or bill a third party. Therefore, the medical community as a whole had no choice but to raise their charges by about 100% just to be able to break even.

Our Federal Government has put so many restrictions and demands so much red tape when dealing with Medicare, that it restricts a lot of doctors and providers as to what they can and cannot do.

And another example of National Health Care would be my neighbor Canada. Their NHS started to close hospitals because they did not have enough persons using them, specially in the more rural areas. Where I live, there is a large amount of nurses from Canada, and they all say the same thing. In order to save money, they are cutting back on the hospitals available for specialty procedures. That means that you may have to travel several hours for a heart attack or a stroke treatment.

In the US, almost all of the EMS Paramedic systems are local or county government ran, or volunteer systems. If you have a medical emergency, you will be transported to the nearest medical facility that can handle your situation. Neither EMS nor the hospital can deny you treatment for lack of money to pay on the spot, or lack of medical insurance. You will be treated, stabilized, and sent home. Then, the EMS and the hospital will worry about billing you for the costs.

Can't the same priciple be applied to other public services, say the police? Some people will never need protection or help from the police, some may need it all their lives.
Which is why police service should be privately run.

everyone needs healthcare at one point in their lives or another.
So what? It's not the responsibility of others to provide it. Period. To say that it the responsibility of others is to endorse slavery.


good health is a necessity of life and (should be) a human right.
Good health is something to be striven for, but please don't confuse health with healthcare service.


as such it is the government's responsibility to provide free healthcare for citizens at the point of consumption.
No, that's just attempting to wallpaper over the fact that you're endorsing slavery.

Which is why police service should be privately run.

Ok, well at least you're consistent.

I think a privately run police force would very quickly turn into a organised crime like protection racket, but that's just me.

It's got a lot to do with the American identity and culture. By and large, we Americans are not gung ho for a National Healthcare System, in fact, Emmanuel Rahm, the guy who wrote the Democrats platform for the 2006 election said as much. If I recall the quote correctly, he said there is no political will or desire for a national health insurance scheme, and as such, it is not a campaign issue for the democrats.

It's got a lot to do with the American identity and culture. By and large, we Americans are not gung ho for a National Healthcare System, in fact, Emmanuel Rahm, the guy who wrote the Democrats platform for the 2006 election said as much. If I recall the quote correctly, he said there is no political will or desire for a national health insurance scheme, and as such, it is not a campaign issue for the democrats.

I just seems a little daft for an advanced country to not have universal healthcare based on a persons ability to contribute to the whole rather than having poor people unable to get healthcare simply because they are poor. It's not as if the NI contributions in the UK are particularly irksome and probably cost alot less than health insurance in the US because everyone has to pay it.

So what? It's not the responsibility of others to provide it. Period. To say that it the responsibility of others is to endorse slavery.



Good health is something to be striven for, but please don't confuse health with healthcare service.



No, that's just attempting to wallpaper over the fact that you're endorsing slavery.

Personaly I would equate it more with extortion then slavery ... as with that sort of setup the requirement to work would not be there but the tap on resources if you do work.

But I supose extortion is less emotive then slavery

I just seems a little daft for an advanced country to not have universal healthcare based on a persons ability to contribute to the whole rather than having poor people unable to get healthcare simply because they are poor. It's not as if the NI contributions in the UK are particularly irksome and probably cost alot less than health insurance in the US because everyone has to pay it.
We do have public healthcare for poor people. The uninsured are mainly in the middle class, who for some reason or another, do not have it.

I just seems a little daft for an advanced country to not have universal healthcare based on a persons ability to contribute to the whole rather than having poor people unable to get healthcare simply because they are poor. It's not as if the NI contributions in the UK are particularly irksome and probably cost alot less than health insurance in the US because everyone has to pay it.

Bold is mine.

That bold is the misconception.

We have a system whereby the poor can receive healthcare. What the debate is about in this country now, is that those who aren't "poor enough" to qualify for the programs and aren't covered by employers insurance are opting to forego healthcare because of it's costs.

I do not believe forced socialization of medicine is the solution. I do believe some type of reform is necessary to help the uninsured. And, for the record, I do not favor forced insurance programs that Mass. is trying right now, either.

Because of the Red Scare and hence socialists who might have suggested this being booted out of the land.

It probably should, administered by the various states, mind.

Apparently Americans are content with stuffing billions of dollars into the pockets of insurance agents and nefarious lawyers rather then investing that money into a universal health care system. :eek:

Damn straight, because when I pay thousands of dollars to the insurance company to cover a fraction of my doctor's cost, I'm not giving the money to be used for other people, possibly, and therefore it's the best choice!

which is why some doctors are now opting out and providing people with ludicrously cheap health care
Bullshit.

Bold is mine.

That bold is the misconception.

We have a system whereby the poor can receive healthcare. What the debate is about in this country now, is that those who aren't "poor enough" to qualify for the programs and aren't covered by employers insurance are opting to forego healthcare because of it's costs.

I do not believe forced socialization of medicine is the solution. I do believe some type of reform is necessary to help the uninsured. And, for the record, I do not favor forced insurance programs that Mass. is trying right now, either.

So poor middle class people who can't afford health insurance don't get healthcare?

Two reasons I can think of.

1) Taxes, that's the big one.
2) The government has no business having any access to my doctor, I'd rather big brother not have a convenient way of see my medical records.

Well i look at Nationalized medicine in this way. The wealthy of Canada come to the US for advanced medical care. I want to live in the country that citizens of other countries want go to when they "really" want to get better.

So what? It's not the responsibility of others to provide it. Period. To say that it the responsibility of others is to endorse slavery.

Slavery? That is the most ridiculous comparison I have ever heard.
Overly exaggerate much?

So poor middle class people who can't afford health insurance don't get healthcare?
Absolutely. And that's growing population in the US.

Personaly I would equate it more with extortion then slavery ... as with that sort of setup the requirement to work would not be there but the tap on resources if you do work.

But I supose extortion is less emotive then slavery
Extortion is more of you pay so that something won't be done to you/loved ones. Slavery is more appropos.

Because of the Red Scare and hence socialists who might have suggested this being booted out of the land.

It probably should, administered by the various states, mind.

That's how I feel about it. I want a universal healthcare system, but I don't want the US government to administer it. Uncle Sam isn't exactly known for spending his money in a sensible fashion.

It's not as if the NI contributions in the UK are particularly irksome and probably cost alot less than health insurance in the US because everyone has to pay it.

It does. America already pays more per capita for what healthcare they do provide than any nation with NHS and people in America pay out the ass for their rip off insurance policies. Americans should just pick their favorite corporation and mail them money for no reason, you'd get the same bang for your buck.

That's how I feel about it. I want a universal healthcare system, but I don't want the US government to administer it. Uncle Sam isn't exactly known for spending his money in a sensible fashion.
I don't know what kind of idiot trusts the state government to be any more fiscally responsible or competent than the federal government. I know for damn sure the Alabama government isn't.

Well i look at Nationalized medicine in this way. The wealthy of Canada come to the US for advanced medical care. I want to live in the country that citizens of other countries want go to when they "really" want to get better.
So basically as long as people with stupendous amounts of money can get very rare surgery etc. done in the US, it shows that Canada's healthcare system is crap, yeah?

Because I'm sure a poor person from the US would much, much rather have the Canadian system than vice versa.

Slavery? That is the most ridiculous comparison I have ever heard.
Only if you don't know what slavery is.

Deny reality much?

That's how I feel about it. I want a universal healthcare system, but I don't want the US government to administer it. Uncle Sam isn't exactly known for spending his money in a sensible fashion.
Indeed, seeing as the cretins at the top said 'no limit on drug costs!', which almost every state would disagree with in this new system, methinks.

Extortion is more of you pay so that something won't be done to you/loved ones. Slavery is more appropos.

Is that not what they are doing? Pay taxes or go to jail?

Absolutely. And that's growing population in the US.

Thats the point I'm trying to make, I used the phrase poor people and two posters decided to split hairs by saying that it's ok because it's only the poor middle class who are being denied a basic human right due to their financial status.

Seriously, NI cost less than health insurance. A NHS in the US would probably cost less for the populus in the long term.

It does. America already pays more per capita for what healthcare they do provide than any nation with NHS and people in America pay out the ass for their rip off insurance policies.
Ever wondered why that is? Hint: it's not because of evil, greedy capitalists. Rather, it's because of the government intrustion.

Only if you don't know what slavery is.

Deny reality much?

Not as much as you overly exaggerate and create hyperbolous comparisons.

Extortion is more of you pay so that something won't be done to you/loved ones
So like what private insurance companies do?

Is that not what they are doing? Pay taxes or go to jail?
Partly, yes. But in the context of UHS, it's enslavement. Taxation qua is extortion/theft.

So like what private insurance companies do?
Indeed. It's all rather worrying tbh.

Ever wondered why that is? Hint: it's not because of evil, greedy capitalists. Rather, it's because of the government intrustion.

How does that make sense?

'The US pays more for healthcare than other countries where the healthcare system in administerd by the government due to government intrusion'

Do you read what you write before posting?

Partly, yes. But in the context of UHS, it's enslavement. Taxation qua is extortion/theft.

I dont see how taxes associated with UHS is any more enslavement then any other taxes.

Not as much as you overly exaggerate and create hyperbolous comparisons.
If only you could prove that statement.


So like what private insurance companies do?
Only if you don't think there's any difference between giving your money to a thief who has a gun to your head and giving your money to the cashier at McDonalds.

I don't know what kind of idiot trusts the state government to be any more fiscally responsible or competent than the federal government. I know for damn sure the Alabama government isn't.

The Michigan government is most certainly more fiscally responsible than the Federal government. As for more competent that's up for debate, but Lansing is a hell of a lot easier to bitch at effectively than Washington is.

I dont see how taxes associated with UHS is any more enslavement then any other taxes.
I'm just speaking of the concept of UHS in general, taken apart from the rest. To demand that some work for the benefit of others and be denied their own property is slavery.

If only you could prove that statement.



Only if you don't think there's any difference between giving your money to a thief who has a gun to your head and giving your money to the cashier at McDonalds.

Again you are describing taxation as mugging or extortion ... which is a much better but less emotive analogy.

Partly, yes. But in the context of UHS, it's enslavement. Taxation qua is extortion/theft.
It's not enslavement at all.

The benefits of having a good and quite cheap healthcare system are enormous - I had a thorocatory (that may be the wrong spelling, don't brutalise me for that) done on me at the age of six.

In the US that would probably cost thousands of dollars, and my insurance company might have declined it and told me to get some form of cheaper, if temporary, solution like super-strength antibiotics.

How does that make sense?
How doesn't it?


'The US pays more for healthcare than other countries where the healthcare system in administerd by the government due to government intrusion'

Do you read what you write before posting?
Yes. Do you?

Now what exactly about my statement do you not understand? I want an exact answer, not something nebulous.

Again you are describing taxation as mugging or extortion ... which is a much better but less emotive analogy.
I'm not understanding what problem you have with me calling UHS "slavery".

I'm just speaking of the concept of UHS in general, taken apart from the rest. To demand that some work for the benefit of others and be denied their own property is slavery.

But they lack the “Demand work part” in this case, they demand the money but they are not forcing the work.

Now if they were forcing people to take jobs in order to pay for others healthcare then I probably would agree with your analogy much more


I am not saying it was right but I find it a bit suspicious trying to equate everything to slavery like so many people are apt to do, almost becoming a godwin-esque sort of analogy

I'm not understanding what problem you have with me calling UHS "slavery".

Overly emotive commonly used analogy that does not fit the situation. It’s a silly very common exaggeration that people seem to be doing more and more. Maybe it is just a pet peve and maybe it is my 60 hours at work without sleep that is getting to me… no idea lol

It's not enslavement at all.
Except that it is. The concept is to demand that some work for the benefit of others--that they have their property taken, their effort used--for the benefit of others without any guarantee of recompense or consentual contract. That's slavery, my dear.

Well, here I am a guy from across the pond who is wondering why the USA doesn't have a National Health Service. IS it because of taxes or government interference? I'm curious to know. And you citizens of the USA and other nations without one, would you like a NHS or not? And to the nations who do have an NHS do you want to keep it or get rid of it?

Poll Coming

Because Americans hate taxes. Plus, NHS is a socialist policy, and as such, socialists are viewed as the next best thing to commies. Anything to avoid being a commie.

If only you could prove that statement.
A UHS is nothing like slavery at all...
Only if you don't think there's any difference between giving your money to a thief who has a gun to your head and giving your money to the cashier at McDonalds.
You're giving money to both for a service, one of which is not very often, but one that you really need (i.e. not getting shot in the faceand dying), and is a very large amount - much like a non-UHS style of medical care.

The McDonalds of the healthcare world is UHS. You pay a bit of money out now and then, and get something that you need at the same time, which is having no worry whatsoever about the cost of healthcare.



The right to life is the highest on the list of Human Rights. If you're putting a price tag on that, it's pretty horrible, in my opinion.

How doesn't it?



Yes. Do you?

Now what exactly about my statement do you not understand? I want an exact answer, not something nebulous.

I want to understand how you can blame a high cost of healthcare per capita in the US that counties with universal healh systems on government intrusion when the countires with UHS are cheaper with much higher levels of government intrusion.

This actually proves the opposite of what you said, higher levels of goverment intrusion actually make healthcare cheaper.

Except that it is. The concept is to demand that some work for the benefit of others--that they have their property taken, their effort used--for the benefit of others without any guarantee of recompense or consentual contract. That's slavery, my dear.

Who is requiring work from someone? Technically they are not requiring work just money if you happen to work.

Overly emotive commonly used analogy that does not fit the situation.
But it fits perfectly. Is the situation consentual? No. Is there a demand placed on others who have no guarantee of recompense? Yes.

That's slavery in my book. And it's time that the so-called "do-gooders" realized it.

Who is requiring work from someone?
The general system itself. Can't get the money if work isn't performed, whether now or in the past.

At least, not unless the government wants to become like that in Zimbabwe with hyperinflation.

Except that it is. The concept is to demand that some work for the benefit of others--that they have their property taken, their effort used--for the benefit of others without any guarantee of recompense or consentual contract. That's slavery, my dear.
Here - I'm going to use this stupid fucking smiley, which I rarely do, because it irritates me a bit, but you've driven me to it - :headbang:

I hope you're fucking happy.



For crying out loud, a UHS provides healthcare FOR ALL, not just for the poor as you've seemed to skew it. Everyone chips in a bit and everyone gets some use out of it. Everyone's in the same boat.

If you are some kind of moron and think that slightly higher taxation all around is 'slavery', then whatever... there's little point arguing with you if that's the case.

