NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so we all know that the new Michael Moore documentary "Sicko" has been released, and it has brought newly reformed debate in American politics.

Such as, should the American government provide universal healthcare to its citizens?


I would like to hear people's opinions about this, whether you're American or not.

I would also like to hear from people from other nations that do have universal healthcare, and specifically I'd like to know how you would rate the quality of your healthcare.

The largest argument for the conservative, anti-universal healthcare stance is that universal healthcare will be shoddy and subprime in quality.

So let's hear it guys!

: )

It will never come to America because Americans are selfish and it wouldn't benefit the healthcare industry, who have deep pockets to oppose it.

Real nice way to start things off :rolleyes:

It will never come to America because Americans are selfish and it wouldn't benefit the healthcare industry, who have deep pockets to oppose it.

perhaps he meant american CORPORATIONS are selfish


not just americans in general

I must say the British NHS is an exemplary healthcare system, despite it's flaws brought on by the Thatcher and Blair Privatisation initiatives.

It's a much better system for preventative medicine solutions. You don't have to wait and worry about that toe infection before it becomes full blown septicaemia because you want to save your health insurance policy until you absolutely need it.

perhaps he meant american CORPORATIONS are selfish


not just americans in general

Well then he would have to say so

Real nice way to start things off :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, facts are facts.

What is the main argument against universal healthcare in the US? "I don't want to pay for some one else's healthcare."

No one ever thinks about the fact their taxes are paying for roads they don't use and to send kids to school that arn't their own or any other things taxes go for that don't benefit them directly.

perhaps he meant american CORPORATIONS are selfish

No, I didn't. That's true too, but not what I meant. I meant what I said and said what I meant.

Medicine is by it's nature socialized. Especially in developed countries. When someone is injured, sick, dying, they go to the emergency room. They get medical care. If they can't pay, the hospitals make up for it in the medical care they provide those that can. Insurance companies pay those higher costs due to those that don't have insurance and pass those costs to those of us that do. Our taxes pay medicare and social security.

Those of us with the ability to pay already pay for those of us that don't. The only difference I see in universal socialized healthcare is that access to preventative medicine will reduce the need for emergency medicine. In other words, Universal healthcare will save those of us that can pay from paying as much.

I'm sorry, facts are facts.

What is the main argument against universal healthcare in the US? "I don't want to pay for some one else's healthcare."

No one ever thinks about the fact their taxes are paying for roads they don't use and to send kids to school that arn't their own or any other things taxes go for that don't benefit them directly.


you do make a valid point there

I'm sorry, facts are facts.

What is the main argument against universal healthcare in the US? "I don't want to pay for some one else's healthcare."

No one ever thinks about the fact their taxes are paying for roads they don't use and to send kids to school that arn't their own or any other things taxes go for that don't benefit them directly.


So what you're really trying to say is "In regards to socialised healthcare many Americans are selfish". Wow look how easy that was

Might as well say "All humans are in some way selfish"

I refuse to support the idea of the U.S. Government, an organization legendary for its waste, inefficiency and incompetence, being in charge of health care.

2 Words: Walter Reed

We did just have this discussion a few days ago, but I'll bite. :)

It seems to me that the problems with UHC for our closest neighbor Canada is a problem with wait times for things like MRIs or surgery. Most of this would be cause by a lack of doctors (going to the US for the money) and bureaucracy inherent in the system.

Should the US implement the system alongside private options, it is apparent that one side of the coin will end up flattened. One hopes to make sure UHC can help those who need it most, but if more middle class citizens flock to free healthcare than expected, the private companies will be destroyed.

The only way the system would work in the US is to merge the two ideas somehow. The only way I can think of immediately is to route most of the tax (because taxes need to go up for this to work) income towards the hospitals and abolish insurance.

Real nice way to start things off :rolleyes:
He's right, though.
No one ever thinks about the fact their taxes are paying for roads they don't use and to send kids to school that arn't their own or any other things taxes go for that don't benefit them directly.
Yeah, but there's not a small amount of people who think you shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools if you don't have school-age kids.

I'm sorry, facts are facts.

What is the main argument against universal healthcare in the US? "I don't want to pay for some one else's healthcare."



Yes.

We work 3 hours out of 8 every day pay to pay our taxes. I can only imagine what that would be with socialized healthcare.

Yes.

We work 3 hours out of 8 every day pay to pay our taxes. I can only imagine what that would be with socialized healthcare.

OG Jesus forbid you pay another cent in taxes to improve your life.

Why pay taxes at all? We don't need schools, or roads, or police, or firemen, or government at all. :rolleyes:

Yes.

We work 3 hours out of 8 every day pay to pay our taxes. I can only imagine what that would be with socialized healthcare.
It would be the same. Read Lunatic Goofballs post.

Besides, we could always make cuts to some areas, like the military.

Yes.

We work 3 hours out of 8 every day pay to pay our taxes. I can only imagine what that would be with socialized healthcare.

Probably 2.8 *nod*

So what you're really trying to say is "In regards to socialised healthcare many Americans are selfish". Wow look how easy that was

Might as well say "All humans are in some way selfish"
No, Americans are selfish. That's what I said, stop trying to play it so it is usable in Care Bear land. If I hadn't meant it, I wouldn't have said it.

No, Americans are selfish. That's what I said, stop trying to play it so it is usable in Care Bear land. If I hadn't meant it, I wouldn't have said it.

OK i'll leave it alone since this will only result in threadjacking

Yes.

We work 3 hours out of 8 every day pay to pay our taxes. I can only imagine what that would be with socialized healthcare.
You government already spend more on healthcare as a percentage of GDP than countries with a universal system. There's no reason why it would have to cost more. And as an afterthought, you don't have to have socialised medicine to have universal healthcare.

i think it's interesting that a lot of people are talking about the cost of universal healthcare


can you really put a price on a human being's life?


can you really look at someone dead in the eyes and say "well, yes, there is a cure for your illness. But unfortunately, it's just too expensive to give it to you, so i'm afraid we're gonna have to let you die slowly. Sorry." ?

You government already spend more on healthcare as a percentage of GDP than countries with a universal system. There's no reason why it would have to cost more.
Excellent point. There is so much fumbling around so to make it look like there isn't some sort of commie healthcare system, that it costs them more than it would to play it straight.

I'm surprised the big corps don't throw their weight into the universal healthcare game because of what it costs them. Probably because under the Republican government they are being allowed to toss off alot of their healthcare burden by pushing it back or cutting back on benefits or dumping it entirely. Once the Democrats take over and try to avoid universal healthcare while giving everyone usable healthcare by putting it all on the big businesses, they will throw their lobbying weight behind government run healthcare, mark my words.

i think it's interesting that a lot of people are talking about the cost of universal healthcare


can you really put a price on a human being's life?


can you really look at someone dead in the eyes and say "well, yes, there is a cure for your illness. But unfortunately, it's just too expensive to give it to you, so i'm afraid we're gonna have to let you die slowly. Sorry"

Yes I find that a perfectly sensible route to take

Excellent point. There is so much fumbling around so to make it look like there isn't some sort of commie healthcare system, that it costs them more than it would to play it straight.

