NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just reading about Hillary's plan for Universal Health care. I was reading that she plans on garnishing my wages when I don't participate in her program. Has she not heard of the 13th Amendment?

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

I will not work for those who are careless about their health i.e 60% of Americans. I will not pay for the silly visits of over concerned mothers and hypochondriac's. I have had great health care through TRICARE (US Government Insurance) and have seen how such a system is abused. When people have health care as cheap as TRICARE they tend to bring themselves and their children to doctors for the silliest things. (i.e Colds, Cuts) Why should I be forced to pay for it? After the government caused the problem in the first place? THE US GOVERNMENTS MEDDLING HAS CAUSED THIS. To give you a little background I grew up both rich and poor and have experienced life on both sides of the fence. ($80,000 dollars a month to less than $900) So if you want a debate don't try that approach. I have only been to the E.R once in my life ,when my daughter was born, and thank god. I DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN WIC BTW. I have had dislocations, broken hands, road rash, cuts that "required stitches", and sleep apnea but I NEVER GET SICK because I never go to the doctor and never have myself force fed "Anti-Biotic's". People don't need half the medical care they think the do. Even if they did why should I be forced to pay for it? Do people not see the immorality of stealing my wealth and giving it to those who are "less fortunate"? You're in a crunch? Get rid of your house you cant afford, Cut your credit card (which I never owned), get rid of your new car, quit buying your new clothes etc etc. I have over $50,000 dollars in investments and savings at 21 years old despite my $28,000 dollar salary. Growing up, and even now, I see people with less money who are more likely to take part in these federal programs with big screen TV's, Cable, designer clothes, Xbox 360's, no kid and a new Cell Phone. Meanwhile here I am sacrificing everything while these fucks BLOW their money so I can take care of them when they're 60. Thank god I have a good bulk of my investment in GOLD. At least its not being ate away by inflation too. I haven't bought clothes, shoes in over a year and my daughter sleeps in a used crib and eats in a used high chair. Here I rant feeling like I am about to be backed into a corner by my FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Say what you want but Hillary and the rest of liberal America wants to steal from us who've been frugal and sacrificed for our children's future. I say fuck that and fuck any "Amercian" who supports that. Thank god for the 2nd Ammendment. I fought your dumb ass wars, cheated your pointless death, and all I ask is that America now leave my petty savings (freedom) alone. I don't want your health care, welfare, socialism. I don't want your "Homeland Security" insured life. I WILL RISK MY LIFE FOR MY "FREEDOM" ONCE AGAIN. I don't need some stupid ass kid wanting nothing more than free college for that. I just want to WORK and EARN my money in a FREE MARKET.

This is not going to end well...

gb2engishcass

Paragraphs.

Federal Reserve + Free Masons + Hillary communist conspiracy COINCIDENCE!?!?

RONPAUL08

This is not going to end well...

What makes you say that?


Other than the fact that it didn't even begin well... :rolleyes:

...TRICARE they tend to bring themselves and their children to doctors for the silliest things. (i.e Colds, Cuts)...
When I got to that part I read it as cold cuts. You know, those thin slices of meat and cheese you get in the deli department. Yea, so I lost focus after that.

Paragraphs.

What's a paragraph?

its going to be interesting when America starts universal health care at the end of the year, do you think OP will go out guns blazing?

Gold is a crap investment. *ignores the rest of the post*

I was just reading about Hillary's plan for Universal Health care. I was reading that she plans on garnishing my wages when I don't participate in her program. Has she not heard of the 13th Amendment?

Hey, there are plenty of people on this forum that are telling me that Hillary is not a Communist or a Socialist. I guess this is some new form of capitalism.

I was reading that she plans on garnishing my wages
With a nice salad?

THE US GOVERNMENTS MEDDLING HAS CAUSED THIS... I NEVER GET SICK because I never go to the doctor and never have myself force fed “Anti-Biotic’s”... Thank god I have a good bulk of my investment in GOLD... Here I rant feeling like I am about to be backed into a corner by my FEDERAL GOVERNMENT... I WILL RISK MY LIFE FOR MY “FREEDOM” ONCE AGAIN.
Eeek.