Only if you don't think there's any difference between giving your money to a thief who has a gun to your head and giving your money to the cashier at McDonalds.
Isn't that ironic? Accusing me of not knowing what things mean then obviously not knowing what extortion is. Let me help you out. Robbery and extortion arn't really the same thing. Go to Google, type define:extortion

I want to understand how you can blame a high cost of healthcare per capita in the US that counties with universal healh systems on government intrusion when the countires with UHS are cheaper with much higher levels of government intrusion.
Because the governments there are artificially creating a price structure in the absence of a real market for health care. In the US, the government is both hamstringing healthcare providers and giving some very nice deals, as well as managing a form of socialized medicine. If the US government got out of the way, prices would fall.

Isn't that ironic? Accusing me of not knowing what things mean then obviously not knowing what extortion is.
Except that I do.

Because the governments there are artificially creating a price structure in the absence of a real market for health care. In the US, the government is both hamstringing healthcare providers and giving some very nice deals, as well as managing a form of socialized medicine. If the US government got out of the way, prices would fall.
Most governments don't have their leaders in the pocket of the pharmacuticals industry, though. If the US government was actually running this system itself, prices would go down as the government could order massive bulk stocks of certain treatments, as well as making sure that hospitals ran cost-effectively and provided a good level of service to all...

Because the governments there are artificially creating a price structure in the absence of a real market for health care. In the US, the government is both hamstringing healthcare providers and giving some very nice deals, as well as managing a form of socialized medicine. If the US government got out of the way, prices would fall.

Nice theory, do you have any actual proof that this is the case. Incidentally, the UK has both a NHS and private healthcare, the cost of a private procedure is alot higher than on the NHS, even for elective procedures.

Except that I do.

Except that you don't. You think robbery is extortion. They are related but are not the same thing.

For crying out loud, a UHS provides healthcare FOR ALL, not just for the poor as you've seemed to skew it.
No, that's what the UHS people say. Without the UHS, the poor would not have health care. Every UHS supporter tells me that. Every. Single. One. Thus, the "poor" are being made better relative to the ex ante position while the "middle class" and "rich" are being made worse off relative to the ex ante position.

And if you think a nonconsentual system like that isn't slavery, then you're hopeless.

Don't y'all know, Red Soviet Pinko-Commies have socialized Medicine, You aren't a Pinko-Commie are you?

But all seriousness aside, I wish we had an NHS in the good ole U.S. but we'd have to manage it better than i think the U.S. government is capable of.

Except that you don't.
Except that I do.

Nice theory, do you have any actual proof that this is the case. Incidentally, the UK has both a NHS and private healthcare, the cost of a private procedure is alot higher than on the NHS, even for elective procedures.
Proving my point perfectly.

Most governments don't have their leaders in the pocket of the pharmacuticals industry, though.
Which is one reason why there shouldn't be governments.


If the US government was actually running this system itself, prices would go down as the government could order massive bulk stocks of certain treatments, as well as making sure that hospitals ran cost-effectively and provided a good level of service to all...
Like Canada. Where an elderly woman had to wait a year and a half to have her hip replaced.

Really good level of service there.

Really good way to manage costs.

Proving my point perfectly.

How does that prove your point? The NHS is cheaper than the private sector. I would like a decent answer and not some nebulous ramblings please.

I am from the US and believe we should enact a NHS. I don’t have the time to give this the response it deserves, but I will throw these ideas out fwiw…

I believe it hasn’t happened to this point, fundamentally, because the business of health insurance is far too profitable. Keeping health care costs high supports that part of our economy. In 2004, 16% of our GDP was spent on health care. http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml In the 10 years that I worked for a health insurance company, medical care costs, insurance premiums, and copayments/coinsurance costs went up. Financially the company did quite well. Even with the “oppressive government regulation” of the industry. Note the number of Blue Cross Blue Shield plans that have changed status from not-for-profit to for profit organizations since the BCBS Association allowed it in 1994. http://www.consumersunion.org/conv/bcbs.html

I do believe that there is increasingly a climate of willingness to look at implementation of a NHS.
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/recommendations/finalrecs.php

Anecdotally, fully 50% of the county taxes I pay go to support local Medicaid. That’s about $1500 a year that I pay directly towards Medicaid costs, in addition to my payroll taxes that support Medicare. Frankly, I’d prefer that those taxes go to better use to support a larger percentage of the population, rather than simply a narrow section of it.

Also anecdotally, that $90 charge for an ambulance service quoted several pages back is well below the copayment I had on the recent ambulance charge I incurred when my son was taken to the hospital last month. To go a total of, oh say 7 or 8 miles to the hospital, the charge was over $900 and I had a $250 copayment. Certainly the quality of service we received was excellent, and we are fortunate to have decent insurance, and $250 is not a hardship for me to pay out of pocket, but I am not so ignorant to recognize that this is not true for many Americans.

Fundamentally, I also believe that if we, as a society, don’t bother to take care of the health of our citizens, what the hell good are we anyway, but most people need to see the cost side of things, because they can’t be bothered to care about people.

The right to life is the highest on the list of Human Rights. If you're putting a price tag on that, it's pretty horrible, in my opinion.

Summary: Baawaknights is putting a pricetag on human life because he wants to save some money....Hmmm...What could that be compared to?

It's not the same as slavery at all, but the above statement does seem an awefully like a black-and-white exaggeration to ignore the details type arguement, don't you think? *cough*Baawaknights*cough*

A UHS is nothing like slavery at all...
Oh but it's everything like slavery.

Unless, of course, you're willing to say that a private system isn't heartless, cruel, and unfair to the poor. Because every UHS supporter I've ever talked to gives me that emotive line of bullshit. I just like to turn it around and shove it right back at them to see how they like it.


You're giving money to both for a service,
A thief isn't a service.


one of which is not very often, but one that you really need (i.e. not getting shot in the faceand dying), and is a very large amount - much like a non-UHS style of medical care.
So you think that paying someone to not violate your rights is a good service? Are you mental?


The McDonalds of the healthcare world is UHS.
No, the thief of the healthcare world is the government and, by extension, the UHS.



The right to life is the highest on the list of Human Rights.
The right to life does not include the right to demand the property of someone else in order to satisfy your healthcare needs. Not unless you're willing to endorse slavery. Are you willing to do that?

Summary: Baawaknights is putting a pricetag on human life because he wants to save some money....Hmmm...What could that be compared to?
Nothing, since that's not what is happening.

How does that prove your point? The NHS is cheaper than the private sector.
I explained it. Remember: artificial price system. Hamstringing. Regulations.

I would like you to learn to read, and not complain because you're not familiar with the concepts involved.

listening to people in here would have you believe that we are stepping over piles of bodies in the streets of poor folks that couldnt get the treatment they needed because they were too poor or didnt have health insurance.

We have illegal immigrants here that get better care, faster, than most peole in other modern countries. Our emergency rooms treat people wether or not they have any coverage-or a real name.

I've never NOT had coverage for one day in 39 years of life. My father's job covered my whole family til age 18 or as long as we were students. Every job I've had has had insurance.
My insurance has always covered 80% of the bills. And what they didnt cover, I found I could negotiate a lower amount to pay or make payments.
And I have had some whopping sugical/hospital/lab bills.

No- I'll stay with my coverage. I dont need to be on a wating list for an MRI or Cat Scan- If I need one, I can get it today or tommorrow.
And I'll have my country remain on the cutting edge of medicine and treatment.

Who is flocking to other countries for advanced procedures?

No, that's what the UHS people say. Without the UHS, the poor would not have health care. Every UHS supporter tells me that. Every. Single. One. Thus, the "poor" are being made better relative to the ex ante position while the "middle class" and "rich" are being made worse off relative to the ex ante position.

And if you think a nonconsentual system like that isn't slavery, then you're hopeless.

Would you rather have the 'poor' dying in the street or given access to a free decent level of health care. I have first hand experience of the NHS in the UK and can only use 2 words to describe it - OVERWORKED and BRILLIANT

Because it would bankrupt the US, just as it has done to various European countries before reforms were enacted. Then there's the problem of waiting lists, not enough equipment, and quality issues.

Oh, and the most important: it is nothing more than theft and slavery. To forcibly take money from people and put it toward a fund to allow others to have something resembling access to healthcare is stealing and the enslavement of those who had the money forcibly taken no matter what guise or supposed "humanitarian" face might be put on it.

This isn't even a good lie.

The reason the US doesn't have an NHS is because nationalised healthcare is closer to communism than they care to go.

Of course - the fact that nationalised healthcare does NOTequate to communism is a bridge too far for most people to cross.


Any other excuse they come up with... tax burdens, private sector responisibility, free markets... are just so much bullshit, and should be considered as nothing BUT 'excuses'.

Except that I do.

Define extortion.

Of course he doesn't, seeing as his mother was one.

Are you kidding? I was hoping you'd risen from this type of filth.

Proving my point perfectly.

i think it actually proves the point that the US govt should be supplying healthcare as it would benefit their citizens and lower their costs.

it is evident though that whatever half-way house currently employed by the US govt doesn't help at all, however. but again, that's a problem with the practicality of delivering government aid to subsidise healthcare.... it does not mean that subsidising healthcare for citizens is a bad idea or cannot be done.

listening to people in here would have you believe that we are stepping over piles of bodies in the streets of poor folks that couldnt get the treatment they needed because they were too poor or didnt have health insurance.


My father in law dies because his cancer was too advanced to treat by the time it was discovered.

He would have seen a doctor a LOT earlier if we had Nationalised Healthcare, because it wouldn't have bankrupted him to do so.

People really are dying because of the American version of public healthcare. The fact that some illegal immigrants know how to work the system is irrelevent... I am a legal, and I don't know how - and I sure as HELL don't get my bills paid for, for me. I only wish.

I explained it. Remember: artificial price system. Hamstringing. Regulations.

I would like you to learn to read, and not complain because you're not familiar with the concepts involved.

Both systems are operating under the same restrictions in the UK yet one costs more than the other. Oddly enough it is the one that is being run for profit that costs more than the one that isn't.

Again I would like you to explain how government inteference at the point of consumption makes healthcare more expensive. The evidence in the UK definatly points to the opposite and unfortunatly this fact trumps your theory on artificial price systems et. al..

Except that it is. The concept is to demand that some work for the benefit of others--that they have their property taken, their effort used--for the benefit of others without any guarantee of recompense or consentual contract. That's slavery, my dear.Excpet that very same money benefits you too.

Taxes are good when the money is directed into preservation and education of people instead of destroying people across the world.

Would you rather have the 'poor' dying in the street or given access to a free decent level of health care. I have first hand experience of the NHS in the UK and can only use 2 words to describe it - OVERWORKED and BRILLIANT

*agrees entirely*
fucking brilliant.



its been shown in a number of programs and books* that paying for healthcare, which is a basic neccessity of life as much as breathing or food is, is one of the main factors that cause the poor to stay poor and badly affect socioeconomic mobility. paying for healthcare IS a regressive tax against the poor unless the government gets involved.

* that Morgan Spurlock 30 Days program, Polly Toynbee's Hard Work and some other books she referred to in it

American, no NHS here

I agree with the arguments against the NHS. Healthcare here is insanely expensive because of all the government regulations with Medicare and Medicaid. We went without health insurance for several years, and it was insane. In addition to that, what is the role of government? I'd argue that it is to protect people from harm by other people. Finit. Hence the military and the police. The government is not responsible for making society better, society is. If you don't want the government to dictate personal morality, how is it appropriate for the government to dictate charity? Just look at the US at the turn of the 20th century, before welfare and social security. There were thousands of charitable organizations doing that work, that are all gone now because people think that it's the government's job to do that sort of thing. And we all know what a wonderful job the government does ... ugh.

Taxes are good when the money is directed into preservation and education of people instead of destroying people across the world.

I don't agree, and don't think that other people's morals should be forced upon me.

Again I would like you to explain how government inteference at the point of consumption makes healthcare more expensive. The evidence in the UK definatly points to the opposite and unfortunatly this fact trumps your theory on artificial price systems et. al..

i think his point is that it makes private provision of healthcare more expensive, largely because of the way the US govt. administers its subsidies.
what government provision of healthcare does is provide a near monopsony on healthcare workers and allows it to reap massive economies of scale. private providers cannot compete at the same prices.

he seems to think this is a bad thing because of the nature of taxation.

I don't agree, and don't think that other people's morals should be forced upon me.

So you thinks that there should be no taxes at all and everything should be privatised?

Both systems are operating under the same restrictions in the UK yet one costs more than the other. Oddly enough it is the one that is being run for profit that costs more than the one that isn't.

Again I would like you to explain how government inteference at the point of consumption makes healthcare more expensive. The evidence in the UK definatly points to the opposite and unfortunatly this fact trumps your theory on artificial price systems et. al..

As someone who has lived under both systems, and who has looked at the 'financial' side of both systems, there is no rational reason for the way the US does healthcare.

It costs less per head in the UK, both (obviously) at the point of sale, and (also) in terms of per capita. Canada is the same.

So - logically, the ONLY reason the US doesn't have nationalised healthcare, MUST either be because they value greed above all else, or they are frightened of the 'socialistic/communistic' image it presents in THEIR minds.

A litle of each, I suspect.

i think his point is that it makes private provision of healthcare more expensive, largely because of the way the US govt. administers its subsidies.
what government provision of healthcare does is provide a near monopsony on healthcare workers and allows it to reap massive economies of scale. private providers cannot compete at the same prices.

he seems to think this is a bad thing because of the nature of taxation.

See I still don't agree with that. BUPA is allowed to use NHS facilities at cost price negating the economies of sale and yet still charges more for procedures.

So you thinks that there should be no taxes at all and everything should be privatised?

Yes

My father in law dies because his cancer was too advanced to treat by the time it was discovered.

He would have seen a doctor a LOT earlier if we had Nationalised Healthcare, because it wouldn't have bankrupted him to do so.

People really are dying because of the American version of public healthcare. The fact that some illegal immigrants know how to work the system is irrelevent... I am a legal, and I don't know how - and I sure as HELL don't get my bills paid for, for me. I only wish.


Our experiences are different so far. I havent had to deal with cancer or some of the other things that can occur more often, later in life.
Thank God.


Wether or not I had insurance would not have stopped me from getting checked for excrutiating chest pain that turned out to be a ruptured gall bladder. It was tested, diagnosed and removed immediately. The total bill was over $20,000.00. I was responsible for a good portion of that.
I talked down some bills and paid in lump sums where I could get 1/2 off, others I made $50.00 monthly payments with no interest-for years.

My wife and I both work-we have assets. I dealt with my providers straight up and paid what I could live with. And they accepted it.

I have also had doctors give me enough samples of very expensive antibiotics to treat a condition one of my kids had.

I dont want to tempt fate here by saying I've been through some situations, but I have and none have bankrupted me.

I guess I have the outlook that no one OWES me anything. I expect what I earn. Thats how I was raised and thats how I'm raising my kids.
This system works for me.

I can only say I wish it worked for your father in law.