I'm surprised the big corps don't throw their weight into the universal healthcare game because of what it costs them. Probably because under the Republican government they are being allowed to toss off alot of their healthcare burden by pushing it back or cutting back on benefits or dumping it entirely. Once the Democrats take over and try to avoid universal healthcare while giving everyone usable healthcare by putting it all on the big businesses, they will throw their lobbying weight behind government run healthcare, mark my words.

Right after they stand up to Giuliani.

Yes I find that a perfectly sensible route to take


wait, are you being serious or sarcastic?

i think it's interesting that a lot of people are talking about the cost of universal healthcare


can you really put a price on a human being's life?


can you really look at someone dead in the eyes and say "well, yes, there is a cure for your illness. But unfortunately, it's just too expensive to give it to you, so i'm afraid we're gonna have to let you die slowly. Sorry." ?

Let's be honest about this, shall we?

If you have such an illness you *will* be treated, regardless of your ability to pay or lack of insurance. That's that Medicaid/Medicare is for. Even under the current system, nobody's going to let someone die.

wait, are you being serious or sarcastic?

Completely serious

OG Jesus forbid you pay another cent in taxes to improve your life.

It wouldn't improve my life 1 iota.

Why pay taxes at all? We don't need schools, or roads, or police, or firemen, or government at all. :rolleyes:

I didn't say I objected to paying taxes.

Nor did I mention schools, roads, police, or firemen.

I said I work 3 hours a day out of 8 to pay my taxes already, how many will I have to work once this is implemented?

Yes I find that a perfectly sensible route to take

Remember you said that when an injury forces you out of work and your insurance carrier drops you, your savings dry up, your assets are gone and your child suddenly gets something expensive to cure. *nod*

It wouldn't improve my life 1 iota.


you say that now until you come down with some terrible disease, god forbid


or something major and unfortunate happens to you


and then you get the bill from the hospital, and your healthcare insurance refuses to pay for it because of a technicality written in the fine print that you signed


then what?

Remember you said that when an injury forces you out of work and your insurance carrier drops you, your savings dry up, your assets are gone and your child suddenly gets something expensive to cure. *nod*

I don't mean it in that sense. Perhaps I should have pointed out that in the NHS there are drugs withheld based on cost. I was talking from the point of socialised healthcare

The question of cost will still exist no matter what system is in place. Just to varying degrees and success

It wouldn't improve my life 1 iota.

I would like paying less to go to a doctor, I don't know about you.

I didn't say I objected to paying taxes.

Nor did I mention schools, roads, police, or firemen.

I said I work 3 hours a day out of 8 to pay my taxes already, how many will I have to work once this is implemented?

You object to taxes if you complain about how much you have to work to pay them, unless I misunderstood how taxes work again.

Let's be honest about this, shall we?

If you have such an illness you *will* be treated, regardless of your ability to pay or lack of insurance. That's that Medicaid/Medicare is for. Even under the current system, nobody's going to let someone die.


Over 14,000 Americans die each year as a direct result of not having health insurance


yes, even under the current system, people are dying

Over 14,000 Americans die each year as a direct result of not having health insurance


yes, even under the current system, people are dying

I'd like to see the source of that statistic because I'd be willing to bet a good chunk of those are people who refused treatment or didn't follow through with meds/followups.

Socialized health care wouldn't fix that

I don't mean it in that sense. Perhaps I should have pointed out that in the NHS there are drugs withheld based on cost. I was talking from the point of socialised healthcare

The question of cost will still exist no matter what system is in place. Just to varying degrees and success

Cost, or need? Numerous unnecessary(but beneficial) drugs are expensive. But they don't skimp on the chemotherapy, do they?

I'd like to see the source of that statistic because I'd be willing to bet a good chunk of those are people who refused treatment or didn't follow through with meds/followups.

Socialized health care wouldn't fix that



http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/ins-m25.shtml


and my bad, the number is actually above 18,000

Cost, or need? Numerous unnecessary(but beneficial) drugs are expensive. But they don't skimp on the chemotherapy, do they?

There are plenty of drugs out there that are just too expensive to use in practice (in the NHS here for example) even though they may have a better success rate for life threatening pathologies. When faced with the question "Would you be able to look into someones eyes and tell them their life isn't worth the cost of the best drug?" it's basically the same idea.

I need to really clarify this better since I can't seem to get the words from my brain onto the screen to make my point properly. I'll throw it on when I get it right (if this isn't good)

didn't follow through with meds/followups.

How would socialized medicine not help with that? I'd imagine that people would be more willing to follow through with meds or followups if they didn't have to pay an arm and a leg for it.

Even under the current system, nobody's going to let someone die.But they will let someone get to the brink of death.

There are plenty of drugs out there that are just too expensive to use in practice (in the NHS here for example) even though they may have a better success rate for life threatening pathologies. When faced with the question "Would you be able to look into someones eyes and tell them their life isn't worth the cost of the best drug?" it's basically the same idea.

I need to really clarify this better since I can't seem to get the words from my brain onto the screen to make my point properly. I'll throw it on when I get it right (if this isn't good)

Except for the next part where they say, "Of course, we do accept Visa and Mastercard..."

I am against socialized healthcare, I know that the current system is inefficient and needs reform, I just don't think that socializing healthcare is the right direction for reform. What we need to do is get rid of insulation from health costs, unnecessary regulations, and weaken the employer based insurance system as that is part of the reason that people don't have insurance, they do not buy something that others get for "free" from their employers. Really, I don't think that any reform will amazingly buy us this big free lunch like everyone else speaks of.

Except for the next part where they say, "Of course, we do accept Visa and Mastercard..."

Yeah which is why I much prefer the system here but then that wasn't the reason for my initial post

Cost, or need? Numerous unnecessary(but beneficial) drugs are expensive. But they don't skimp on the chemotherapy, do they?
That type of matter is something that people on both sides see. Really though, shouldn't people have the ability to get the unnecessary but beneficial drugs with their own dollar? I would say so, the nature of our current coverage makes this a problem but if we work on getting away from our insulating tendencies then our expenses will go down. After all, I believe I heard that Americans tend to pay less out of pocket for health care than the Canadians due to our health insurance.

Yeah which is why I much prefer the system here but then that wasn't the reason for my initial post

Oh. Um... want a taco? *hands out tacos*

Really though, shouldn't people have the ability to get the unnecessary but beneficial drugs with their own dollar?

They wouldn't be able to in a socialised healthcare scenario?

Oh. Um... want a taco? *hands out tacos*

Had my first ever taco on Monday and based on that experience I apologise for the following

*pulls out gun*

GIVE ME ALL YOUR TACOS NOW

Yeah which is why I much prefer the system here


the system in what nation are you referring to?

How would socialized medicine not help with that? I'd imagine that people would be more willing to follow through with meds or followups if they didn't have to pay an arm and a leg for it.

Did we not just point these out as examples of people who will be taken care of under the current system even if they can't pay?

People are stubborn and thick-headed. They often refuse to do what they're supposed to do w/respect to treatments. Socialized Healthcare isn't the golden fleece that will make that go away.

I'm not sure if I remember this correctly, but is it true that the US govt pays more toward healthcare (that means taxpayer money) than any other country that already has socialized medicine?

US taxpayers are already paying into medicare, meaning that just like roads, firehouses, police, libraries and schools, we are all already paying for medical care for others that we ourselves often do not even quallify to use. I know I dont.