Sounds like Louis Theroux could do a good documentary with you.

Gold is a crap investment. *ignores the rest of the post*

Damn, now where will I put all those millions I made on the stock market? ... oh crap, never mind.

P.S. long time, no see, Smunkee.:)

Thta's Right I Hide All My Gold Under My Bed So The Evil Federal Commie Reserve Can't Find It, And The Free Mason Jewish Conspiracy And Hillary Can't Steal It. I Hate Unemployed Ppl.

Ronpaul08

You fail at satire.

Thta's Right I Hide All My Gold Under My Bed So The Evil Federal Commie Reserve Can't Find It, And The Free Mason Jewish Conspiracy And Hillary Can't Steal It. I Hate Unemployed Ppl.

Ronpaul08

I have had great health care through TRICARE (US Government Insurance) and have seen how such a system is abused. When people have health care as cheap as TRICARE they tend to bring themselves and their children to doctors for the silliest things. (i.e Colds, Cuts)

Wow, if you think Tricare is abused (and I have that as well) you haven't been to your local emergency room lately. The care there is free for those without insurance so if you are unfortunate enough to have a real emergency you could be dead before they finally get around to you.

Hey, there are plenty of people on this forum that are telling me that Hillary is not a Communist or a Socialist. I guess this is some new form of capitalism.

Marxism, Leninism, McCarthyism, Stalinism, Clintonism*

*I claim all applicable rights to use, copy, distribute, demand royalties from the use of, and angrily yell this term. Please disregard the claims of anyone else who has used this term before me. Thank you and have a nice day.

Obama '08

Marxism, Leninism, McCarthyism, Stalinism, Clintonism*

*I claim all applicable rights to use, copy, distribute, demand royalties from the use of, and angrily yell this term. Please disregard the claims of anyone else who has used this term before me. Thank you and have a nice day.

Obama '08

Just to confirm there's no such thing as 'Stalinism' apart from the mythical bogeymen of the right, Stalin never used the term, neither did Mao, they just made additions and advancements of Marxism-Leninism.

But I am serious.

The "Jewish conspiracy" part was stupid, considering the fact that two of Paul's political mentors - Mises and Rothbard - were (gasp!) of Jewish descent. So much for that.

You fail at satire.
But I am serious.

"Your exhibit seems somewhat makeshift and impromptu. Contrast, if you will, the precision of Zaraflam's cockroaches...! You display a hole: admitted, and a fine hole it is. But how does this hole differ from any other? Can I in justice award the prize on such a basis?"

Stalin never used the term, neither did Mao, they just made additions and advancements of Marxism-Leninism.
Which political philosophers handily now call ‘Stalinism’ and ‘Maoism’.

Locke, Berkeley and Hume never called themselves the ‘British Empiricists’, but we label their school of philosophical thought such. Just because call themselves such (a bit hard without hindsight), doesn’t mean we can’t class them together.

Same goes for Stalin and Mao.

The "Jewish conspiracy" part was stupid, considering the fact that two of Paul's political mentors - Mises and Rothbard - were (gasp!) of Jewish descent. So much for that.

Were?

Hrm.. this adds new levels to the conspiracy.

Which political philosophers handily now call ‘Stalinism’ and ‘Maoism’.

Locke, Berkeley and Hume never called themselves the ‘British Empiricists’, but we label their school of philosophical thought such. Just because call themselves such (a bit hard without hindsight), doesn’t mean we can’t class them together.

Same goes for Stalin and Mao.

You can call Stalin and Mao anything you like, but it's still false, as both were essentially Marxist-Leninists.

You can call Stalin and Mao anything you like, but it’s still false, as both were essentially Marxist-Leninists.
Each with a rather unique take on Marxism, which why they are differentiated.

Why isn’t ‘Leninism’ a falsity then? It was ‘essentially’ Marxism, with a few important tweaks in the theory, just as Stalinism and Maoism were ‘essentially’ Marxism with a few respective tweaks in the theory.

Each with a rather unique take on Marxism, which why they are differentiated.

Why isn’t ‘Leninism’ a falsity then? It was ‘essentially’ Marxism, with a few important tweaks in the theory, just as Stalinism and Maoism were ‘essentially’ Marxism with a few respective tweaks in the theory.