Yes

Smashing, who provides the defence of your country?

American, no NHS here

I agree with the arguments against the NHS. Healthcare here is insanely expensive because of all the government regulations with Medicare and Medicaid. We went without health insurance for several years, and it was insane. In addition to that, what is the role of government? I'd argue that it is to protect people from harm by other people. Finit. Hence the military and the police. The government is not responsible for making society better, society is. If you don't want the government to dictate personal morality, how is it appropriate for the government to dictate charity? Just look at the US at the turn of the 20th century, before welfare and social security. There were thousands of charitable organizations doing that work, that are all gone now because people think that it's the government's job to do that sort of thing. And we all know what a wonderful job the government does ... ugh.

The US at the turn of the 20th century was about this far <----> from a communist revolution. The only reason there hasn't been one, is the fact that - for a while - the american government made a reasonable act that they cared about the little people.

Plus - your example is simply not true. Most people didn't have access to healthcare... although SOME charitable organisations helped SOME, it was far from universal. Add in the much lower cost of the product, and you have something that pretty much couldn't be sustained by standard charity in THIS time.

Smashing, who provides the defence of your country?

Well, I'll defend my own property, I don't really care about the other people who happen to live in a geographically similar area. I'm not a crazy nationalist or something like that.

Well, I'll defend my own property, I don't really care about the other people who happen to live in a geographically similar area. I'm not a crazy nationalist or something like that.

So Mexico invades the now taxless US and you have no standing military you think that you alone can protect your property?

No thought this through properly have you?

See I still don't agree with that. BUPA is allowed to use NHS facilities at cost price negating the economies of sale and yet still charges more for procedures.

that i didn't know.
i guess the NHS still gets pharmecuticals in bulk and gets EofScale, but yeah...

As someone who has lived under both systems, and who has looked at the 'financial' side of both systems, there is no rational reason for the way the US does healthcare.

It costs less per head in the UK, both (obviously) at the point of sale, and (also) in terms of per capita. Canada is the same.

So - logically, the ONLY reason the US doesn't have nationalised healthcare, MUST either be because they value greed above all else, or they are frightened of the 'socialistic/communistic' image it presents in THEIR minds.

A litle of each, I suspect.

I think the elimination of health insurance might bring doctor/hospital costs more in line with their actual value and then the average person could actually pay for it out of their pocket.


I was born 39 years ago. My parents paid for the entire doctor hospital bill in cash, out of pocket. All $125.00. (One Hundred,twenty-five dollars).
In New York. The best care available was there, in the best facility available at the time.

Almost three years ago, my third child was born in a good hospital, with good doctors. A cesarian section was needed.

The total bill when all was said and done, was over $21,000.00 (Twenty one thousand dollars)

Is that proportionate to 39 yrs ago? No.

Its like car prices now that there is 4,5 and even 6 yr financing- their price has nothing at all to do with their value, but more to do with what people can pay.

that i didn't know.
i guess the NHS still gets pharmecuticals in bulk and gets EofScale, but yeah...

Under full hospitals use it to make money, if a bed is empty then might as well use it.

Surely time for a chorus of "Kill, kill, kill the poor"

Our experiences are different so far. I havent had to deal with cancer or some of the other things that can occur more often, later in life.
Thank God.


Wether or not I had insurance would not have stopped me from getting checked for excrutiating chest pain that turned out to be a ruptured gall bladder. It was tested, diagnosed and removed immediately. The total bill was over $20,000.00. I was responsible for a good portion of that.
I talked down some bills and paid in lump sums where I could get 1/2 off, others I made $50.00 monthly payments with no interest-for years.

My wife and I both work-we have assets. I dealt with my providers straight up and paid what I could live with. And they accepted it.

I have also had doctors give me enough samples of very expensive antibiotics to treat a condition one of my kids had.

I dont want to tempt fate here by saying I've been through some situations, but I have and none have bankrupted me.

I guess I have the outlook that no one OWES me anything. I expect what I earn. Thats how I was raised and thats how I'm raising my kids.
This system works for me.

I can only say I wish it worked for your father in law.

You've been lucky - for which I am glad. Most are not so lucky.

I don't think anyone owes me anything... I came to this country voluntarily, I knew I was not going to be able to claim any of the government aid programs. So - here I am raising a wife, two kids and a third on the way, off what I can earn in a $13 per hour job, with no access to medicaid for the oldest kid, no government-sponsored scans or anything for the pregnant wife, no government help of any kind... not for healthcare, not for heating, not for food.

And far too many people are falling through these gaps, which means the healthcare system IS failing to do what it is intended to do.

For me - even with the partial insurance my work gives me, the few times I have really HAD to use the medical services have nearly bankrupted me - except I don't have the option of declaring bankruptcy.

So - what do I do. If I must have a doctor, I go. But, by 'must' I mean I literally can't go to work - otherwise, I simply can't afford the healthcare. I certainly can't afford the time off work.

And - yes we could talk about budgets... but, if I have to chose between food, heat, or... seeing the doctor, I can't justify the doctor, unless I might be dying.

So Mexico invades the now taxless US and you have no standing military you think that you alone can protect your property?

No thought this through properly have you?

Its doubtful Mexico, or any country for that matter, would be able to conquer the US with the rest of the world just sitting by. Or that they would launch an invasion just for the heck of it.

The total bill when all was said and done, was over $21,000.00 (Twenty one thousand dollars)


jesus tittyfucking christ! :eek: :eek: :eek:
that much money to a) have a child, b) do what's necessary to save the baby and the mother's life (in some circumstances)

my mum and i would have died had we not had medical help during labor.


is it really fair to deny this right to life to people who cannot afford overly inflated medical bills? (no fucking way is the answer)

You've been lucky - for which I am glad. Most are not so lucky.

I don't think anyone owes me anything... I came to this country voluntarily, I knew I was not going to be able to claim any of the government aid programs. So - here I am raising a wife, two kids and a third on the way, off what I can earn in a $13 per hour job, with no access to medicaid for the oldest kid, no government-sponsored scans or anything for the pregnant wife, no government help of any kind... not for healthcare, not for heating, not for food.

And far too many people are falling through these gaps, which means the healthcare system IS failing to do what it is intended to do.

For me - even with the partial insurance my work gives me, the few times I have really HAD to use the medical services have nearly bankrupted me - except I don't have the option of declaring bankruptcy.

So - what do I do. If I must have a doctor, I go. But, by 'must' I mean I literally can't go to work - otherwise, I simply can't afford the healthcare. I certainly can't afford the time off work.

And - yes we could talk about budgets... but, if I have to chose between food, heat, or... seeing the doctor, I can't justify the doctor, unless I might be dying.

maybe you should move to Oklahoma, your kids and wife would have free healthcare, your electric and heating would be paid, and you would get free food, all without having to go on welfare.......in fact, there are charity programs here that would pay for you to have healthcare too.

I think you live in a sucky state. ;)

American, no NHS here

I agree with the arguments against the NHS. Healthcare here is insanely expensive because of all the government regulations with Medicare and Medicaid. We went without health insurance for several years, and it was insane. In addition to that, what is the role of government? I'd argue that it is to protect people from harm by other people. Finit. Hence the military and the police. The government is not responsible for making society better, society is. If you don't want the government to dictate personal morality, how is it appropriate for the government to dictate charity? Just look at the US at the turn of the 20th century, before welfare and social security. There were thousands of charitable organizations doing that work, that are all gone now because people think that it's the government's job to do that sort of thing. And we all know what a wonderful job the government does ... ugh.

Hmm...turn of the century tenements were huge public heath concerns, would you care to go back to that? The integration of public heath into homeland security planning indicates that there is some measure of public interest in preventative health care. (e.g., ttp://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/pandemic-influenza.html, http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/bioshield/)

Furthermore, health insurance being a function of employee benefits came out of worker productivity issues, not because employers were suddenly concerned for the well being of their employees...they wanted them on the job. Perhaps on a larger scale, it also makes sense, from a national economy perspective, to ensure a more productive workforce.

I think the elimination of health insurance might bring doctor/hospital costs more in line with their actual value and then the average person could actually pay for it out of their pocket.


I disagree. Universal healthcare has been a fairly recent invention... go back not too far and MOST of the population simply couldn't afford it.

It has only really been in a very short window of history that it has been otherwise - and it didn't stay that way long. Even now, only the rich can afford healthcare when they want it.

Eliminating health insurance MIGHT (eventually) reduce prices, but a lot of people would die first... and the usual 'market forces' simply don't apply. A hospital can run ONLY rich patients and make a profit... they just don't NEED to treat the paupers.

But 'life' is a product you can't just choose not to have... they'll skin the poor to make them reach whatever level they decide is the 'lowest they can go'. And the rest... will die.

Its doubtful Mexico, or any country for that matter, would be able to conquer the US with the rest of the world just sitting by. Or that they would launch an invasion just for the heck of it.

I would imagine that the rest of the world would be quite keen for the worlds largest nuclear stockpile not to be under the control of an anarchist state.

jesus tittyfucking christ! :eek: :eek: :eek:
that much money to a) have a child, b) do what's necessary to save the baby and the mother's life (in some circumstances)

my mum and i would have died had we not had medical help during labor.


is it really fair to deny this right to life to people who cannot afford overly inflated medical bills? (no fucking way is the answer)

my child was in the hosptial for 28 days when she was a year old.....the hospital bill alone was 60K the bill for the surgery another 13K and the bill for the helicopter that took her from one hospital to another was 12K

not to mention the fact that we got billed from a third party for the smiushy stuff they had to put in her feeding tube........$175 a day to feed her.

my child was in the hosptial for 28 days when she was a year old.....the hospital bill alone was 60K the bill for the surgery another 13K and the bill for the helicopter that took her from one hospital to another was 12K

not to mention the fact that we got billed from a third party for the smiushy stuff they had to put in her feeding tube........$175 a day to feed her.

I asume you support UHS then?

maybe you should move to Oklahoma, your kids and wife would have free healthcare, your electric and heating would be paid, and you would get free food, all without having to go on welfare.......in fact, there are charity programs here that would pay for you to have healthcare too.

I think you live in a sucky state. ;)

Georgia does suck arse.

But, as a 'legal resident' but NOT a citizen, I have no such rights in any state. And, I simply can't afford to leave my job and look around the country for another, plus a new place to live, etc. Even here in Georgia, though, my wife SHOULD get her healthcare free for being pregnant... but the people that are supposed to be helping her just aren't doing it... indeed, they are throwing more obstacles in the way.

I hope to god they at least help us with the cost of the birth.


I live the harsh realities of life in the US.

I asume you support UHS then?

I don't know yet......I am still thinking about it.

I like the program my state has for healthcare of mothers and children, I really would like them to expand it to take care of men too.... but I don't know about a national system, I think that it could all be taken care of on the state level and I would be more comfortable with the whole thing.

I don't know yet......I am still thinking about it.

I like the program my state has for healthcare of mothers and children, I really would like them to expand it to take care of men too.... but I don't know about a national system, I think that it could all be taken care of on the state level and I would be more comfortable with the whole thing.

UHS doesn't mean it has to be centrally controlled. The UK has Trusts which all deal with a specific area of the country. Central govt. gives them a budget and then they look at the specific requirement of the area and spend it accordingly.

my child was in the hosptial for 28 days when she was a year old.....the hospital bill alone was 60K the bill for the surgery another 13K and the bill for the helicopter that took her from one hospital to another was 12K

not to mention the fact that we got billed from a third party for the smiushy stuff they had to put in her feeding tube........$175 a day to feed her.

fucking hell.... i guess the base costs in this country may be different, but then i don't know what things cost thanks to the NHS.

i needed an operation last year. i saw my doctor for free (same day i called up), went to the hospital later in the day, had my operation the next day, had some meds, and walked out the door on the third day without paying a penny while i was there. bloody brilliant. and all because i pay my taxes :)


i'm now on prescribed antidepressants, but they only cost me 6 pounds every two months because of government stockpiling of the drug, subsidies, and economies of scale the NHS gains. hell, before i left uni i'd have got them for free thanks to the NHS :)


as a result i am more than happy to pay my fair and equal (progressive) share into the NHS tax-pot so that other people may benefit in the same way i do.

Georgia does suck arse.

But, as a 'legal resident' but NOT a citizen, I have no such rights in any state. And, I simply can't afford to leave my job and look around the country for another, plus a new place to live, etc. Even here in Georgia, though, my wife SHOULD get her healthcare free for being pregnant... but the people that are supposed to be helping her just aren't doing it... indeed, they are throwing more obstacles in the way.

I hope to god they at least help us with the cost of the birth.


I live the harsh realities of life in the US.
pick a hosptial you like, go down there and apply for the charity program, I did that when we were (my husband and I) were without insurance, they covered all my healthcare over $1500 and let me pay that out in monthly payments of $20 with no interest. I got surgery and everything. The charity programs don't work the same as state aid, they will probably cover you as long as you are here legally. I know it's not a long term solution for everyone but it could help you guys.

I don't know yet......I am still thinking about it.

I like the program my state has for healthcare of mothers and children, I really would like them to expand it to take care of men too.... but I don't know about a national system, I think that it could all be taken care of on the state level and I would be more comfortable with the whole thing.

But - would you approve of a 'state health service', which ran like the NHS in England?

Most likely, if there WERE a 'national health service' equivalent in the US, it would be largely a state issue, anyway.

hell, before i left uni i'd have got them for free thanks to the NHS :)

How the hell'd you manage that? I had to pay prescriptions all through uni.

Much of the actual blame for the insane cost of healthcare is found in malpractice insurance. The ration of new lawyers to new doctors here is ridiculously high. The lawyers can receive 30 - 40 % of the actual jury award, so the argue for the most money possible, as opposed to a figure more in line with the actual injury. And they sue more often, even over things that the doctor really didn't do. Cerebral Palsy, for instance, is ALWAYS the fault of the OB/GYN who delivered the baby, at least according to the trial lawyers; genetics, etc can't be made to pay.

The cost of the insurance for doctors become so high in West Virginia that two years ago almost all of them went on strike. The OB/GYNs in particular started moving their practices to other states on a large scale. Talk about expensive, try having a baby WITHOUT a doctor when you really, really need one.

Healthcare would be far less expensive if there were far fewer idiotic lawsuits.

pick a hosptial you like, go down there and apply for the charity program, I did that when we were (my husband and I) were without insurance, they covered all my healthcare over $1500 and let me pay that out in monthly payments of $20 with no interest. I got surgery and everything. The charity programs don't work the same as state aid, they will probably cover you as long as you are here legally. I know it's not a long term solution for everyone but it could help you guys.

I don't even know if hospitals around here have charity programs. I tried the same thing a year or so ago for dental work, and was told that the dentist didn't 'do' charity work - so we had to pay several hundred dollars for my 6 year old to get her teeth seen to.