I just got paid today - from my check details

Taxes.........................Current............YTD
Medicare employee......-22.32..............-350.50

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/ins-m25.shtml


and my bad, the number is actually above 18,000

...you cite a source from a Socialist website and you trust its objectivity in this matter?

If I go cite a Republican source that says the opposite would you trust its objectivity?

I suspect not.

the system in what nation are you referring to?

UK

Did we not just point these out as examples of people who will be taken care of under the current system even if they can't pay?

People are stubborn and thick-headed. They often refuse to do what they're supposed to do w/respect to treatments. Socialized Healthcare isn't the golden fleece that will make that go away.


perhaps not, but it will at least give the underprivileged and even the middle class a fighting chance against whatever health issues they face

...you cite a source from a Socialist website and you trust its objectivity in this matter?

If I go cite a Republican source that says the opposite would you trust its objectivity?

I suspect not.


the article got its information from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a private organization affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences which is a highly regarded institute


the political affiliation of the presenter of the information is irrelevant

it's the information that is to be focused on

Had my first ever taco on Monday and based on that experience I apologise for the following

*pulls out gun*

GIVE ME ALL YOUR TACOS NOW

Silly goose, I'm LG! I have an infinite supply. Take what you need.

Universal Socialized Tacos. :)

perhaps not, but it will at least give the underprivileged and even the middle class a fighting chance against whatever health issues they face

Let me be sure I understand your point clearly.

Are you saying that under a system of Socialized Universal heathcare, the underprivileged and poor would receive health care with quality equivalent to that which insured people are receiving right now?

Looking for a yes/no answer, please.

UK


awesome

Let me be sure I understand your point clearly.

Are you saying that under a system of Socialized Universal heathcare, the underprivileged and poor would receive health care with quality equivalent to that which insured people are receiving right now?

Looking for a yes/no answer, please.


they have the potential, yes

but the universal system would have to be implemented properly

the article got its information from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a private organization affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences which is a highly regarded institute


the political affiliation of the presenter of the information is irrelevant

it's the information that is to be focused on

So if I go find a Republican website that has info contradicting yours, would you accept its value because the political affiliation is irrelevant?

The article you cited is essentially an editorial which is, by definition, not objective nor is it meant to be.

People are stubborn and thick-headed. They often refuse to do what they're supposed to do w/respect to treatments. Socialized Healthcare isn't the golden fleece that will make that go away.
But it's alot easier to go get a checkup or routine dental cleaning when it doesn't cost you hundreds of dollars because you don't have insurance and then it costs everyone thousands of dollars later because not doing that has lead to something more serious that has to be treated and you still have neither insurance or money to pay.

they have the potential, yes

but the universal system would have to be implemented properly

Alright well that's where you and I diverge, because I don't have enough faith in the US Government to believe for one second that they could even come close to that level of quality.

It hasn't happened anywhere else, and if you want an example of Government run healthcare I invite you to look at VA hospitals in the US, especially Walter Reed. And that's for the TROOPS for God's sake. if the Government can't manage to do right by them, what makes you think they'll do any better for the poor?

So if I go find a Republican website that has info contradicting yours, would you accept its value because the political affiliation is irrelevant?

The article you cited is essentially an editorial which is, by definition, not objective nor is it meant to be.



the article is focused upon the information that you were inquiring about

but i agree with you, it does seem a little bit biased

i'll try and find something from a more direct source to the medical field, gimmie a minute though

But it's alot easier to go get a checkup or routine dental cleaning when it doesn't cost you hundreds of dollars because you don't have insurance and then it costs everyone thousands of dollars later because not doing that has lead to something more serious that has to be treated and you still have neither insurance or money to pay.

Easier has little to do with it. I think it would be interesting to look at medically preventable deaths by people who DO have insurance. I bet you'll find more than 18,000 annually.

the article is focused upon the information that you were inquiring about

but i agree with you, it does seem a little bit biased

i'll try and find something from a more direct source to the medical field, gimmie a minute though

Fair enough. I'll do the same. (It is hard though, isn't it? :) )

Alright well that's where you and I diverge, because I don't have enough faith in the US Government to believe for one second that they could even come close to that level of quality.

It hasn't happened anywhere else, and if you want an example of Government run healthcare I invite you to look at VA hospitals in the US, especially Walter Reed. And that's for the TROOPS for God's sake. if the Government can't manage to do right by them, what makes you think they'll do any better for the poor?


i fully agree with you on this


the reason why we are in this position to begin with is because of the governments greed when it comes to giving in to health insurance lobbyists and their good ol fashion money

some sort of an international commission should be set up to help establish the universal healthcare system in america. I think that would be one route to go

Did we not just point these out as examples of people who will be taken care of under the current system even if they can't pay?

People are stubborn and thick-headed. They often refuse to do what they're supposed to do w/respect to treatments. Socialized Healthcare isn't the golden fleece that will make that go away.

As I understand it those who need emergency care will be taken care of, yes, but what about those who are sick but not sick enough?

Also, I know several people who make just enough that Medicare won't cover them, but can't afford health insurance. What about them? One guy has arthritis in his ankles and has a bitch of a time walking. No one will see him, since he has no insurance and couldn't pay the bills. If he lived in a larger city, perhaps he'd be seen by a free clinic or something, but not in this little college town of 25,000.

No one is saying that socialized medicine would make those stubborn people go to the doctor. However, socialized medicine would make the situation less shitty for those on the middle to lower end of the economic scale.

Alright well that's where you and I diverge, because I don't have enough faith in the US Government to believe for one second that they could even come close to that level of quality.

It hasn't happened anywhere else, and if you want an example of Government run healthcare I invite you to look at VA hospitals in the US, especially Walter Reed. And that's for the TROOPS for God's sake. if the Government can't manage to do right by them, what makes you think they'll do any better for the poor?


Actually, I agree with you on that. I'd prefer to see it done on a state by state basis, since I'm also of the opinion that Uncle Sam can't find his ass with both hands and a map. Some states can't either, but some can, and I'd rather those that can do it, do it and not be held back by those who can't. If some had it and some didn't, I'd bet that a lot of people would vote with their feet and their homestates would implement it for fear of a serious population drain.

As I understand it those who need emergency care will be taken care of, yes, but what about those who are sick but not sick enough?

Also, I know several people who make just enough that Medicare won't cover them, but can't afford health insurance. What about them? One guy has arthritis in his ankles and has a bitch of a time walking. No one will see him, since he has no insurance and couldn't pay the bills. If he lived in a larger city, perhaps he'd be seen by a free clinic or something, but not in this little college town of 25,000.

No one is saying that socialized medicine would make those stubborn people go to the doctor. However, socialized medicine would make the situation less shitty for those on the middle to lower end of the economic scale.

I agree with you in that yes, the system is flawed and that there are a lot of people out there who get left out, but IMHO the solution is to fix those flaws. Replacing the system with Universal Socialized Healthcare will only make it worse.

i fully agree with you on this


the reason why we are in this position to begin with is because of the governments greed when it comes to giving in to health insurance lobbyists and their good ol fashion money

some sort of an international commission should be set up to help establish the universal healthcare system in america. I think that would be one route to go
I agree with you that Government Greed is part of the problem -- a BIG part. One reason why medical care is so ridiculously expensive is price gouging by drug companies. They justify it by saying it's done to pay for research, but frankly I think they're doing more harm than good. I'd rather see new research move slower than to see so many people get left behind medically because of the costs associated with it.