Because according to Andaras, Marxist-Leninism is the pinnacle.

Okay. Drop out of public school. That is a public good, and you're getting it from other people's work. Return any financial aid if you are in college. Do not walk or drive on sidewalks or public roads. These are all paid for by tax money, thus meaning you are by your standards participating in being a slave master by using them without paying directly for them.

Get off the Internet right now, and cancel your ISP. That is also the product of tax money. Stop getting your mail. That is paid for by taxes too. Crawl into a corner in your own property. Stop using public utilities, those are subsidized too. See how long you last that way.

If you're going to take this beef with universal health care, I demand that you be logically consistent and not be a hypocrite. If you're going to be uncompassionate, at least don't be hypocritical about it.

QFT

*snip*

Okay. Drop out of public school. That is a public good, and you're getting it from other people's work. Return any financial aid if you are in college. Do not walk or drive on sidewalks or public roads. These are all paid for by tax money, thus meaning you are by your standards participating in being a slave master by using them without paying directly for them.

Get off the Internet right now, and cancel your ISP. That is also the product of tax money. Stop getting your mail. That is paid for by taxes too. Crawl into a corner in your own property. Stop using public utilities, those are subsidized too. See how long you last that way.

If you're going to take this beef with universal health care, I demand that you be logically consistent and not be a hypocrite. If you're going to be uncompassionate, at least don't be hypocritical about it.

A monthly wage slip from my old part time job, here in Blighty where we have the NHS.


Date: 28/04/2007

Payments
Basic Pay Hour: 535.00
OT @ 1.0 adj: 1 Hrs: 5.35
Perf Pay Bonus: 170.44

Deductions
PAYE Tax: 47.91
NI EES Deductn (this is what pays for the NHS, state pension and other things): 33.97

Total Payments: 710.79
Total Deductions: 81.88

Taxable Pay: 710.79
NET PAY: 628.91



All figures in Pounds Sterling.

The problem with NHS in the United States is that anyone with half a brain is going to tell you that it's going to be a giant, sprawling bureaucratic mess that will be covered in red tape and cost so much that 50% of Middle Class paychecks will be going towards it. Not to mention that it's going to be too slow and inefficient to actually help anyone. That's just the fact of a Government run program.

Okay. Drop out of public school. That is a public good, and you're getting it from other people's work. Return any financial aid if you are in college. Do not walk or drive on sidewalks or public roads. These are all paid for by tax money, thus meaning you are by your standards participating in being a slave master by using them without paying directly for them.

Get off the Internet right now, and cancel your ISP. That is also the product of tax money. Stop getting your mail. That is paid for by taxes too. Crawl into a corner in your own property. Stop using public utilities, those are subsidized too. See how long you last that way.

If you're going to take this beef with universal health care, I demand that you be logically consistent and not be a hypocrite. If you're going to be uncompassionate, at least don't be hypocritical about it.
You also forgot food. If you live in any Western country, there is a farming subsidy to lower food costs.

The problem with NHS in the United States is that anyone with half a brain is going to tell you that it's going to be a giant, sprawling bureaucratic mess that will be covered in red tape and cost so much that 50% of Middle Class paychecks will be going towards it. Not to mention that it's going to be too slow and inefficient to actually help anyone. That's just the fact of a Government run program.

The payroll stub that the poster placed above your post would beg to differ.

You also forgot food. If you live in any Western country, there is a farming subsidy to lower food costs.

Oh, forgot about that too!

The payroll stub that the poster placed above your post would beg to differ.

Britain Population is 60,776,238 Source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/uk.html)

United States Population is 301,139,947 Source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html)

Because we have a larger population it is going to cost more and not everyone is exactly chipping into the Tax bucket to pay for the programs that Gov. Co. already deems that we need to pay for.

So in order to get NHS in the United States, I would guess a 10% Income tax increase. Which would be anywhere from 20% to 45%.

You have a better chance of electing a Gay Black Republican to President than you do passing a 10% Income tax hike.