I'll look into it, obviously - but, you are right... it isn't a real or longterm solution... :(

But - would you approve of a 'state health service', which ran like the NHS in England?

Most likely, if there WERE a 'national health service' equivalent in the US, it would be largely a state issue, anyway.

I would be much more comfortable with the idea. The local goverment is working on expanding the state health insurance to cover more people, and I voted against my party to get people in office who are motivated to do so, it may not be exactly like England's but it will be better than nothing, I talked to someone who was running for office (and won) and they said it would be like insurance only on a sliding scale for your premium, so my family would pay about $75 a month for the premium and then $5 copay which is way cheaper than our private insurance now. Most families would pay less or nothing at all.

How the hell'd you manage that? I had to pay prescriptions all through uni.

full time education...
also got free glasses at specsavers (private sector company for those not in the UK)

i think there's a form you have to fill in with your local authority - you can pick em up at specsavers at the very least :p

Much of the actual blame for the insane cost of healthcare is found in malpractice insurance. The ration of new lawyers to new doctors here is ridiculously high. The lawyers can receive 30 - 40 % of the actual jury award, so the argue for the most money possible, as opposed to a figure more in line with the actual injury. And they sue more often, even over things that the doctor really didn't do. Cerebral Palsy, for instance, is ALWAYS the fault of the OB/GYN who delivered the baby, at least according to the trial lawyers; genetics, etc can't be made to pay.

The cost of the insurance for doctors become so high in West Virginia that two years ago almost all of them went on strike. The OB/GYNs in particular started moving their practices to other states on a large scale. Talk about expensive, try having a baby WITHOUT a doctor when you really, really need one.

Healthcare would be far less expensive if there were far fewer idiotic lawsuits.

Forgive my ignorance but I thought that doctors carried malpractice insurance and so the insurance company bore the cost of malpractice lawsuits?

I don't even know if hospitals around here have charity programs. I tried the same thing a year or so ago for dental work, and was told that the dentist didn't 'do' charity work - so we had to pay several hundred dollars for my 6 year old to get her teeth seen to.

I'll look into it, obviously - but, you are right... it isn't a real or longterm solution... :(

the hospitals have them, they don't advertise them. ;) It takes a fair amount of pushing to get through to the right people, but after that it's pretty easy to get approved. If you have a teaching hospital in the area, they sometimes have oral surgery students who can do basic dental work cheap (and here it's covered by the charity program for the hospital)

You've been lucky - for which I am glad. Most are not so lucky.

I don't think anyone owes me anything... I came to this country voluntarily, I knew I was not going to be able to claim any of the government aid programs. So - here I am raising a wife, two kids and a third on the way, off what I can earn in a $13 per hour job, with no access to medicaid for the oldest kid, no government-sponsored scans or anything for the pregnant wife, no government help of any kind... not for healthcare, not for heating, not for food.

And far too many people are falling through these gaps, which means the healthcare system IS failing to do what it is intended to do.

For me - even with the partial insurance my work gives me, the few times I have really HAD to use the medical services have nearly bankrupted me - except I don't have the option of declaring bankruptcy.

So - what do I do. If I must have a doctor, I go. But, by 'must' I mean I literally can't go to work - otherwise, I simply can't afford the healthcare. I certainly can't afford the time off work.

And - yes we could talk about budgets... but, if I have to chose between food, heat, or... seeing the doctor, I can't justify the doctor, unless I might be dying.


It is a tough situation and I know making $13.00 an hour with a family of 4 & 1/2-You cant even pay bills without any medical concerns.

I will admit this- I've broken two fingers in the past two months and not had medical attention as I knew exactly what they'd do- xrays, make sure they were set and slap me with a $300.00 bill and a $10.00 finger splint I could
buy in CVS.
I never go myself if I know what my problem is. I told you people in another thread a while back that I pulled two of my own wisdom teeth. I'm that type of guy.
I know what you mean- I go to the doctor myself if most of my blood is out or a bone is showing. Or I think I'm having a heart attack.
Thats more because I'm cheap and dont like to pay, just to go through the motions wit hpredictable results.
I also removed my own in-grown toenails. But I brought my eldest son to the doctor for the same thing.

One thing we have here is the ability to improve our station in life. It is possible for you to find a better paying job with better benefits. Having a family can impede that -or it can force you to do so.

I dont come from wealth. I dont have a fortune to fall back on. If I lost my job today, I would be in trouble. But I'd survive.

I hope you are able to improve your situation. I know the pressure and sleeplessness that comes with being a father. I have three kids. There are constant threats to the family stabilty.

And I wish you the best of health and hapiness during your wife's pregnancy. Those days are still fresh in my mind.

Much of the actual blame for the insane cost of healthcare is found in malpractice insurance.

Surely, you only need to pay malpractise settlements when someone mal-practises?

If you are going to blame malpractise insurance, shouldn't we just be asking that American doctors should be good at this important job?

But - you are wrong, anyway. When my mother in law visited the hospital last year, I caught a glimpse of the bill. Opening the plastic tray that contains the diposable tools was $125, billed as such because "they had to write off the whole tray". Plastic tools, mind you... pennies each.

The cost of the healthcare services are enormously expensive because the market bears it for the wealthier Americans, and those with good insurance. Malpractise insurance isn't making it any cheaper, but it's just one parasite on a bloodsucking beast.

I would be much more comfortable with the idea. The local goverment is working on expanding the state health insurance to cover more people, and I voted against my party to get people in office who are motivated to do so, it may not be exactly like England's but it will be better than nothing, I talked to someone who was running for office (and won) and they said it would be like insurance only on a sliding scale for your premium, so my family would pay about $75 a month for the premium and then $5 copay which is way cheaper than our private insurance now. Most families would pay less or nothing at all.

It'd be nice to see a mechanism like that in place.

The crazy thing about this is - you can see the advantage in this model, right..? That's about the situation we have in the UK... except that that 'premium' is taken in the form of taxes, and is probably a lot less than $75 a month for most people.

Much of the actual blame for the insane cost of healthcare is found in malpractice insurance. The ration of new lawyers to new doctors here is ridiculously high. The lawyers can receive 30 - 40 % of the actual jury award, so the argue for the most money possible, as opposed to a figure more in line with the actual injury. And they sue more often, even over things that the doctor really didn't do. Cerebral Palsy, for instance, is ALWAYS the fault of the OB/GYN who delivered the baby, at least according to the trial lawyers; genetics, etc can't be made to pay.

The cost of the insurance for doctors become so high in West Virginia that two years ago almost all of them went on strike. The OB/GYNs in particular started moving their practices to other states on a large scale. Talk about expensive, try having a baby WITHOUT a doctor when you really, really need one.

Healthcare would be far less expensive if there were far fewer idiotic lawsuits.

I wish I had access to the way that hospital claims are paid out by health insurance companies, so I could show you the line item of what hospitals charge and how insurance companies pay (they don't pay on a line item basis). But there were explicit amounts that got charged back to malpractice pools and to indigent pools, and the indigent pools were much higher.

When you go to a hospital and get "free" care, the hospital is making that money back by charging insurance companies more for care they are giving out to their insured. So part of your health insurance costs are paying for the health care of those who have none.

It is a tough situation and I know making $13.00 an hour with a family of 4 & 1/2-You cant even pay bills without any medical concerns.

I will admit this- I've broken two fingers in the past two months and not had medical attention as I knew exactly what they'd do- xrays, make sure they were set and slap me with a $300.00 bill and a $10.00 finger splint I could
buy in CVS.
I never go myself if I know what my problem is. I told you people in another thread a while back that I pulled two of my own wisdom teeth. I'm that type of guy.
I know what you mean- I go to the doctor myself if most of my blood is out or a bone is showing. Or I think I'm having a heart attack.
Thats more because I'm cheap and dont like to pay, just to go through the motions wit hpredictable results.
I also removed my own in-grown toenails. But I brought my eldest son to the doctor for the same thing.

One thing we have here is the ability to improve our station in life. It is possible for you to find a better paying job with better benefits. Having a family can impede that -or it can force you to do so.

I dont come from wealth. I dont have a fortune to fall back on. If I lost my job today, I would be in trouble. But I'd survive.

I hope you are able to improve your situation. I know the pressure and sleeplessness that comes with being a father. I have three kids. There are constant threats to the family stabilty.

And I wish you the best of health and hapiness during your wife's pregnancy. Those days are still fresh in my mind.

Thanks, man. :)

I'm a lot like you... I don't get the care I can live without, but I'll try to get the same care for my family. It breaks my heart that I even have to worry about whether I can afford to take my girl to the doctor when she's sick.

It is frustrating, because this is the really big advantage the UK has over the US. Life is shitty enough most of the time, without having to worry about getting sick... and then getting screwed after the fact because of it.

Even worse - the possibility that what happened to my father-in-law, might be true one day for one of my kids... something I could have got fixed, if we had gone to the doctor in time... but didn't.


But, much as I like your optimism... I just don't agree. Most Americans really can't do much to improve their lives... the jobs just aren't available, or they can't afford the extra education, or they can't afford the TIME to get it... or they are so trapped in payments on the house, and the rising cost of heating fuel, etc, that they can't make any real changes.

If you get lucky... sure. But, you really do have to bear in mind, if you DO get lucky, you are an exception, not the rule.

jesus tittyfucking christ! :eek: :eek: :eek:
that much money to a) have a child, b) do what's necessary to save the baby and the mother's life (in some circumstances)

my mum and i would have died had we not had medical help during labor.


is it really fair to deny this right to life to people who cannot afford overly inflated medical bills? (no fucking way is the answer)

PM- we got the same care that the illegal Mexican mother in the next room got. She had a c-section too and her child was born premature- the baby went right into intensive care.
The mother had the same beautiful clean room with furniture, a TV with a DVD player a luxurious private shower with 6 programmable heads.

She had no insurance and certainly was not paying one dime for the same care and attention that we got. I pay dearly for my medical coverage-Helath insurance pad their part of the bills and I paid what was left over, after I paid my $1,000.00 dedcutible too.

I dont begrudge them for a second- thank God they had their baby here. Maybe the care she and baby needed wouldnt have been so good in Mexico?
Maybe it would- I dont know much about the health care system in Mexico. Maybe its more advanced than ours. But I doubt it.

My point is-she got the care too. No one turned her and her baby away. And all she paid for was the TV to be turned on at $7.00 a day.
She got the same diaper bag full of newborne supplies/formula when she left that my wife did.

I dont see babies being delivered in the streets much here.

PM- we got the same care that the illegal Mexican mother in the next room got. She had a c-section too and her child was born premature- the baby went right into intensive care.
The mother had the same beautiful clean room with furniture, a TV with a DVD player a luxurious private shower with 6 programmable heads.

She had no insurance and certainly was not paying one dime for the same care and attention that we got. I pay dearly for my medical coverage-Helath insurance pad their part of the bills and I paid what was left over, after I paid my $1,000.00 dedcutible too.

I dont begrudge them for a second- thank God they had their baby here. Maybe the care she and baby needed wouldnt have been so good in Mexico?
Maybe it would- I dont know much about the health care system in Mexico. Maybe its more advanced than ours. But I doubt it.

My point is-she got the care too. No one turned her and her baby away. And all she paid for was the TV to be turned on at $7.00 a day.
She got the same diaper bag full of newborne supplies/formula when she left that my wife did.

I dont see babies being delivered in the streets much here.

If medical care is so freely available then why don't average joe americans just stop paying insurance and get the care for free then?

Thanks, man. :)

I'm a lot like you... I don't get the care I can live without, but I'll try to get the same care for my family. It breaks my heart that I even have to worry about whether I can afford to take my girl to the doctor when she's sick.

It is frustrating, because this is the really big advantage the UK has over the US. Life is shitty enough most of the time, without having to worry about getting sick... and then getting screwed after the fact because of it.

Even worse - the possibility that what happened to my father-in-law, might be true one day for one of my kids... something I could have got fixed, if we had gone to the doctor in time... but didn't.


But, much as I like your optimism... I just don't agree. Most Americans really can't do much to improve their lives... the jobs just aren't available, or they can't afford the extra education, or they can't afford the TIME to get it... or they are so trapped in payments on the house, and the rising cost of heating fuel, etc, that they can't make any real changes.

If you get lucky... sure. But, you really do have to bear in mind, if you DO get lucky, you are an exception, not the rule.

here's another little story that just came to mind-I know it doesnt help you directly, but it shows whats possible- About 10 years ago, my brother broke his ankle and several bones in his foot in an accident all his fault- Not auto related and not on the job-No insurance co or property owner to sue.

A very highly reputable orthopedic surgeon rebuilt his crushed foot through a complex surgery, the xrays looked like an erector set. He has several days of recovery, follow up visits, rehab and a year later, some of the hardware was removed.
My brother was like 20 yrs old. he had a half-assed part time job and wasnt going to school. The bills totalled over $50,000.00.
My father went and spoke to some official at the hospital and the bills dissappeared.
Its just occuring to me that I have no idea how they were rectified.

I am dying to know now.

But it shows that if you talk to the right people and are proactive, maybe there is something that will help you not go bankrupt.

If medical care is so freely available then why don't average joe americans just stop paying insurance and get the care for free then?

thats a good question-It may have more to do with the fact that the average joe Americans want to pay their bills.

And these are the very people the whole system is supported by.

Show me the legions of people that are turned away or refused medical care.

here's another little story that just came to mind-I know it doesnt help you directly, but it shows whats possible- About 10 years ago, my brother broke his ankle and several bones in his foot in an accident all his fault- Not auto related and not on the job-No insurance co or property owner to sue.

A very highly reputable orthopedic surgeon rebuilt his crushed foot through a complex surgery, the xrays looked like an erector set. He has several days of recovery, follow up visits, rehab and a year later, some of the hardware was removed.
My brother was like 20 yrs old. he had a half-assed part time job and wasnt going to school. The bills totalled over $50,000.00.
My father went and spoke to some official at the hospital and the bills dissappeared.
Its just occuring to me that I have no idea how they were rectified.

I am dying to know now.

But it shows that if you talk to the right people and are proactive, maybe there is something that will help you not go bankrupt.

Or maybe, all it shows is that you can abuse power if you have it.. .I don't know. Maybe your dad had pictures of the hospital boss and his 'boyfriend'. Maybe the guy owed someone a favour.

The fact that your father even got as far as 'some official' might be a clue to something.

I see the NHS as an investment in the welfare of my nation. It benefits me, but not only that, it benefits everyone around me, including those who would be unable to pay for treatment otherwise. I say that the NHS provides adequate to brilliant healthcare, and at no significant cost to my lifestyle.

thats a good question-It may have more to do with the fact that the average joe Americans want to pay their bills.

And these are the very people the whole system is supported by.

Show me the legions of people that are turned away or refused medical care.

If yanks want to pay their way then a UHS makes even more sense. That way everyone pays for their own health care and the few layabouts who don't work are already being supported anyway, as you have just given account.