There's no more better example of Government catering to big drug companies than when the law was created to forbid Americans from buying their prescription drugs in Canada. You'd think that in a Capitalist society...

But to me, that's exactly the sort of weakness that makes Government run healthcare a bad idea in my mind. If the Government won't stand up to the drug companies now, what would make us think they'd do it when they're the ones paying the bill?

I don't think I'd be comfortable with anyone outside the US creating policy for inside it. There's a whole rack of reasons for this, but suffice to say the hold Big drug companies have over the US Government could easily be extended to any other organization whose job it would be to regulate them.

I voted yes, and I am from Canada.

Ultimately I don't much care what Americans do with their own internal domestic policies, but if you all can't see and don't want to enjoy the benefits of universal health care then so be it. I will continue to live in comfort knowing that a portion of my taxes go to support my community through health care and that if I were to ever become ill, I have a place I can go to and get world class care at.

My life is better for it. At my age of 21 I've already had to be airlifted to a hospital due to a motor vehicle accident, and who knows what else lay in store in the future. I couldn't afford insurance that would pony up for something like that on my wage, and what then?

User pay is more or less barbaric, but if that's what you all want, go for it. I don't care, but I don't expect to hear anybody ever complain about their insurance premiums or having to co-pay for surgeries or something.

I voted yes, and I am from Canada.

Ultimately I don't much care what Americans do with their own internal domestic policies, but if you all can't see and don't want to enjoy the benefits of universal health care then so be it. I will continue to live in comfort knowing that a portion of my taxes go to support my community through health care and that if I were to ever become ill, I have a place I can go to and get world class care at.

My life is better for it. At my age of 21 I've already had to be airlifted to a hospital due to a motor vehicle accident, and who knows what else lay in store in the future. I couldn't afford insurance that would pony up for something like that on my wage, and what then?

User pay is more or less barbaric, but if that's what you all want, go for it. I don't care, but I don't expect to hear anybody ever complain about their insurance premiums or having to co-pay for surgeries or something.

If your accident was so severe that you had to be airlifted, I assure you, in the US you'd have been airlifted too and treated even without insurance/money.

I agree with you that Government Greed is part of the problem -- a BIG part. One reason why medical care is so ridiculously expensive is price gouging by drug companies. They justify it by saying it's done to pay for research, but frankly I think they're doing more harm than good. I'd rather see new research move slower than to see so many people get left behind medically because of the costs associated with it.

There's no more better example of Government catering to big drug companies than when the law was created to forbid Americans from buying their prescription drugs in Canada. You'd think that in a Capitalist society...

But to me, that's exactly the sort of weakness that makes Government run healthcare a bad idea in my mind. If the Government won't stand up to the drug companies now, what would make us think they'd do it when they're the ones paying the bill?

I don't think I'd be comfortable with anyone outside the US creating policy for inside it. There's a whole rack of reasons for this, but suffice to say the hold Big drug companies have over the US Government could easily be extended to any other organization whose job it would be to regulate them.



you do make a good point, but it's my understanding that once we have a universal healthcare system, the healthcare insurance companies will become extinct, and won't have any ability to lobby congress anymore thus controlling our government

this might be a little off topic, but perhaps another solution would be to ban corporations of any kind giving monetary funding to politicians

i think we would then see the power shift from the rich lobbyists to the humble taxpayers, as our democracy was meant to be

While the reforms that I have proposed in the other Sicko thread are put into place, I would support a temporary program to provide all Americans with healthcare, so as to minimize the effects of the resultant dislocation. Of course, once those reforms are carried out, I would advocate a slow phasing out of the universal program as the new system comes on line.

If your accident was so severe that you had to be airlifted, I assure you, in the US you'd have been airlifted too and treated even without insurance/money.

It's required by law, I might add.

If your accident was so severe that you had to be airlifted, I assure you, in the US you'd have been airlifted too and treated even without insurance/money.


yes, but the resulting fees would bury you in so much debt that you would have to sell everything

and STILL not have enough to pay for the fees


not to mention, you wouldn't be able to afford any follow up treatments or anything of that nature

the american system is trully a sadistic one revolved completely around the almighty dollar

you do make a good point, but it's my understanding that once we have a universal healthcare system, the healthcare insurance companies will become extinct, and won't have any ability to lobby congress anymore thus controlling our government

this might be a little off topic, but perhaps another solution would be to ban corporations of any kind giving monetary funding to politicians

i think we would then see the power shift from the rich lobbyists to the humble taxpayers, as our democracy was meant to be

You're right that Insurance companies would be all done, but I'm talking about the companies that produce the drugs and medical equipment.

I think the problem with blocking corporate donations is that there's a gray area between what is a donation from a company and a donation from an individual who OWNS the company. Maybe with that definition refined it could help, or perhaps cap how much any individual can donate.

yes, but the resulting fees would bury you in so much debt that you would have to sell everything

and STILL not have enough to pay for the fees


not to mention, you wouldn't be able to afford any follow up treatments or anything of that nature

the american system is trully a sadistic one revolved completely around the almighty dollar

Well that's where our side discussion on the COST of healthcare comes in.

I believe capitalism is the best system we've got, but I think the medical supply industry is completely out of control. I think we should be focusing on that problem first, because I see no reason to expect that to go away unless we're talking total Government control of that industry too.. and that REALLY scares me

I would like paying less to go to a doctor, I don't know about you.

Do you not have private insurance?



You object to taxes if you complain about how much you have to work to pay them, unless I misunderstood how taxes work again.

I object to paying 3/8th of my income in taxes. Not taxes in general.

It's required by law, I might add.

totally

[QUOTE=Neo Bretonnia;12872078]You're right that Insurance companies would be all done, but I'm talking about the companies that produce the drugs and medical equipment.QUOTE]



yeah, the drug companies would have to be dealt with.


if universal healthcare is ever to be incorporated within America, it's going to take an energetic, charismatic, man (or woman) of the people to foster enough trust within the government to make any such change even possibly considered by the american people

Do you not have private insurance?


private insurance is not the great panacea that everyone makes it out to be



You must realize, private insurance companies are COMPANIES, who are out to make a profit, not to give a shit about your health.

The way they make their profits is by DENYING you your healthcare coverage, and they will find any reason to do so. Whether it be because your treatment is considered "experimental" (which is defined by the insurance company, not by your doctor), or you had some insignificant "previous health condition" (again, defined by the insurance company, not by any doctor), or they could simply find ANY mistake that you made on your healthcare application, and then could simply terminate your policy.

ALSO, did you know that in the medical insurance field, if a person becomes ill and the health insurance company has to pay for it, it's called a "MEDICAL LOSS".


So you see, having healthcare insurance really means nothing. You can still (and probably will) get screwed.

private insurance is not the great panacea that everyone makes it out to be

Personally I've never had a problem with it.

Do you have private health insurance?



You must realize, private insurance companies are COMPANIES, who are out to make a profit, not to give a shit about your health.

I don't think the government gives a shit about my health either.