Healthcare would be far less expensive if there were far fewer idiotic lawsuits.

Yes- frivolous and outright bullshit lawsuits are a tremendous problem and expense.

There are sloppy doctors and nurses out there causing all kinds of needless misery, but there are many,many people out there filing bogus claims,with greedy lawyers, knowning hospitals/doctors and ins cos will settle to avoid too much negative publicity.

The fraud should be more vigorously routed out, exposed and punished.

The standards for lawyers- and doctors and nurses, should be higher.

If medical care is so freely available then why don't average joe americans just stop paying insurance and get the care for free then?

beacuse "free" care is largely subsidized by the amounts that insurance companies pay them for other, insured, services. without insurance subsidizing the indigent pools, they won't be able to provide "free" care.

it all gets paid for by someone. to me it makes sense, rather than pretending that we have offices at hospitals who write off charges out of the goodness of their own hearts, to be up front about it and have single payer who can control costs.

If yanks want to pay their way then a UHS makes even more sense. That way everyone pays for their own health care and the few layabouts who don't work are already being supported anyway, as you have just given account.

Maybe we dont want to wait on line as long as the limeys for the care we need.

If your doctor in the UK thinks you need an MRI or an endoscopic exam- when can you expect to get it? I'll have it within 24 hours, if it suits me.

Plus, I dont trust another monstrous governmental agency to be set up and run.

Or maybe, all it shows is that you can abuse power if you have it.. .I don't know. Maybe your dad had pictures of the hospital boss and his 'boyfriend'. Maybe the guy owed someone a favour.

The fact that your father even got as far as 'some official' might be a clue to something.


You're just saying that because we're Italian. :p

I'll give you this-you'll never win any argument with my father and he is the most persuasive person I've ever met. We didnt want for much growing up and we werent rich, as far as I know.

You do what you have to. I know your children will never lack the care they need.

And I also know, that someday, you'll laugh when you look back at earning $13.00 an hour. The little of know of you shows me you have more intelligence and aptitude than people I work with that make twice that.

Maybe you're just in a rough spot. I know being the Dad and husband all the weight of the world hangs on you-you have the final word, the buck truly stops with you.
The price you pay being intelligent and responsible is you get to worry about the fine line you walk.

You're just saying that because we're Italian. :p

I'll give you this-you'll never win any argument with my father and he is the most persuasive person I've ever met. We didnt want for much growing up and we werent rich, as far as I know.

You do what you have to. I know your children will never lack the care they need.

And I also know, that someday, you'll laugh when you look back at earning $13.00 an hour. The little of know of you shows me you have more intelligence and aptitude than people I work with that make twice that.

Maybe you're just in a rough spot. I know being the Dad and husband all the weight of the world hangs on you-you have the final word, the buck truly stops with you.
The price you pay being intelligent and responsible is you get to worry about the fine line you walk.

So true about the worry, and thanks for the kind words. It is frustrating that I know I could be living a lifestyle very different to this one, if i got a break. But, it isn't the money that matters to me... it just seems to really bend out of shape a lot of the people around me. Like the old saying goes "If you think no one cares... try missing a few payments".

I know I'm in a rough spot.. and I know it's my fault. My fault for falling for the Georgia chick, and relocating to the US with nothing but a suitcase which contained literally two changes of clothes. My fault for having kids, for being English in the US job market (UK education doesn't map onto US eductation), my fault for being too honest when I see people scamming and drugdealing all around me and getting nice paypackets. And yes, I'm looking to make it better. And, damn it... I will.

Will I look back and laugh? Probably not... because one of the saddest things about where I 'am' right now, is that I know I'm far from the only one

:eek: The ridiculous prices for hospital treatment in the US make me cherish the NHS more and more.

Unless, of course, you're willing to say that a private system isn't heartless, cruel, and unfair to the poor. Because every UHS supporter I've ever talked to gives me that emotive line of bullshit. I just like to turn it around and shove it right back at them to see how they like it.
With a non-UHS service, that is a fairly fair statement. In the UK, the middle class can get NHS treatment when they need it, to a certain extent, and won't have to pay thousands of pounds for surgery...

The same is not true of the US, where there is not a UHS system in place.
A thief isn't a service.

So you think that paying someone to not violate your rights is a good service? Are you mental?
I'd be a lot more mental to get shot in the face for petty money.
No, the thief of the healthcare world is the government and, by extension, the UHS.
Since you clearly have no experience of what a UHS means for people, you can't really hold a very strong argument about this.

You are not getting your money stolen, as you so eloquently put it, by the government when there is UHS available...

You are paying a sum to recieve a service whenever you need it, that gives everyone the same rights and the same chance to live. Is that not a lot more fair?
The right to life does not include the right to demand the property of someone else in order to satisfy your healthcare needs. Not unless you're willing to endorse slavery. Are you willing to do that?
You are d...u...m...b - UHS is not slavery at all...

And have you ever heard the phrase 'people, not things'?

Because you'd do well to follow it. Are you really more in favour of keeping a few dollars for yourself when it could really be used helping out people who genuinely needed that money to live?

So true about the worry, and thanks for the kind words. It is frustrating that I know I could be living a lifestyle very different to this one, if i got a break. But, it isn't the money that matters to me... it just seems to really bend out of shape a lot of the people around me. Like the old saying goes "If you think no one cares... try missing a few payments".

I know I'm in a rough spot.. and I know it's my fault. My fault for falling for the Georgia chick, and relocating to the US with nothing but a suitcase which contained literally two changes of clothes. My fault for having kids, for being English in the US job market (UK education doesn't map onto US eductation), my fault for being too honest when I see people scamming and drugdealing all around me and getting nice paypackets. And yes, I'm looking to make it better. And, damn it... I will.

Will I look back and laugh? Probably not... because one of the saddest things about where I 'am' right now, is that I know I'm far from the only one

My friend- this is what life does- you get choices and make them. They are only wrong if you let them be.

If I didnt marry my wife and have three kids, I'd likely still be a general manager-and making well over $150,000.00 per year, plus cash bonues and a company car. And oh yeah- I could be in jail (still waiting for statutes to run out) and possibly other unfavorable situations if I stayed there.
Or- I could have finished school and become a professional.
Or- I could be crawling through a swamp in Brasil holding a K-Bar in my teeth.

Dont rush things- as long as you and family are healthy, the money troubles are making you stronger and smarter-unless you let them become a wedge between you and your wife and your kids witness the strife.

All my problems are only financial right now. Thank God. And they arent much to speak of at all.
My brother in law is here from the UK for about 5 yrs now. I can barely understand him and he has a slovenly appearance. But- he works in house for some big co as a travel agent for their execs and is probably making more than me.

And- the scammers and drug dealers you see? Fuck them. I dont see you being able to live with yourself making money doing either.

You've got me wanting to help and encourage you in the worst way now because I remember the feelings of despair when I was in my 20s with one child and another on the way.

Things have gotten better since then. I've made some opporotunities and so has my wife. We've made a few good choices and life is running smoothly now.

listening to people in here would have you believe that we are stepping over piles of bodies in the streets of poor folks that couldnt get the treatment they needed because they were too poor or didnt have health insurance.
That's precisely the point I'm making by referring to UHS as slavery. If they want to make it some moralistic emotional argument, I'll meet them on their own terms. But I have better arguments.

Would you rather have the 'poor' dying in the street or given access to a free decent level of health care.
False dichotomy.

i think it actually proves the point that the US govt should be supplying healthcare as it would benefit their citizens and lower their costs.
No, it proves the point that government mandates increase costs for the private system.

Any time that there is a situation whereby there is a coerced subsidization, which is what UHS is all about, you have gross inefficiencies and the instituting of a slave-class (that is, there are net tax-takers and net tax-producers).

Both systems are operating under the same restrictions in the UK yet one costs more than the other.
Governmental mandates of cost restrictions.

Excpet that very same money benefits you too.
Except that it was taken by force without consent.


Taxes are good when the money is directed into preservation and education of people instead of destroying people across the world.
That's like saying it's ok for a thief to take your money as long as he donates it to charity.

Naughty Hot Sluts?

I thought National Honor Society actually.

I thought National Honor Society actually.

You win the thread :D

As appealing as the idea is, I think it would make a lot more sense to enable people to use the system rather than nationalize it. Qualitywise, US health care is excellent; the only problem is that it is very expensive and can be an unbearable fiscal burden on people who lack health insurance or the means to pay for it.

That's why I'd support national health insurance, or possibly a government program that negotiates with health care providers to lower costs for certain people; it keeps the advantages of the private system but also alleviates some of its drawbacks with the added advantage of costing less than a full-fledged nationalization.

This topic has come up many times and I find it kind of sad after reading through some of the stories here. The US is supposed to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world, yet of the industrialized nations, it is the only one that doesn't have universal healthcare.

There is tons of waste in your system, from insurance peddlars to crooked malpractice lawyers to inefficent bureaucracy. I have posted the following before. I hope it helps get Americans on the road to the kind of healthcare coverage that they deserve:

Make Health Care A Right. It’s Cheaper! (http://personalinsure.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=personalinsure&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fcthealth.server101.com%2Funiversal_healthcare_is_cheaper.htm)

More Info:

Welcome to the Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care Web Site (http://cthealth.server101.com/)

Good luck!!

Maybe we dont want to wait on line as long as the limeys for the care we need.

If your doctor in the UK thinks you need an MRI or an endoscopic exam- when can you expect to get it? I'll have it within 24 hours, if it suits me.

depends on the seriousness of your condition. sometimes next-day, sometimes same-day. sometimes months. it depends on your county as well, i'm sure.
also, diagnosis tends to be dealt with much quicker than treatment - the latter is where the waiting lists are. but, of course, if you want/can afford to you have the option of going private.

i had a diagnosis and operation done on me last May, and was out of the operating theatre within 26 hours of seeing the doctor (most of the wait was because i had to go nill-by-mouth for the drugs to work)

the service is very varied and its particularly common, oversubscribed or low-risk treatments that are put on the backburner in leu of more pressing cases. things such as cateract (sp?) treatment for old people, replacement hips, etc. but agian these things can be done privately, without the need for 'health insurance' (you just pay for the specific operation and leave)

i like the system in this country :)

Plus, I dont trust another monstrous governmental agency to be set up and run.

an all-too-common paranoia seen in americans. i really don't understand it (i understand concerns over mismanagement but consistently seeing 'monstrous' and 'trust' all over the place is just odd)

I apologise if this has been posted before (I'm not in the mood for trawling through 11 pages) but this is interesting:

The US spent $3925 per person p.a. in 1997, of which 46.4% was publicly funded.

The UK spent $1347 per person p.a. in 1997, of which 84.3% was publicly funded. [Source: National Centre for Health Statistics]

The WHO rated world health care systems in 2000. The UK was 18th. The US was 37th.

So you guys spend far more for far less, I'm afraid. And a lot of it is from taxes.

The government in the US sucks ass at managing things. We (or the founding fathers) designed it that way on purpose because we are supposed to be a country full of self-sufficient individuals.

Our gov't runs the healthcare system in the military. It is a completely socialized system that is free in most cases and next to nothing in other cases. Under that system, it takes 30 days to make a doctor's appointment, you never see the same doctor, records are routinely lost in the system, completely wrong procedures are performed, wait times for seeing a nurse practitioner or doctor is considered acceptable at 4 hours.

This is my experience with socialized medicine and why I will oppose it with every fiber of my being.

I have also had the interesting experience of becoming ill in Canada. I'm not a citizen, so I had no healthcare coverage. However, I was very ill and needed attention. I arrived at the hospital and waited for an hour an a half before they called me up and told me that I could pee in a cup and have the results back in three days at which time they would call me to set up an appointment with a nurse practitioner, not a doctor. I asked them to do something more quickly to which they replied they could not because I didnot hold a card for care. Then they told me the fee for peeing in a cup and waiting three days for results would cost $875.

I left, called my doctor on the phone. He wrote a prescription and called it in to a pharmacy just over the border in MI. We drove 9 hours to pick it up. Including the cost of gas and the hotel room over night it was cheaper and more effective than the system in Canada.

Don't count on me ever being in vavor of forced socialized medicine.

Ask me sometime about the experience of having a baby in that socialized military system.

With a non-UHS service, that is a fairly fair statement.
Since you clearly have no experience without a UHS, you can't really hold a strong argument about this.

Sound familiar?


You are not getting your money stolen, as you so eloquently put it, by the government when there is UHS available...
What do you think taxation is if not theft? Did you give consent? Do you have a contract?


You are paying a sum to recieve a service whenever you need it, that gives everyone the same rights and the same chance to live. Is that not a lot more fair?
No. What's fair is not stealing from others.


You are d...u...m...b - UHS is not slavery at all...
Except that it is. It creates a class of net-takers and net-givers. The givers are forced to give at their own expense. Sounds like slavery to me.


And have you ever heard the phrase 'people, not things'?
Have you ever heard of the phrase "you don't have the right to my property"?


Because you'd do well to follow it. Are you really more in favour of keeping a few dollars for yourself when it could really be used helping out people who genuinely needed that money to live?
Yes. Are you really so hypocritical that you haven't given everything to help the poor? That's where your argument leads, and if you haven't done it, you're nothing but a hypocrite.

we don't need it, thanks. Our healthcare is the best in the world(imo)

Make Health Care A Right. It’s Cheaper![/URL]

Trouble is... it's not only cheaper monitarily, it's cheaper in terms of quality too. I've seen hospitals in the UK, and I've seen hospitals in the US. You really do get what you pay for. I know a man who lives nearish to Bath, England, who waited so long on a waiting list for heart bypass surgery he had a heart attack and almost died. Sure, they took care of the heart attack free too, but when there's no way to get the care you need because of the beaurocracy, forget it. You get what you pay for, and I'd rather choose my plan and get what I pay for than be forced into a socialized system where I can't get the care I need.

Well, here I am a guy from across the pond who is wondering why the USA doesn't have a National Health Service. IS it because of taxes or government interference? I'm curious to know. And you citizens of the USA and other nations without one, would you like a NHS or not? And to the nations who do have an NHS do you want to keep it or get rid of it?

Poll Coming

The US is capitolistic, thus making it as stupid and corrupt as it is. :(

US Doctor: Ok sir! That will be $1000 for the poison-ummm..erm I mean medicine, don't worry...you have returned about twenty times with worse illness but I'm sure you won't need to again. ;)

Since you clearly have no experience without a UHS, you can't really hold a strong argument about this.
Actually, I do, from going to France in the early nineties, and doing something pretty minor, and yet my parents had to fork out about fifty quid to see the GP and get some drugs.
What do you think taxation is if not theft? Did you give consent? Do you have a contract?
The contract is 'I pay my taxes and in return I get roads to travel on, a damned fine education, healthcare, law enforcement, a military (although I'm not very supportive of its current role), benefits if I need them and much, much more...