I don't think the government gives a shit about my health either.



lol, as much as i hate to admit it, i think you're right



and yeah, i do have health insurance

Over 14,000 Americans die each year as a direct result of not having health insurance


yes, even under the current system, people are dying

And most of those turned down having health insurance, when they COULD afford it.

i fully agree with you on this


the reason why we are in this position to begin with is because of the governments greed when it comes to giving in to health insurance lobbyists and their good ol fashion money

some sort of an international commission should be set up to help establish the universal healthcare system in america. I think that would be one route to go

So we allow other countries to set up a system in our country when we are 100% capable to do it ourselves?

So we allow other countries to set up a system in our country when we are 100% capable to do it ourselves?

well, kinda


i was thinking that the international council would act more of like a suggestions box than anything

America wouldn't be forced to implement whatever the council suggested, but it's my thinking that hey, if these other nations have successful universal healthcare, i'm sure we could learn a thing or two from them

Here's an idea for those who are against raising taxes (which I still don't understand why) Get out of Iraq and cut the defense funding by about 25% and use the resultant free floating funding to fund a UHC system. Oh and did you know tha according to WHO Cuba has a healthcare system about equal to America's currently, and they're a third world country (with socialized medicine) (comparison of deaths per thousand (http://www.who.int/infobase/compare.aspx?dm=10&countries=192%2c840&year=2002&sf1=mo.cg.990&sex=3))? Accordng to the overall ranks for best healthcare (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) 6 out of the top 10 countries are using UHC and three of the other four are tiny countries where income disparity is generally smaller than in larger countries. Oh and here's (http://www.who.int/infobase/compare.aspx?dm=10&countries=840%2c250%2c380%2c724%2c40%2c392%2c512&year=2002&sf1=mo.cg.990&sex=3) a comparison of the 6 countries in the top 10 that have UHC compared to the US (remember I'm going by age adjusted deaths here as that stat shows the underlying pattern better)

The US should have it but it won't happen for another 20 years.

As it is, the US government inflates the cost of health care by placing arcane restrictions on HMOs and the medical profession. Universalizing it, or even worse, nationalizing it, would just move the expenses into our taxes. Instead of burdening us with an expensive, inefficient system, we should focus on liberating healthcare from the regulatory and bureaucratic shackles.

You must realize, private insurance companies are COMPANIES, who are out to make a profit, not to give a shit about your health. Yep, the same as everyone else. Well, the politicians are not out to get profit as maintain political power but really, it really doesn't matter.

The way they make their profits is by DENYING you your healthcare coverage, and they will find any reason to do so. Whether it be because your treatment is considered "experimental" (which is defined by the insurance company, not by your doctor), or you had some insignificant "previous health condition" (again, defined by the insurance company, not by any doctor), or they could simply find ANY mistake that you made on your healthcare application, and then could simply terminate your policy. Yes, but if these insurance companies are so evil then there would be more of an outcry for better insurance. The people who have insurance seem somewhat pleased though, and really, from what I have heard the major source of revenue is from pooling risk, people aren't supposed to get insurance except for protection from risks.

ALSO, did you know that in the medical insurance field, if a person becomes ill and the health insurance company has to pay for it, it's called a "MEDICAL LOSS". Ok, what should they call it? Medical expense might be a better term given that it is an expense, but still there must be something to write on the accounting sheet that shows where the cost came from.


So you see, having healthcare insurance really means nothing. You can still (and probably will) get screwed.
If everyone was being screwed then this political issue would have popped up a lot sooner and everything would have collapsed already. What we see more of is a matter of inefficiency that weighs us down more than anything.

should the American government provide universal healthcare to its citizens?

No.

No one ever thinks about the fact their taxes are paying for roads they don't use and to send kids to school that arn't their own or any other things taxes go for that don't benefit them directly.

Yes, people do think about that fact. Roads and education shouldn't be paid for by tax dollars, either. Taxation and the state should be done away with.

Here's an idea for those who are against raising taxes (which I still don't understand why) We don't think that the efficiency desirable would necessarily be created by a public system and also think that the government is not an effective use of money

Get out of Iraq and cut the defense funding by about 25% and use the resultant free floating funding to fund a UHC system. Why not just do that flat out and cut taxes?

Yes, but if these insurance companies are so evil then there would be more of an outcry for better insurance.


exactly


that's why people are debating the matter, that's why world renowned film maker Michael Moore made an entire documentary on the subject


people are not tolerating this system anymore


but as has been touched upon in this forum, the power is no longer in the hands of the people, but in the hands of the insurance companies who pay the politicians for their votes through a legal process called "lobbying"

Yes, people do think about that fact. Roads and education shouldn't be paid for by tax dollars, either. Taxation and the state should be done away with.

To be replaced by what?

And most of those turned down having health insurance, when they COULD afford it.

Proof please.

To be replaced by what?

Privately-owned roads, schools, etc.

Privately-owned roads, schools, etc.

Privately owned by whom? At what cost to the consumer? What assurance is there other than economic theory that the price of any of these things would not skyrocket beyond the reach of most people?

Ah, universal healthcare... Works pretty damn good for me. Good quality health care with next to no queues when you don't have something like cancer.

Works relatively well in a small country like Finland, would never work in the US (methinks).

Problems/points here:
*The doctors and nurses are stupendously well educated (with the taxpayers' money again, because university education is free), so other countries headhunt with success.
*people still have the opportunity to consult private health care clinics. Unisversal healthcare only means all are entitled to it. Those who wish, can get better care in the private sector.

exactly Uh.... no. Not exactly because I claimed that there would be MORE of an outcry. Not just the whining back and forth.

that's why people are debating the matter, that's why world renowned film maker Michael Moore made an entire documentary on the subject They are debating the matter because it is a problem. You are talking about propagandist Michael Moore.

people are not tolerating this system anymore No, they really are. It is just a pressing concern. I said BIGGER outcry in case you really weren't getting what I was talking about. The problems with American healthcare didn't suddenly drop out of the sky but the political issue has just popped up. In fact, the real drive doesn't even seem to be anger at insurance companies but rather at expense, which really doesn't seem to support the last point you made.

but as has been touched upon in this forum, the power is no longer in the hands of the people, but in the hands of the insurance companies who pay the politicians for their votes through a legal process called "lobbying"
Um.... not exactly. The people hold a significant amount of power, even lobbyists cannot control the agenda that the populace wants, and the politicians need to appeal to the populace and not the lobbyists. Really, my point doesn't coincide with yours at all, it is a rebuttal to it and you have failed to provide an adequate response.

Uh.... no. Not exactly because I claimed that there would be MORE of an outcry. Not just the whining back and forth.
They are debating the matter because it is a problem. You are talking about propagandist Michael Moore.
No, they really are. It is just a pressing concern. I said BIGGER outcry in case you really weren't getting what I was talking about. The problems with American healthcare didn't suddenly drop out of the sky but the political issue has just popped up. In fact, the real drive doesn't even seem to be anger at insurance companies but rather at expense, which really doesn't seem to support the last point you made.

Um.... not exactly. The people hold a significant amount of power, even lobbyists cannot control the agenda that the populace wants, and the politicians need to appeal to the populace and not the lobbyists. Really, my point doesn't coincide with yours at all, it is a rebuttal to it and you have failed to provide an adequate response.


well, you're entitled to your opinion, but i respectfully disagree, and i stand by what i said

but i must ask you one question though, in regards to the michael moore comment that you made

since when did exposing the truth become propaganda?

n

o


Why?