That doesn't sound like theft to me... a fair exchange is no robbery.
No. What's fair is not stealing from others.
It's not stealing, because you're getting a SERVICE from it. Stealing would simply be to take the money and say "haha fuck off, we'll keep this and reinvest it in governmental biscuits" or whatever, rather than "cheers for that, and if you need any help at all medically, we'll be on call at all times".
Except that it is. It creates a class of net-takers and net-givers. The givers are forced to give at their own expense. Sounds like slavery to me.
The rich keep on getting richer... I don't really think that it's creating a particularly large problem for them shelling out a bit more, to be honest...
Have you ever heard of the phrase "you don't have the right to my property"?
Ah, right. The crux of the issue. Selfishness.
Yes. Are you really so hypocritical that you haven't given everything to help the poor? That's where your argument leads, and if you haven't done it, you're nothing but a hypocrite.
Pardon?

I volunteer, and when the Tsunami hit Asia I gave a whole months' savings away to it...

Sounds like doing a fair bit to me...

Because a lot of people think that the private sector should take care of it.

There is a limited version of a public health system, for the poor (Medicaid) and the elderly (Medicare).

Not true. Recent polls show that Americans support universal health care by a 2 to 1 margin.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

Not true. Recent polls show that Americans support universal health care by a 2 to 1 margin.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

Let's look at some more of that study.
"Yet apprehension about the system is counterbalanced by broad satisfaction among insured Americans with their own current quality of care, coverage and costs...

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage."

That's a hell of a lot of satisfaction. I don't think your going to convince those people that a single-payer system is the way to go.

As much as it goes against my more libertarian leanings, I've never been able to convince myself that I disagreed with universal healthcare. Not that I think the US Govt could run it properly, but it'd be nice if the states were able to fund their own with some unconditional federal grants.

As much as it goes against my more libertarian leanings, I've never been able to convince myself that I disagreed with universal healthcare. Not that I think the US Govt could run it properly, but it'd be nice if the states were able to fund their own with some unconditional federal grants.

Why would states be able to run it any better? They seem to have screwed up Medicaid fairly well.

Why would states be able to run it any better? They seem to have screwed up Medicaid fairly well.

Because they are a lot easier to hold accountable and to reorganize when they are abusive to the taxpayers. They cant hide problems as easily and have alot more incentive to not waste money. Also, if nessecary or proper- they are easier to completely dismantle.

Because they are a lot easier to hold accountable and to reorganize when they are abusive to the taxpayers. They cant hide problems as easily and have alot more incentive to not waste money. Also, if nessecary or proper- they are easier to completely dismantle.

Apparently you don't life in Montana. Sorry, but from the experience i've been drawing on, the Montana State government doesn't do a very good job staying accountable on public programs. My mom is a CNA. In the local nursing home, we have rich ranchers getting full medicaid coverage for their stays while my parents had to pay full price up front for the nursing home to take care of my terminally ill grandmother. And my mom works there! Medicaid flat out denied us, but rather wealthy ranchers we're able to get medicaid to cover their ten year plus stays in the nursing home. That's not accountability.

I live in the United States and would not like seeing a NHS because it is not the responsibility of the government make one. It is the task of the person to make sure that they have healthcare. I do not feel that I should have to pay taxes so that someone else can have healthcare.

In Minnesota they have a 100% state covered health program. I think they place a 1% fee on the gross revenues of health maintenance organizations, health care providers, hospitals, surgical centers, and whole sale drug distributors.

Theres a way to do it, but like someone said earlier in this thread, its on the state level. I sure would like it. In Texas, my home state, we have over 6 million people without any kind of basic health insurance. Sad really.

Apparently you don't life in Montana. Sorry, but from the experience i've been drawing on, the Montana State government doesn't do a very good job staying accountable on public programs. My mom is a CNA. In the local nursing home, we have rich ranchers getting full medicaid coverage for their stays while my parents had to pay full price up front for the nursing home to take care of my terminally ill grandmother. And my mom works there! Medicaid flat out denied us, but rather wealthy ranchers we're able to get medicaid to cover their ten year plus stays in the nursing home. That's not accountability.

And the federal government is supposed to be more accountable? If you feel you have been abused you can find the numbers for your Senators, representatives, and even the governer easily- its not uncommon to get a direct line to any of them if you call at the right time. You really cant do that with a federal entity.

Though I do have to ask, What is wrong with the rich using social services? If they pay taxes into it, they have the right to use it do they not?

I live in the United States and would not like seeing a NHS because it is not the responsibility of the government make one. It is the task of the person to make sure that they have healthcare. I do not feel that I should have to pay taxes so that someone else can have healthcare.

The tide is slowly turning against you, my friend.

It's pretty simple, really. Health care is a business. It's a profit-making corporation and a very lucrative one.

So in this case, an ounce of prevention doesn't make as much money as a pound of cure. And a pound of cure doesn't make as much money as 50 pounds of treatments. It is to the advantage of health care providers, pharmaceutical companies etc. if people can't afford to see a doctor until they have to be carried in to do so. *nod*

And the federal government is supposed to be more accountable? If you feel you have been abused you can find the numbers for your Senators, representatives, and even the governer easily- its not uncommon to get a direct line to any of them if you call at the right time. You really cant do that with a federal entity.

Though I do have to ask, What is wrong with the rich using social services? If they pay taxes into it, they have the right to use it do they not?

I have a problem with them using social services that they can pay for otherwise rather easily while other people who can barely afford to pay are denied that usage. I would have no problem with them using public health services as long as everyone has equal access to it. But they don't.

Federal government programs are usually given more scrutiny than state programs. The federal government could do something like Britain's NHS without having to worry to greatly about corruption, so long as they create an untouchable trust fund and don't overly restrict people's ability to have acess to it.

WTF?
Most people that have it would keep it, in overwhelming numbers. But most Americans, by a small margin, don't want it. What's wrong with us?

I have a problem with them using social services that they can pay for otherwise rather easily while other people who can barely afford to pay are denied that usage. I would have no problem with them using public health services as long as everyone has equal access to it. But they don't.

Ok, just checking. There are those who dont feel that way, and I've tangled with them before. At the same time though, remember there will never be a perfect system and if someone's going to get the short end o the stick its not always best to hand it to those paying the most.


Federal government programs are usually given more scrutiny than state programs.

Not really. It depends on the circumstances though.

The federal government could do something like Britain's NHS without having to worry to greatly about corruption, so long as they create an untouchable trust fund and don't overly restrict people's ability to have acess to it.

I am far from a fan of contemporary British political workings. This sounds reasonable as a situation, but you will not convince me that the federal government needs too. Also, forbid they try to use it to gain legislative power over peoples heath.

The tide is slowly turning against you, my friend.

Its unfortunate that it would even be considered in the United States. As for the tide, its usually against me.

Obviously Jesus doesn't want us to freely heal people*, so thus no universal health care. Those bums should go out and get a job and pay for their own crap. Pfft.:rolleyes:



*Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons. Freely you received, so freely give.

Trouble is... it's not only cheaper monitarily, it's cheaper in terms of quality too. I've seen hospitals in the UK, and I've seen hospitals in the US.
Cheaper in quality? How so? Just how many hospitals have you seen in the UK and the US? I am sure that you could find a wide variety of hospitals in both countries?

You really do get what you pay for. I know a man who lives nearish to Bath, England, who waited so long on a waiting list for heart bypass surgery he had a heart attack and almost died. Sure, they took care of the heart attack free too, but when there's no way to get the care you need because of the beaurocracy, forget it. You get what you pay for, and I'd rather choose my plan and get what I pay for than be forced into a socialized system where I can't get the care I need.
You are basing your whole argument on one example?

Bottom line is that people in the UK and Canada live longer then Americans and infant mortality rates are higher in the US then in Canada or the UK.

This article tends to disagree with your assessment?

U.S. health care system falling behind (http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060920/NEWS01/60920011)

WASHINGTON - The nation’s youngest and oldest citizens are suffering the most from a fragmented, wasteful and in some cases dangerous health care system, according to a new study.

When compared to nearly two dozen other industrialized countries, the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectancy for people who have reached the age of 60.

Those statistics were part of a sobering new look at the U.S. health care system released today by The Commonwealth Fund’s Commission on a High Performance Health System.

“There are many pockets of excellence in health in this country, but overall we are performing far below our national potential,” said James Mongan, a physician and chairman of the commission.

The study looked at 37 national indicators of health outcomes, quality, access, equity and efficiency and assigned a score to each.
The U.S. scored an average of 66 out of a possible 100, a failing grade.

If performance were improved in key areas, the nation could save an estimated 150,000 lives and perhaps as much as $100 billion annually, the report’s authors concluded.

For example, if health care providers increased the proportion of patients who have their diabetes and high blood pressure under control, as many as 40,000 deaths per year could be prevented at a savings of at least $1 billion, according to the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

Other troubling symptoms:

-- Six years after a landmark report on medical errors, the U.S. still lacks an error reporting system to assess safety. In the past two years, one-third of patients reported a medical, medication or lab test mistake.

-- Nearly one in four U.S. adults reported having to wait at least six days to receive care when they needed medical attention.

-- Hispanics are far more likely to lack health insurance than other ethnic and racial groups.

-- The mortality rate among black Americans is significantly higher at infancy and for those with heart disease or diabetes. Blacks also have considerably lower rates of cancer survival.

The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation supporting independent research on health and social issues.

why be against nationalized health care......because the whole concept of having that much money taken from my paycheck....and then being told by the government what kind of procedures, medicine, etc. that i am allowed to have is ridiculous. frankly, it doesn't take much common sense to easily see that anyone that prefers their own freedom and choice over government control of their lives would prefer private health care.

why be against nationalized health care......because the whole concept of having that much money taken from my paycheck....and then being told by the government what kind of procedures, medicine, etc. that i am allowed to have is ridiculous. frankly, it doesn't take much common sense to easily see that anyone that prefers their own freedom and choice over government control of their lives would prefer private health care.

The tide is slowly turning against you, my friend.

Not really, if you read the platform, and the commentary that Emmanuel Rahm wrote alongside it, you'll note that he made mention of the concept of an NHS in the United States. And when I say that he made mention of it, he dismissed it as something that is totally politically impossible in America within the next two decades, and the only reason that he limited it that far, is because it's tough to predict political trends that far ahead.

Obviously Jesus doesn't want us to freely heal people*, so thus no universal health care. Those bums should go out and get a job and pay for their own crap. Pfft.:rolleyes:



*Matthew 10:8

Your point is? Magical bearded dudes really don't give a concept credibility in my book.

Edit: Unless it's PM, and not in politics for him either.

WTF?
Most people that have it would keep it, in overwhelming numbers. But most Americans, by a small margin, don't want it. What's wrong with us?

At present, I have absolutely zero trust in our government to design a system that functions properly or even comparably to the system we currently have.

Facts on the Cost of Health Care (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)

Introduction

By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at the fastest rate in our history.

In 2004 (the latest year data are available), total national health expenditures rose 7.9 percent -- over three times the rate of inflation (1). Total spending was $1.9 TRILLION in 2004, or $6,280 per person (1). Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4 TRILLION in 2015, or 20 percent of GDP (2).

In 2005, employer health insurance premiums increased by 9.2 percent - nearly three times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $11,000. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,000 (3).

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.
For those with employer supplied healthcare plans, you might want to think about these concerns?

Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs

Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 9.2 percent in 2005, the fifth consecutive year of increases over 9 percent. All types of health plans -- including health maintenance organizations (HMOs), preferred provider organizations (PPOs) and point-of-service plans (POS) -- showed this increase (3).

The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $10,800 in 2005. Workers contributed $2,713, or 10 percent more than they did in 2004 (3).The annual premiums for family coverage eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712).

Workers are now paying $1,094 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 2000 (3).

Since 2000, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 73 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 14 percent and cumulative wage growth of 15 percent during the same period (3).

Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by 2008 (6).

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising five times faster on average than workers' earnings since 2000 (3).

The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 143 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period (7).

The percentage of Americans under age 65 whose family-level, out-of-pocket spending for health care, including health insurance, exceeds $2,000 a year rose from 37.3 percent in 1996 to 43.1 percent in 2003 - a 16 percent increase (8).
How long will employers want to continue to provide health insurance for their employees?

Facts on the Cost of Health Care (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)

Introduction


For those with employer supplied healthcare plans, you might want to think about these concerns?


How long will employers want to continue to provide health insurance for their employees?

I can tell you that my entire healthcare bill last year was under five-hundred dollars, because I don't get unnecessary treatments, I do some basic preventative medicine and I ignore my illnesses because, frankly, I don't care.

At present, I have absolutely zero trust in our government to design a system that functions properly or even comparably to the system we currently have.Comparably to what? For millions of Americans, the only health care they have is the emergency room. Anything's better than what they've got.

My friend- this is what life does- you get choices and make them. They are only wrong if you let them be.

If I didnt marry my wife and have three kids, I'd likely still be a general manager-and making well over $150,000.00 per year, plus cash bonues and a company car. And oh yeah- I could be in jail (still waiting for statutes to run out) and possibly other unfavorable situations if I stayed there.
Or- I could have finished school and become a professional.
Or- I could be crawling through a swamp in Brasil holding a K-Bar in my teeth.

Dont rush things- as long as you and family are healthy, the money troubles are making you stronger and smarter-unless you let them become a wedge between you and your wife and your kids witness the strife.

All my problems are only financial right now. Thank God. And they arent much to speak of at all.
My brother in law is here from the UK for about 5 yrs now. I can barely understand him and he has a slovenly appearance. But- he works in house for some big co as a travel agent for their execs and is probably making more than me.

And- the scammers and drug dealers you see? Fuck them. I dont see you being able to live with yourself making money doing either.

You've got me wanting to help and encourage you in the worst way now because I remember the feelings of despair when I was in my 20s with one child and another on the way.

Things have gotten better since then. I've made some opporotunities and so has my wife. We've made a few good choices and life is running smoothly now.

It's all good. I'm not despairing - I'm just looking at a model that is failing so many. Like you said - I couldn't be one of the crooks - although my life would certainly have been easier. I'm of tougher stock, and I'll fight. A couple of years ago, I was a limey in the arse-end of America, doing videostore work for $5 an hour, no benefits. I've got me some schooling, I've changed career track - but I've ridden this particular pony as far as it's about to go.

I'll get somewhere from here... in time. It's just keeping shit together that long.

And the UK accent thing, I can relate. I've talked with Jocabia before, and he can vouch for me being almost entirely incoherent and unintelligible. :)

Actually, I do, from going to France in the early nineties, and doing something pretty minor, and yet my parents had to fork out about fifty quid to see the GP and get some drugs.
France doesn't have UHS? That's news to the French.

http://www.france-property-and-information.com/insurance.htm

There are substantial differences between the UK national health service and the French national health service (known as Assurance Maladie). The good news is that the French government spends more than the UK government on health care, with the result that the quality of service is high and waiting lists are generally short or non-existent.