As if people need more motivation to not work, this would seal it for anyone on the bubble (er, the couch). Effects? Probably doubled unemployment, a much larger welfare state which would require increased taxes (aside from the huge increase in taxes we'd need to pay for this socialist cause).

One reason we get jobs is for the benefits. One of the major benefits is medical/dental (etc.) insurance. This would seriously disincent people from getting jobs... and those ramifications would be copious and economically destructive.

I'm sorry, facts are facts.

What is the main argument against universal healthcare in the US? "I don't want to pay for some one else's healthcare."



Imagine if doctors decided they didn't want to treat other people's wounds and diseases…


No one ever thinks about the fact their taxes are paying for roads they don't use and to send kids to school that arn't their own or any other things taxes go for that don't benefit them directly.


*strains to rememeber thread suggesting public schools be banned… so long ago…*

Uh.... no. Not exactly because I claimed that there would be MORE of an outcry. Not just the whining back and forth.


So we should assume people are content with something until they start having massive protests or starting riots?

I'm pretty upset with the health insurance industry here. Should I start a riot about it then you'll agree that it really is a problem?

I strongly approve of it.

I strongly approve of it.

The riot or the healthcare?

My dad was visiting New York and I guess he got food poisoning from a restaurant he was at and passed out. When he came to, his pockets were emptied out so emergency workers can check if he was carrying any insurance. Can you imagine that, as a Canadian, this news comes as a shock and beyond disbelieve.

My dad was visiting New York and I guess he got food poisoning from a restaurant he was at and passed out. When he came to, his pockets were emptied out so emergency workers can check if he was carrying any insurance. Can you imagine that, as a Canadian, this news comes as a shock and beyond disbelieve.

Yeah, right, "insurance". "Emergency workers". :D

n

o


Why?

As if people need more motivation to not work, this would seal it for anyone on the bubble (er, the couch). Effects? Probably doubled unemployment, a much larger welfare state which would require increased taxes (aside from the huge increase in taxes we'd need to pay for this socialist cause).

One reason we get jobs is for the benefits. One of the major benefits is medical/dental (etc.) insurance. This would seriously disincent people from getting jobs... and those ramifications would be copious and economically destructive.

Really? I wasn't aware that Canada's economy was so terrible. What about all those other nations with universal health care? They just underperform so terribly, I cannot imagine any of them being the vast majority of first world states. But hey, what do I know? I must have no incentive to work, besides... food, utilities, communications, transport, entertainment... Wow. Well done.

I voted "yes to universal health care" because the current health care system doesn't work. Their are a lot of Americans out there--more than you would think--without health care at all, or with poor health care.

What about the people who are disabled and on Medicaid who would love to get a job, but know that it's an impossibility due to the price of medical care in America? Or the people who have or have had illnesses that totally disqualify them for medical insurrance?

The only people who like the current system are the insurrance companies, who like taking people's money and making their big six figure incomes. It's time for a change in America. We are one of the richest nations in the world--so people claim--but yet our higher ups refuse to provide free health care to American citizens? There's something seriously wrong with this picture.

And think of the economic benefits. This country will probably more ecomonicly stable in the end because of healthier citizens, and people who were once on disability and medicare who join the work force because of free medical care. Families would no longer have to choose between taking their sick child to the emergency room, or putting food on the table the next day.

Really? I wasn't aware that Canada's economy was so terrible.

Oh, yeah, our economy is really bad right now: Canadian Dollar Underperforms Once Again (http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=1&from=CAD&to=USD&submit=Convert)


Wait, what? And I still have to pay $70 for a video game? :p

i think it's interesting that a lot of people are talking about the cost of universal healthcare


can you really put a price on a human being's life?


can you really look at someone dead in the eyes and say "well, yes, there is a cure for your illness. But unfortunately, it's just too expensive to give it to you, so i'm afraid we're gonna have to let you die slowly. Sorry." ?

According to the national health care bill, HR676, it would save the American government 300 billion dollars a year.

Also, someone mentioned that the people who couldn't pay didn't have to worry about it because the people who can take care of the cost (so to speak). That isn't necessarily true. If people don't pay their medical bills, it ruins their credit, the hospital or doctor could garnish their wages, etc. So their is always a cost.

People have lost their homes over medical bills, and it simply shouldn't be that way.

According to the national health care bill, HR676, it would save the American government 300 billion dollars a year.

Also, someone mentioned that the people who couldn't pay didn't have to worry about it because the people who can take care of the cost (so to speak). That isn't necessarily true. If people don't pay their medical bills, it ruins their credit, the hospital or doctor could garnish their wages, etc. So their is always a cost.

People have lost their homes over medical bills, and it simply shouldn't be that way.

*waves miscellaneous flag in solidarity*
When you've ruptured your something-or-other, the last thing you need to be worrying about is your credit rating.

Here's an idea for those who are against raising taxes (which I still don't understand why) Get out of Iraq and cut the defense funding by about 25% and use the resultant free floating funding to fund a UHC system. Oh and did you know tha according to WHO Cuba has a healthcare system about equal to America's currently, and they're a third world country (with socialized medicine) (comparison of deaths per thousand (http://www.who.int/infobase/compare.aspx?dm=10&countries=192%2c840&year=2002&sf1=mo.cg.990&sex=3))? Accordng to the overall ranks for best healthcare (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) 6 out of the top 10 countries are using UHC and three of the other four are tiny countries where income disparity is generally smaller than in larger countries. Oh and here's (http://www.who.int/infobase/compare.aspx?dm=10&countries=840%2c250%2c380%2c724%2c40%2c392%2c512&year=2002&sf1=mo.cg.990&sex=3) a comparison of the 6 countries in the top 10 that have UHC compared to the US (remember I'm going by age adjusted deaths here as that stat shows the underlying pattern better)

And leave our country open to terrorist attacks? The world would love that.

No. That's not the answer. How about increasing taxes for the very rich, such as the top paid movie stars, and big business executives?

If everyone of the high-rollers in America with six figure incomes had to pay about 25% of what they made, it would significantly lower the cost for the people on the lower end of the totum poll, and the big wigs wouldn't even miss the money since some of them are practicly swimming in it anyway.

I have no idea what they pay in taxes, so if they pay more than that, my figures are off and I truly appologize. :)

People who make six figure incomes should have to pay a lot more in taxes. Say several million perhaps? That would be absolutely nothing to them, as they have a constant flow of millions of dollars.

No. That's not the answer. How about increasing taxes for the very rich, such as the top paid movie stars, and big business executives?

If everyone of the high-rollers in America with six figure incomes had to pay about 25% of what they made, it would significantly lower the cost for the people on the lower end of the totum poll, and the big wigs wouldn't even miss the money since some of them are practicly swimming in it anyway.

I have no idea what they pay in taxes, so if they pay more than that, my figures are off and I truly appologize. :)

People who make six figure incomes should have to pay a lot more in taxes. Say several million perhaps? That would be absolutely nothing to them, as they have a constant flow of millions of dollars.