The bad news is that the French national health service is not free. You must pay for almost everything, even a routine visit to your local GP (20 euros per visit at the time of writing) or a stay in hospital. After you've paid, social services will refund a portion of the cost. The amount of refund varies from 0% up to 100% depending on the type of medical care received and the circumstances, but generally works out about 70%. Consequently, you end up around 30% out of pocket. The main exception for this is very low income families, which essentially receive medical care for free. Note that you only receive the 70% refund if you have social security cover in France.

So....you were saying something about you having experience in a non-UHS country? But clearly, France does have UHS.

Google. It's your best friend.


The contract is 'I pay my taxes and in return I get roads to travel on, a damned fine education, healthcare, law enforcement, a military (although I'm not very supportive of its current role), benefits if I need them and much, much more...
That's not a contract; that's just the same as the mafia saying "pay us to protect you or sumthin' bad's gunna happin'."


That doesn't sound like theft to me... a fair exchange is no robbery.
Fair would be that you actually ask for it, rather than having it foisted upon you. Would you like it if you went to a restaurant and they charged you for food you did not order? Of course not. And did you order all the services your government provides? No, of course not. Ergo....

Hint: if you think there's a difference, you're a hypocrite.


It's not stealing, because you're getting a SERVICE from it.
So's being protected by the mafia from the mafia.


The rich keep on getting richer...
And the poor keep getting richer.l


I don't really think that it's creating a particularly large problem for them shelling out a bit more, to be honest...
Ah yes--fuck the rich. Gotta love that attitude.


Ah, right. The crux of the issue. Selfishness.[/qote]
You say that as if it's a bad thing.


[QUOTE=Yootopia;11930424]Pardon?

I volunteer, and when the Tsunami hit Asia I gave a whole months' savings away to it...
But not everything, hypocrite.

Trouble is... it's not only cheaper monitarily, it's cheaper in terms of quality too. I've seen hospitals in the UK, and I've seen hospitals in the US. You really do get what you pay for. I know a man who lives nearish to Bath, England, who waited so long on a waiting list for heart bypass surgery he had a heart attack and almost died. Sure, they took care of the heart attack free too, but when there's no way to get the care you need because of the beaurocracy, forget it. You get what you pay for, and I'd rather choose my plan and get what I pay for than be forced into a socialized system where I can't get the care I need.

This just isn't true. There are good and bad establishments in either country... but I've spent time in hospitals in both nations, and the only real difference is the cost to the consumer.

Waiting lists happen in the UK, but critical treatment is not ON waiting lists... my hernia that looked like it was about to strangulate, for example, was on a next-day basis... and would have been immediate if it had gotten serious. The next time I had hernia surgery, I had to wait two weeks before the surgery, but I wasn't at risk, so it was no hardship.

Are there occassional cases that slip through? Sure. And in US hospitals, patients sometimes die on gurneys in hallways...

Ah yes--fuck the rich. Gotta love that attitude.


It's only the mirror of the rich people saying 'fuck the poor'... and, let's face it, the rich are finding it a lot easier to pay the bills while they reel from such cruel jibes.

I live in the United States and would not like seeing a NHS because it is not the responsibility of the government make one. It is the task of the person to make sure that they have healthcare. I do not feel that I should have to pay taxes so that someone else can have healthcare.

Why?

What makes you so unique and special? Why shouldn't we ALL pitch in, a little, to take care of those who need help most?

Obviously Jesus doesn't want us to freely heal people*, so thus no universal health care. Those bums should go out and get a job and pay for their own crap. Pfft.:rolleyes:



*Matthew 10:8

Unfortunately, the US is a 'christian' nation only when it suits. Stick Jesus on your warbanner? Yessir! But, embrace a truly christlike lifestyle? Hell, no.

Because it would bankrupt the US, just as it has done to various European countries before reforms were enacted. Then there's the problem of waiting lists, not enough equipment, and quality issues.

Oh, and the most important: it is nothing more than theft and slavery. To forcibly take money from people and put it toward a fund to allow others to have something resembling access to healthcare is stealing and the enslavement of those who had the money forcibly taken no matter what guise or supposed "humanitarian" face might be put on it.

Yes. taxes for the benefit of society are theft and slavery. god forbid that anyone should look out for anyone other than themselves.

And as for that bankrupcy shit, the US govt spends twice as much per person as the UK on healthcare, and yet has no NHS and the poor have no healthcare at all.

Theres nothing wrong with wanting to be rich, but wanting it so bad you would kill the poor to get it is just mean.

The only goods that the government can provide more efficiently than the private sector are those for which competition destroy the very nature of the good--mainly the military, the police, and the courts. Additionally, these are all public goods--in other words, goods from which all citizens benefit equally.

The benefits of healthcare are not equal for everyone--18-year-olds derive far less benefit from a healthcare system than 80-year-olds do. Why, then, should 18-year-olds be forced to pay an equal share of their income for a good that they will rarely, if ever, need or want? Healthcare is not a public good, and competition in that market, far from destroying the value of the good, forces producers of the good (hospitals, doctors, etc.) to provide the highest-quality goods at the lowest price. Hence, from an economic standpoint, I am against any sort of nationalized health system, including Medicare/Medicaid.

In a perfect world, where morals and ethics reigned supreme, rich people would have no more right to healthcare than poor people. In a perfect world, candy would fall from the sky. We don't live in a perfect world. We live in the real world, where money and power reign supreme, and the rich, unfortunately, obviously have developed and perfected a skill that the poor haven't. Society can live without one fewer ditchdigger (or fast food worker, or assembly line worker, or streetsweeper, or...) a lot more than it can live without one fewer astronaut (or rocket scientist, or brain surgeon, or chemical engineer, or...).

I'm an American, so I am, of course, biased--but so is everyone else.

the USA doesn't have an NHS because it is retarded when it comes to deciding what is an essential right of the people. i'm glad there is an NHS here in britoland. even though i don't really deserve free treatment until i start paying UK taxes.

The benefits of healthcare are not equal for everyone--18-year-olds derive far less benefit from a healthcare system than 80-year-olds do. Why, then, should 18-year-olds be forced to pay an equal share of their income for a good that they will rarely, if ever, need or want?

Simple answer?

Because they will get old, too. And they won't be able to afford their healthcare when they are 80... and will be hoping for the gentle hearts of 18 year-olds to help them out.

Unfortunately, the US is a 'christian' nation only when it suits. Stick Jesus on your warbanner? Yessir! But, embrace a truly christlike lifestyle? Hell, no.
Christians are all about donating to help other people!
When it gets them a tax break and recognition.

Simple answer?

Because they will get old, too. And they won't be able to afford their healthcare when they are 80... and will be hoping for the gentle hearts of 18 year-olds to help them out.

Who says that they won't be able to afford their healthcare when they're 80? If they go to college, get a decent job, work for most of their life, and don't blow all their hard-earned cash (as Americans are wont to do), they will be sitting pretty at age 80 when their various organs start failing. If they don't, they haven't earned their insulin (or Viagra, or Cumadin, or whatever).

80-year-olds can hope all they want that 18-year-olds will pay for their healthcare--which is like me hoping that you'll give me money, just because you're a nice guy. Hope all you want, but individuals will always look out for themselves (and their pocketbooks) first.

And two questions about 18-year-olds: They are just starting out in life; if 80-year-olds can't pay for healthcare, what makes you think 18-year-olds can?

and

What gentle 18-year-old hearts? I'm 16 and can tell you that most of my classmates couldn't give less of a f--- about the elderly.

Simple answer?

Because they will get old, too. And they won't be able to afford their healthcare when they are 80... and will be hoping for the gentle hearts of 18 year-olds to help them out.
Quit being logical......some people don't understand that. :p

Unfortunately, the US is a 'christian' nation only when it suits. Stick Jesus on your warbanner? Yessir! But, embrace a truly christlike lifestyle? Hell, no.
Sad but true. I can see a lot of that attitude right in this thread.

Quit being logical......some people don't understand that. :p

That was below the belt. Disagree with me if you want, but please don't insult my intelligence. I should hope we're all more mature than that.

Yes. taxes for the benefit of society are theft and slavery.
Yes, they are.


god forbid that anyone should look out for anyone other than themselves.
Gotta love those strawmen.


And as for that bankrupcy shit, the US govt spends twice as much per person as the UK on healthcare, and yet has no NHS and the poor have no healthcare at all.
But the poor do. It's called "medicaid". And state agencies, such as BadgerCare in Wisconsin.

Sorta nice to know what you're talking about before posting, hinthint.


Theres nothing wrong with wanting to be rich, but wanting it so bad you would kill the poor to get it is just mean.
Yeah, that's really what the rich do. Yeah. They just want to kill the poor.

In the future, you need to stop being stupid before you can post, ok?

That was below the belt. Disagree with me if you want, but please don't insult my intelligence. I should hope we're all more mature than that.
I am sorry but your preconceived self importance presented a golden opportunity to ratchet down your ego a notch or two, and being the opportunist that I am, I seized upon it.

Society can live without one more ditchdigger (or fast food worker, or assembly line worker, or streetsweeper, or...) a lot more than it can live without one more astronaut (or rocket scientist, or brain surgeon, or chemical engineer, or...).
Perhaps when you pass on from this good earth, you will have figured out how to bury yourself? Surely you wouldn't allow some lowly gravedigger to bury a man of your stature?

The only goods that the government can provide more efficiently than the private sector are those for which competition destroy the very nature of the good--mainly the military, the police, and the courts. Additionally, these are all public goods--in other words, goods from which all citizens benefit equally.
Actually, there's no such thing as a public good, and competition wouldn't destroy the military, police, or courts.

Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue: Law, Courts, and Police (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_3.pdf) by David Osterfeld

Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

The rest of your response I have no real qualm with.

Why?

What makes you so unique and special? Why shouldn't we ALL pitch in, a little, to take care of those who need help most?

Because right now the person who needs my help the most is myself, and even though I make a measly 500 dollars a month with my student job, the government goes off and pillages 100 of it just because it arbitrarily decided someone else needed it more than I do. Why the fuck should I support their pillaging of even more of my measly wages just because they decided someone else "needs it".

Uncle Sam is not your mom. It's not the government's job to redistribute wealth, whether it's in the form of health care costs or anything else.

Paying the cashier at the store for goods received is one thing.
Giving your money to a government sponsored robin hood is something completely different.

Uncle Sam is not your mom. It's not the government's job to redistribute wealth, whether it's in the form of health care costs or anything else.

Paying the cashier at the store for goods received is one thing.
Giving your money to a government sponsored robin hood is something completely different.

Aye, unlike the government, the cashier does not come to your house with a gun, demanding payment for something you haven't, and possibly won't, purchase. The government, on the other hand, does.

I am sorry but your preconceived self importance presented a golden opportunity to ratchet down your ego a notch or two, and being the opportunist that I am, I seized upon it.


Perhaps when you pass on from this good earth, you will have figured out how to bury yourself? Surely you wouldn't allow some lowly gravedigger to bury a man of your stature?

You clearly missed the point entirely. On an ethical basis, I am neither more nor less important than anyone else, but my skills will determine how valuable I am to my fellow human beings. The government is not concerned with the fact that you are a person, full of emotions and morals; to the government, you are a number that just happens to provide something of some worth. The more worthy your product, the more valuable you are to government and to society as a whole. Again, governments deal in money and product, not in ethics and souls.

I never said we don't NEED ditchdiggers. I simply said that society can do without one fewer ditchdigger much more easily than it can without one fewer brain surgeon. This is clearly true for a variety of reasons--there are more ditchdiggers than brain surgeons, one ditchdigger's workload can be easily transferred, it's a lot easier to train a ditchdigger than a brain surgeon, etc. If you cannot accept that an individual ditchdigger is less economically important to society than an individual brain surgeon or engineer, I honestly don't know how to reason with you.

There's a damn good reason we pay chemical engineers more than we pay the guy who takes your order at Arby's. Even though the chemical engineer may be a megalomaniacal anti-Semite who likes to eat kittens for breakfast and the guy at Arby's may donate blood every six weeks and volunteer at the homeless shelter, the chemical engineer is worth more on a financial basis.

Who says that they won't be able to afford their healthcare when they're 80? If they go to college, get a decent job, work for most of their life, and don't blow all their hard-earned cash (as Americans are wont to do), they will be sitting pretty at age 80 when their various organs start failing. If they don't, they haven't earned their insulin (or Viagra, or Cumadin, or whatever).

80-year-olds can hope all they want that 18-year-olds will pay for their healthcare--which is like me hoping that you'll give me money, just because you're a nice guy. Hope all you want, but individuals will always look out for themselves (and their pocketbooks) first.

And two questions about 18-year-olds: They are just starting out in life; if 80-year-olds can't pay for healthcare, what makes you think 18-year-olds can?

and

What gentle 18-year-old hearts? I'm 16 and can tell you that most of my classmates couldn't give less of a f--- about the elderly.

Don't you see the flaw in your own reasoning?

You are saying the 18-year-old can't afford the healthcare, we know the 80-year-old can't afford the healthcare. So, no one can afford the healthcare. The assertion that those who beaver away all their lives will be miraculously wealthy just simply isn't born out by reality. Those who were knocking the shit out of themselves 40 years ago, are getting ready to retire now, on the 'fat' they accumulated during their working lives, and finding that their pensions aren't worth anything, and that the cost of living has increased so rapidly, they just can't afford to retire.

Our 80-year-old of today beat himself or herself to the ground to enable the world that the 18-year-old of today enjoys. It isn't too much to ask that the current generation make some effort to repay the hardwork of those pioneers.

ANd, why do I say it should be tax-based - for exactly the reason you allude to - a lot of people feel like they somehow miraculously 'earned' this world, just by existing, and that they owe nothing to those who have gone before, or to their contemporaries. Such selfishness should not be allowed to harm people.

Because it would bankrupt the US, just as it has done to various European countries before reforms were enacted. Then there's the problem of waiting lists, not enough equipment, and quality issues.

Oh, and the most important: it is nothing more than theft and slavery. To forcibly take money from people and put it toward a fund to allow others to have something resembling access to healthcare is stealing and the enslavement of those who had the money forcibly taken no matter what guise or supposed "humanitarian" face might be put on it.

I can't quite say it any better myself...so thank you for typing what I was going to. :)

Because right now the person who needs my help the most is myself, and even though I make a measly 500 dollars a month with my student job, the government goes off and pillages 100 of it just because it arbitrarily decided someone else needed it more than I do. Why the fuck should I support their pillaging of even more of my measly wages just because they decided someone else "needs it".