I agree completely! All these people suggesting "equal tax rates"… shudder. But the first thing is to somehow fill all the various tax loopholes that the rich can afford to pay someone to find. Too many offshore bank accounts…

*waves miscellaneous flag in solidarity*
When you've ruptured your something-or-other, the last thing you need to be worrying about is your credit rating.

At the time, you wouldn't. But what about in the long-run? What about when you go to buy a house, a new car? And you have credit that isn't any good. Then you're in trouble.

There are people who have been paying on medical bills for over ten years, and still can't see the end of the tunnel. Since when should their be a price tag on human life?

At the time, you wouldn't. But what about in the long-run? What about when you go to buy a house, a new car? And you have credit that isn't any good. Then you're in trouble.

There are people who have been paying on medical bills for over ten years, and still can't see the end of the tunnel. Since when should their be a price tag on human life?

That was my point. :(

Hellos,

umm...A.W., GODS NO!!! my dad is suffering medical school loan debt, 30+ years after he graduated.

US IRS takes about 56% of his yearly pay.
(IRS = the tax collector branch of the US gov't for those who dont know)

tax the rich?!?! GREEEEEEAT!!! no incentive to actually try to work hard.

what would be better is a 10% flat sales tax. exceptions being 2% tax on stocks, bonds and real estate. for real estate, 1% on the part of the buyer, 1% on the part of the seller.

eliminating income tax. which is just a way of punishing people for working. (IMHO)

have tax paired up, ie; buy a gun, ammo, parts, repairs, permits for the gun, the tax money you spent for all that goes to military and police.

buy a pencil, shief of paper, computer, printer, calculator, ruler, that tax money goes to schools, along with the revenue from books, magazines, newspapers...

ad nauseum.

combined with a resurgence in toll roads, and public transport. trains in the US are more or less specialized for cargo transport. high gas prices, urban sprawl, and a USD$3.00 train fare. i would take train more.

never mind the trillions of USD (US dollar, FYI) from the gas tax...

Just a thought, and a 3 cent coin.
-Rafe

And leave our country open to terrorist attacks? The world would love that.

No. That's not the answer. How about increasing taxes for the very rich, such as the top paid movie stars, and big business executives?

If everyone of the high-rollers in America with six figure incomes had to pay about 25% of what they made, it would significantly lower the cost for the people on the lower end of the totum poll, and the big wigs wouldn't even miss the money since some of them are practicly swimming in it anyway.

I have no idea what they pay in taxes, so if they pay more than that, my figures are off and I truly appologize. :)

People who make six figure incomes should have to pay a lot more in taxes. Say several million perhaps? That would be absolutely nothing to them, as they have a constant flow of millions of dollars.

Might as well say "All humans are in some way selfish"

Yes, but he has a point. All humans may be selfish but most European humans have resisted selfishness with regards to health care.

what would be better is a 10% flat sales tax. exceptions being 2% tax on stocks, bonds and real estate. for real estate, 1% on the part of the buyer, 1% on the part of the seller.
Oh genius, let's not tax the richest people in the America and tax the poorest the hardest. Do you know how CEOs make so much money? Multi-millions in stock options. They should have to pay for it instead of forcing poor people to pay 10% more on necessities that they already have problems affording.

n

o


Why?

As if people need more motivation to not work, this would seal it for anyone on the bubble (er, the couch). Effects? Probably doubled unemployment, a much larger welfare state which would require increased taxes (aside from the huge increase in taxes we'd need to pay for this socialist cause).

One reason we get jobs is for the benefits. One of the major benefits is medical/dental (etc.) insurance. This would seriously disincent people from getting jobs... and those ramifications would be copious and economically destructive.


actually, it's just the opposite


take france for example

France has universal healthcare, along with a whole list of other social programs aimed at giving its citizens a happier life


and their productivity is higher than the United States

sooo, really, universal healthcare would IMPROVE the unemployment population and US productivity

I am against it.

One of the members of my temple is a Doctor who spent just under a decade working in Britain.

His take on it was that the system is great for your routine check-ups and annual physicals. The system becomes a cluster fuck when you have a major medical emergency.

For example, when a person found a lump, there would be a couple of weeks of waiting before a biopsy. If the biopsy came back positive, the patients would often wait up to 6 weeks before they had the rest of the mass removed.

During that time, a malignant tumor that was centralized in the primary site can easily become metastatic and seriously harm the patient's chance of survival.

I'll take America's healthcare system any day of the week over that.

Yes, but he has a point. All humans may be selfish but most European humans have resisted selfishness with regards to health care.

Which was my point no?

actually, it's just the opposite


take france for example

France has universal healthcare, along with a whole list of other social programs aimed at giving its citizens a happier life


and their productivity is higher than the United States

sooo, really, universal healthcare would IMPROVE the unemployment population and US productivity

You have to show the link between unemployment and healthcare before you can say that.

We have Medicare for the old, Medicaid for the poor,Veterans Affairs for our soldiers, and yes they are all lacking. What is the worst thing we could do? Expand our low quality health care to all 300 million Americans and 10 million illegal immigrants. People need to stop comparing the United States of America to other countries. We Americans need to look inward, and find out what works with our population. We need to reform the insurance industry-- especially malpractice insurance--, the pharmaceuticals industry and take control of our own nation's future.

We have Medicare for the old, Medicaid for the poor,Veterans Affairs for our soldiers, and yes they are all lacking. What is the worst thing we could do? Expand our low quality health care to all 300 million Americans and 10 million illegal immigrants. People need to stop comparing the United States of America to other countries. We Americans need to look inward, and find out what works with our population. We need to reform the insurance industry-- especially malpractice insurance--, the pharmaceuticals industry and take control of our own nation's future.

Malpractice is not the god damn problem. That is what big pharmaceuticals and the old doctor groups want you to think. Big pharmacy forces us to pay excessive amounts of money under the guise of "supporting research" and prevents the government from negotiating for lower prices. The insurance industry does their damndest to get out of paying for people that they have insured and not insure those with pre-existing conditions. And the rightwing misinformed twits let them get away with it while supporting them. Malpractice pay outs may be absurd, but those ev1l malpractice lawyers are the only ones on the side of the people, regardless of the reasons.

I can't stand that money of mine goes to welfare checks while those people wear gold chains and drive around in brand new cars, pay little to no taxes, and sit around all day while I bust my hump 40 hours a week so they can live comfortably selling drugs. As a mouse pad I had once says, "WORK HARDER: Millions on welfare depend on YOU!" So no I don't want healthcare here so more lazy people can get things for free from my taxes.

I think healthcare should be a basic right to all humans, and that socialized healthcare is a must, for any country. And there are all sorts of horror stories, and deaths that come frim not having it.

I can't stand that money of mine goes to welfare checks while those people wear gold chains and drive around in brand new cars, pay little to no taxes, and sit around all day while I bust my hump 40 hours a week so they can live comfortably selling drugs. As a mouse pad I had once says, "WORK HARDER: Millions on welfare depend on YOU!" So no I don't want healthcare here so more lazy people can get things for free from my taxes.


people on welfare pay taxes too you know


so if you're argument is that because you pay taxes, you pay for the social welfare people are getting

then the same can be said that

because those on social welfare pay taxes, they're paying for their own welfare


thus, you're argument falls a little short


however, i don't know a whole lot of people on welfare who drive around in new cars and have huge houses

anyone?


but regardless, this isn't about lazy people

it's not even about people without money

it's about middle class people who DO work their asses off day after day, and then when they are diagnosed with a major disease, their insurance carrier drops them because it would be nonprofitable to pay for their health care expenses

I'd say no for several reasons. But if any of you noticed, whenever a leader of another country needs medical care, they don't go to Canada, they don't go to the UK or France, they come to the U.S. because the U.S. has world quality health care, why? Because it's privatized.