You don't have to support this 'pillage' of which you speak. You choose to do so, by living in a nation that has taxation. If you can find somewhere that will let you live without taxation, feel free to relocate... but I think you'll probably find the local standard of living to be much less than you have come to expect.

You seem to imagine you live in isolation. That your '$500' dollars is somehow your 'right'. You don't stop to think that, in this big cause-and-effect world, your job only even exists because of the taxes we all pay, and the societal structure that is constructed and supported by it.

That was below the belt. Disagree with me if you want, but please don't insult my intelligence. I should hope we're all more mature than that.

Funny. He didn't say YOU wouldn't understand it - you made that leap yourself.

Uncle Sam is not your mom. It's not the government's job to redistribute wealth, whether it's in the form of health care costs or anything else.

Paying the cashier at the store for goods received is one thing.
Giving your money to a government sponsored robin hood is something completely different.

And yet, I wonder how you would feel if the US were invaded by a foreign power?

"Hey Uncle Sam, get your flat-footed soldiers of my land, I'll fight these guys myself"...?

You seem to imagine you live in isolation. That your '$500' dollars is somehow your 'right'. You don't stop to think that, in this big cause-and-effect world, your job only even exists because of the taxes we all pay, and the societal structure that is constructed and supported by it.

When someone earns money through work, it is theirs--no one else's. I have no say over your money and vice-versa. It is yours to spend as you wish. It is not the right of the government to steal your money at the barrel of a gun to play nanny over its citizens.

When someone earns money through work, it is theirs--no one else's. I have no say over your money and vice-versa. It is yours to spend as you wish. It is not the right of the government to steal your money at the barrel of a gun to play nanny over its citizens.

Strangely, I feel no such qualms. I appreciate that I live in a society as a whole, and I don't mind contributing to my whole society.

Maybe it's because I appreciate that the whole society we live in is a complex symbiosis, and that we ALL owe each other something... my 'work' only even exists because of everyone else.

Is my money "mine, no one else's"? No - I didn't print it, I don't guarantee it... all I do with it is hold it. It is a false scenario to call the government thief, when they are taking a commission on letting you use their service.

Do I wish my tax burden were LESS of my check? Of course... this country is too expensive for most of us to happily write off any deduction.

I live in a country where, officially, we have a state funded universal health system. And we do have one - if you don't mind queuing all day to see an overworked and under motivated doctor, who does not have the equipment available to perform the examinations needed, let alone the ability to provide medication at a reasonable cost.

So what we have is the worst of both worlds. We pay tax to support this system that does not work and those that can pay for private medical treatment as well. If the people from the lower middle classes upwards did not use private medical insurance schemes then the state system would collapse entirely.

The state system does provide the a minimal amount of heath care for the poor, and as such it serves some purpose if you hold that it is the role of the state to redistribute income in this way (I don't) but even then the return on the tax cost is so low that the existing system should be scrapped and something else that is minimally efficient put in its place.

I live in a country where, officially, we have a state funded universal health system. And we do have one - if you don't mind queuing all day to see an overworked and under motivated doctor, who does not have the equipment available to perform the examinations needed, let alone the ability to provide medication at a reasonable cost.

So what we have is the worst of both worlds. We pay tax to support this system that does not work and those that can pay for private medical treatment as well. If the people from the lower middle classes upwards did not use private medical insurance schemes then the state system would collapse entirely.

The state system does provide the a minimal amount of heath care for the poor, and as such it serves some purpose if you hold that it is the role of the state to redistribute income in this way (I don't) but even then the return on the tax cost is so low that the existing system should be scrapped and something else that is minimally efficient put in its place.

Which is a problem in the specific application... not the concept.

I suspect that the NHS has been unaffordable for the US because of

a) use of all the money on the military. The US military since WWII has been designed to defend not only America, but all of America's allies so the latter don't have to. Gives America more control that way.

b) ideological opposition

Which is a problem in the specific application... not the concept.

That depends upon your political views. Mine are such that I have a problem with the concept. If people want to have medical treatment then it is their responsibility to arrange that for themselves - they cannot demand that I contribute to satisfying their desires. I am not concerned with the suffering of others - it is their problem - and I do not want them to be concerned with my suffering - that is my business.

However the original question posed in this thread presumes that a government funded health scheme is a good thing. Working within that (false) presumption - I am simply pointing out that in some cases the practice does not match the ideal.

That depends upon your political views. Mine are such that I have a problem with the concept. If people want to have medical treatment then it is their responsibility to arrange that for themselves - they cannot demand that I contribute to satisfying their desires. I am not concerned with the suffering of others - it is their problem - and I do not want them to be concerned with my suffering - that is my business.

However the original question posed in this thread presumes that a government funded health scheme is a good thing. Working within that (false) presumption - I am simply pointing out that in some cases the practice does not match the ideal.

No - it doesn't depend on political views. YOUR perception might... but the model clearly works much better elsewhere, than it does where you are - saw it MUST be the specific application that is flawed.

Now - you may not like the concept, and to you the concept may sem wrong... but I am not talking about what we 'prefer'... but what is 'real'.

Strangely, I feel no such qualms.
That's YOU, and YOU do not get to decide what happens to other people's money. Unless, of course, you have dreams of being a dictator.

It's also a false statement to say that the government isn't stealing your money simply because they've arrogated the monopoly on printing the money to themselves.

It's only the mirror of the rich people saying 'fuck the poor'...
That's only prevalent in movies. Unfortunately, too many of the people who desire any socialist nonsense at all do not understand the difference between fantasy and reality. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that none of them understand the difference.

That's YOU, and YOU do not get to decide what happens to other people's money. Unless, of course, you have dreams of being a dictator.

It's also a false statement to say that the government isn't stealing your money simply because they've arrogated the monopoly on printing the money to themselves.

No - it isn't false. They also 'guarantee' the currency. It isn't just 'printing' it that makes it money... *sighs*

That's only prevalent in movies. Unfortunately, too many of the people who desire any socialist nonsense at all do not understand the difference between fantasy and reality. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that none of them understand the difference.

What are you, my stalker?

Is it 'only prevalent in movies'?

Let us assume you have more money than me. I'm hungry... will you give me some?

No - it doesn't depend on political views. YOUR perception might... but the model clearly works much better elsewhere, than it does where you are - saw it MUST be the specific application that is flawed.

Now - you may not like the concept, and to you the concept may seem wrong... but I am not talking about what we 'prefer'... but what is 'real'.

One problem may be the application of the ideal - which is a problem I was addressing in my initial post here. This does not mean however that the ideal itself is not a problem.

What is real is what exists, and when what exists only exists due to a political will - then it is a political issue. There is then a set of political values that you are adopting when you you refer to what is 'real'. In these circumstances whether a health service should exist or not is a question of politics and political opinion - nothing else.

The provision of a heath service by a government is a question of preference - so you are talking about what you prefer - and what I prefer - and not at all about what is 'real'.

It's because good Christians don't believe they should have to help other people through proxy.
Why do you see fit to attack Christians? I'm a Christian and absolutely support national healthcare systems.

Of course he doesn't, seeing as his mother was one.
St Mary wasn't a 'slut'.

So what? It's not the responsibility of others to provide it. Period. To say that it the responsibility of others is to endorse slavery.

No, that's just attempting to wallpaper over the fact that you're endorsing slavery.
*snigger*

*chuckle*

If having under half of my $250,000 dollar a year pay cheque taken away is slavery, sign me up for all the servitude you've got!

Only if you don't know what slavery is.

Deny reality much?
If people other than you really considered taxes to be slavery, then no government services would ever have existed after slavery was abolished in the 19th century.

How doesn't it?

Yes. Do you?

Now what exactly about my statement do you not understand? I want an exact answer, not something nebulous.
If you're going to debate, then debate, don't just punch meaningless words into the keyboard.

The burden of proof, or at least explanation of your point, is on you.

Except that it is. The concept is to demand that some work for the benefit of others--that they have their property taken, their effort used--for the benefit of others without any guarantee of recompense or consentual contract. That's slavery, my dear.
Recompense is guaranteed. You have the same right to the health service as anyone else does.

No, that's what the UHS people say. Without the UHS, the poor would not have health care. Every UHS supporter tells me that. Every. Single. One. Thus, the "poor" are being made better relative to the ex ante position while the "middle class" and "rich" are being made worse off relative to the ex ante position.
That means that the right to healthcare, thus, life, is more important than the right of the rich people to keep their property and let the poor die.

Oh but it's everything like slavery.
I've never seen any healthcare, or tax system that is like this. (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rhernand/slavery.gif)

The right to life does not include the right to demand the property of someone else in order to satisfy your healthcare needs. Not unless you're willing to endorse slavery. Are you willing to do that?
Yes. The right to life is more important than the right to property. It's sometimes an inevitable conflict that one of the rights must win.

No - it isn't false.
Yes it is, and they have no guarantee on the currency, bubba. It's fiat shit. There's no guarantee on it at all.

Do. Some. Research.

That's YOU, and YOU do not get to decide what happens to other people's money. Unless, of course, you have dreams of being a dictator.
Or a democrat. (i don't mean the US political party)

Is it 'only prevalent in movies'?
Yes.


Let us assume you have more money than me. I'm hungry... will you give me some?
Perhaps.

Let's say someone has more money than someone else. Would you refrain from stealing the first person's money in order to give the second person something the second person desires?

One problem may be the application of the ideal - which is a problem I was addressing in my initial post here. This does not mean however that the ideal itself is not a problem.

What is real is what exists, and when what exists only exists due to a political will - then it is a political issue. There is then a set of political values that you are adopting when you you refer to what is 'real'. In these circumstances whether a health service should exist or not is a question of politics and political opinion - nothing else.

The provision of a heath service by a government is a question of preference - so you are talking about what you prefer - and what I prefer - and not at all about what is 'real'.


No - again, I'm not talking about what you or I prefer, and talking about the 'politics' is a red herring.

In the UK, nationalised healthcare 'works'. Where you are, it doesn't.

The 'reality', then - is that national healthcare can work. If it doesn't work where you are, it is not a flaw in the concept (because it can be seen working much better, elsewhere), but in local execution.

No - this 'execution' may be flawed because of politics or preferences... but that is no flaw in the concept.

Yes it is, and they have no guarantee on the currency, bubba. It's fiat shit. There's no guarantee on it at all.

Do. Some. Research.

Empty words. I see you provide no kind of evidence to support your so-called rebuttal.

Thus, I'll deal with it, with all the respect it demands.

*ignored*

Yes.



Perhaps.

Let's say someone has more money than someone else. Would you refrain from stealing the first person's money in order to give the second person something the second person desires?

Can't even answer that simple question, huh?

Stop wasting my time, please.

If having under half of my $250,000 dollar a year pay cheque taken away is slavery, sign me up for all the servitude you've got!
Ah, so you're one of the idiots who hates the rich. I see. Jealous much?



If people other than you really considered taxes to be slavery, then no government services would ever have existed after slavery was abolished in the 19th century.
Non sequitur.


If you're going to debate, then debate, don't just punch meaningless words into the keyboard.
Pot. Kettle. Black.


The burden of proof, or at least explanation of your point, is on you.
I've already explained my point. The other person did not.


Recompense is guaranteed.
Then demonstrate how it is.


You have the same right to the health service as anyone else does.
Which is that there is no right to health service.


That means that the right to healthcare, thus, life, is more important than the right of the rich people to keep their property and let the poor die.
Jealous much?

Hate the rich much?

Why is it that you silly leftists think that theft of the property of the rich is just fine? Why do you hate the rich so much?


I've never seen any healthcare, or tax system that is like this. (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rhernand/slavery.gif)
So what? That means absolutely nothing.


Yes. The right to life is more important than the right to property.
There is no distinction, and there never is a conflict. There is only a distinction if you decide to toss out the praxeological laws and morality. Which, of course, leftists do.

Empty words. I see you provide no kind of evidence to support your so-called rebuttal.
And you provided no evidence to support your assertion.

Poor you. Poor cowardly you.

Can't even answer that simple question, huh?
I answered your question. Why can't you answer mine. Or did my question reveal your utter hatred and jealousy of the rich such that it made you ashamed.

And you provided no evidence to support your assertion.

Poor you. Poor cowardly you.

Now you attack the debator, rather than the debate?

I believe this is a logical fallacy.

Ah, so you're one of the idiots who hates the rich.

*Flame*

Now you attack the debator,
Just like you did to me. You attacked me by lying. So you might want to look in the mirror before you post.

Would you like to answer my question now?

*Flame*
Except that it's not.

I answered your question. Why can't you answer mine. Or did my question reveal your utter hatred and jealousy of the rich such that it made you ashamed.

You didn't answer my question. 'Perhaps' is not an answer to "will you give me money?" I can't buy a happymeal with your 'perhaps'.

I see no point moving on to your 'question' until mine has been answered.

Except that it's not.

Are you going to hijack the whole thread for this? If you call someone an 'idiot', it is a flame. Please... debate the points.

Just like you did to me. You attacked me by lying. So you might want to look in the mirror before you post.

Would you like to answer my question now?

I 'attacked you' by 'lying'? How does that even work? Post me a link.

You didn't answer my question.
I did. "Perhaps" is an answer.

Main Entry: 1an·swer
Pronunciation: 'an(t)-s&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English andswaru (akin to Old Norse andsvar answer); akin to Old English and- against, swerian to swear -- more at ANTE-
1 a : something spoken or written in reply to a question

So, given that I answered your question, while you evaded mine, it looks like I'll just have to give summary judgement that you do hate the rich.

No - again, I'm not talking about what you or I prefer, and talking about the 'politics' is a red herring.

In the UK, nationalised healthcare 'works'. Where you are, it doesn't.

The 'reality', then - is that national healthcare can work. If it doesn't work where you are, it is not a flaw in the concept (because it can be seen working much better, elsewhere), but in local execution.

No - this 'execution' may be flawed because of politics or preferences... but that is no flaw in the concept.

You are completely missing the point.

There are two questions here- OK.

Question 1. Should there be a national health service?

Question 2. If there should be an NHS - how should it be run?

Before you can address question 2, you have to answer question 1 - in the affirmative. Politically my answer to question 1 is no - so question 2 never arises.

Simply because I allowed that question 1 be presumed to be answered affirmatively when I addressed the nature of the HS here, does not mean that there is no political question to be addressed in reality. Question 1 does have to be included, and you are trying to exclude it.

The reality is that national healthcare can work - true. I have never denied that and in my original post here I stated that a system that does not work should be scrapped and replaced with something that does work. The political question is whether it the government should provide any such service at all - which is a question that you are not addressing.

The flaw in the concept is a political flaw. It is one that presumes that one has a responsibility to provide healthcare for others. That presumption is flat wrong. There is no such responsibility - there is only a choice - a political one.

Are you going to hijack the whole thread for this?
You're the one who whined about it. Looks like you're the one hijacking the thread.

Now please--debate the points.