I think a sliding scale payment method would be far better. Thoes that can pay 20 grand for an operation should pay 20 grand. Thoes that can't should pay what they can.

I'd say no for several reasons. But if any of you noticed, whenever a leader of another country needs medical care, they don't go to Canada, they don't go to the UK or France, they come to the U.S. because the U.S. has world quality health care, why? Because it's privatized.

I think a sliding scale payment method would be far better. Thoes that can pay 20 grand for an operation should pay 20 grand. Thoes that can't should pay what they can.


Actually, according to a UNWHO report, the quality of the US health care system has slipped to number 37 in the world

uhh, The_pantless_hero, thats why I said the pharmaceuticals industry too... :rolleyes:

I can't stand that money of mine goes to welfare checks while those people wear gold chains and drive around in brand new cars, pay little to no taxes, and sit around all day while I bust my hump 40 hours a week so they can live comfortably selling drugs. As a mouse pad I had once says, "WORK HARDER: Millions on welfare depend on YOU!" So no I don't want healthcare here so more lazy people can get things for free from my taxes.

Prove that everyone on public assitance is a lazy drug dealer. Show me facts and figures that support your hypothesis, or stop blowing smoke out of your ass.

I'd say no for several reasons. But if any of you noticed, whenever a leader of another country needs medical care, they don't go to Canada, they don't go to the UK or France, they come to the U.S. because the U.S. has world quality health care, why? Because it's privatized.

I think a sliding scale payment method would be far better. Thoes that can pay 20 grand for an operation should pay 20 grand. Thoes that can't should pay what they can.

No, it's because we have the resources to conduct the research; in which we are incidentally losing our lead.

I can't stand that money of mine goes to welfare checks while those people wear gold chains and drive around in brand new cars, pay little to no taxes, and sit around all day while I bust my hump 40 hours a week so they can live comfortably selling drugs. As a mouse pad I had once says, "WORK HARDER: Millions on welfare depend on YOU!" So no I don't want healthcare here so more lazy people can get things for free from my taxes.

too late

all those people already have health care through medicaid.

the people who would become covered who arent covered now are the working poor who bust their humps 40 hours a week or more for far less money than you make.

I'd say no for several reasons. But if any of you noticed, whenever a leader of another country needs medical care, they don't go to Canada, they don't go to the UK or France, they come to the U.S. because the U.S. has world quality health care, why? Because it's privatized.
No, wrong. The correct statement is "because the US has an insane amount of specialist care because the industry is privatized and it is more profitable to be a specialist than a general practitioner." The medical care isn't better, it is more specialized. That is also why the "it takes forever to get major specialty surgery done!" exists in universal healthcare countries but not here. Here the doctors can specialize and charge an arm and a leg. I doubt specialists would make more in other countries than general practitioners where the government works negotiate prices. Since the US refuses to negotiate prices, if they implemented universal healthcare and just paid out, the problem would never arise.


the people who would become covered who arent covered now are the working poor who bust their humps 40 hours a week or more for far less money than you make.
Or can only get just enough hours a week to get by but arn't allowed to work 40 hours a week because then they would be entitled to health insurance.

i think it's interesting that a lot of people are talking about the cost of universal healthcare


can you really put a price on a human being's life?


can you really look at someone dead in the eyes and say "well, yes, there is a cure for your illness. But unfortunately, it's just too expensive to give it to you, so i'm afraid we're gonna have to let you die slowly. Sorry." ?

Why not think of it this way.... how many people are you willing to condemn to a lifetime of poverty and destitution to extend your life for another day?

Obviously you put a price on a human's life too - there are countless individuals around the world who die every day due to basic lack of clean water, simple antibiotics, malnutrition, and easily preventable diseases. Since you obviously do not work 24/7 and live a stoic life of deprivation so that every penny can be spent on helping those unfortunate enough to live in rural Africa or Central America, you put a price on how much you are willing to do to save them.

How about increasing taxes for the very rich, such as the top paid movie stars, and big business executives?

If everyone of the high-rollers in America with six figure incomes had to pay about 25% of what they made, it would significantly lower the cost for the people on the lower end of the totum poll, and the big wigs wouldn't even miss the money since some of them are practicly swimming in it anyway.

I have no idea what they pay in taxes, so if they pay more than that, my figures are off and I truly appologize. :)

People who make six figure incomes should have to pay a lot more in taxes. Say several million perhaps? That would be absolutely nothing to them, as they have a constant flow of millions of dollars.

Wow - what undeniable ignorance.

Those making 6 figures or more can generally expect to be paying close to half of their income in taxes. I would also like to point out that just because you have a decent job paying 6 figures does not mean you "have a constant flow of millions of dollars" - that is just absurd.

Just FYI, 6 figures would be $100,000. Just in case you seem to be having a little math problem.

Then there is the morality problem with 'he has more than me, so its my right to take everything he has until he has no more than me'. I personally do not ascribe to the belief that, just because someone has more than me, it is right to rob them blind.

Please take just half a moment to consider what you are saying before you say it. If you honestly believe that $100k is rich beyond the dreams of avarice, you have a pretty messed up idea of wealth in the US.

The number of people in the US making enough money that they 'wouldnt miss' having the government take millions of dollars from them every year is so minuscule as to be irrelevant.

actually, it's just the opposite


take france for example

France has universal healthcare, along with a whole list of other social programs aimed at giving its citizens a happier life


and their productivity is higher than the United States

sooo, really, universal healthcare would IMPROVE the unemployment population and US productivity

France is doing something right. My mom got lyme disease while we were on holidays there, and there was no huge line up to see a doctor at the hospital!. As an Ontarian, this offended my sensibilities and I had to go have a lie down.
:D

France is doing something right. My mom got lyme disease while we were on holidays there, and there was no huge line up to see a doctor at the hospital!. As an Ontarian, this offended my sensibilities and I had to go have a lie down.
:D

awwww, i hope you're mom was okay


and i think that's funny, Americans would have said "I got pissed" but Canadians say "this offended my sensibilities"


lol

since when did exposing the truth become propaganda?
It didn't, I am not mad at him for exposing that the health system is bad but rather for putting forward a skewed view of the situation. There is a difference between a regard for factuality and a desire to push forward one's view on the populace. Michael Moore consistently aims at the latter more than the former.

So we should assume people are content with something until they start having massive protests or starting riots?

I'm pretty upset with the health insurance industry here. Should I start a riot about it then you'll agree that it really is a problem?
I didn't say that at all. I was basically saying that this problem would have popped up earlier if it was the destructive system that some claim, not that it was perfect, and not that some people did not get upset with it. The basic point I am making is that he was overstating the issue, which can be noted by how we have been so slow to see this as some major issue when the modern insurance system is a creation of WW2 and thus has been around for a while.