Britain Population is 60,776,238 Source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/uk.html)

United States Population is 301,139,947 Source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html)

Because we have a larger population it is going to cost more and not everyone is exactly chipping into the Tax bucket to pay for the programs that Gov. Co. already deems that we need to pay for.

So in order to get NHS in the United States, I would guess a 10% Income tax increase. Which would be anywhere from 20% to 45%.

You have a better chance of electing a Gay Black Republican to President than you do passing a 10% Income tax hike.
I don't know how we can possibly do worse than we are now: (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768)

Results In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations' figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)

Conclusions The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.

Eeeewwwww… garnished wages….

Must be nice to get universal healthcare and your wages merely garnished too. Meanwhile, I’m trying to find a decent job with good pay and benefits to cover my ass. Comparatively, I am doing well considering the single parents, kids, elderly, and those on street corners without any insurance. Yeah, just trust the insurance companies; because their there for you and won’t abandon you when you get sick, injured, or home/town/ city/ region gets destroyed by a natural disaster. Those insurance guys are out there for us, protecting us, and throwing all they got at hospitals and doctors just to make us well. Makes me feel all warm inside… hope that’s not a symptom.

Must
Be
Nice.

Britain Population is 60,776,238 Source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/uk.html)

United States Population is 301,139,947 Source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html)

Because we have a larger population it is going to cost more and not everyone is exactly chipping into the Tax bucket to pay for the programs that Gov. Co. already deems that we need to pay for.
You have more people to cover, but you also have more people paying in. That would only really be an issue if the UK was significantly richer than the US, which is not the case.

If it's a US government program, it's going to be big, expensive, and probably only slightly more helpful than a kick in the groin. If there is any serious epidemic, the program is going to be hurting. If it's easy to apply, you'll get a lot of people applying. The only reason so few people take advantage of welfare is because the pay is shit.

If there's anything wrong that can happen, the US Government will find it and make it happen.

If it's a US government program, it's going to be big, expensive, and probably only slightly more helpful than a kick in the groin. If there is any serious epidemic, the program is going to be hurting. If it's easy to apply, you'll get a lot of people applying. The only reason so few people take advantage of welfare is because the pay is shit.

If there's anything wrong that can happen, the US Government will find it and make it happen.

This man speakth the truth!

Were?

Hrm.. this adds new levels to the conspiracy.

I say "were" because they're dead.

Eeeewwwww… garnished wages….

Must be nice to get universal healthcare and your wages merely garnished too. Meanwhile, I’m trying to find a decent job with good pay and benefits to cover my ass. Comparatively, I am doing well considering the single parents, kids, elderly, and those on street corners without any insurance. Yeah, just trust the insurance companies; because their there for you and won’t abandon you when you get sick, injured, or home/town/ city/ region gets destroyed by a natural disaster. Those insurance guys are out there for us, protecting us, and throwing all they got at hospitals and doctors just to make us well. Makes me feel all warm inside… hope that’s not a symptom.

Must
Be
Nice.

I have had many surgeries, many hospitals and doctor visits, and sometimes a visit to the Emergency Room. Insurance I was under never abandoned me and was there for me during the rough times (medically).

Waaaa !!!! I'm selfish and don't want to help out anyone in need!! Waaaa!!!

God forbid you actually care about anyone other than yourself, ey bub ?

This man speakth the truth!

I am being thanking you for your being commenting kind on my post.

If you're going to take this beef with universal health care, I demand that you be logically consistent and not be a hypocrite. If you're going to be uncompassionate, at least don't be hypocritical about it.

Ok... Did I say something to make me a hypocrite? What did I say that you can assume that I am not logically consistent? In what you did mention, you act as if everyone is always a willing participant to those Government monopolies. Like we have a choice in the first place. The point is I opt out of Government subsidies when I have the chance. So save yourself a lot of trouble and tell me where exactly the morality lies in the Government stealing out of my paycheck to pay for something I don't want. Why is Hillary proposing that I help pay for your children's/wifes health care? Am I their daddy or are you? Who on this forum is that weak of a man/parent that you can't raise their own family? If you can't raise your kids why are you a parent? If you're struggling why do you pay for internet and why are you not LOOKING for a second job. If YOU'RE A FUCKUP who blows their money on stupid shit why do I have to pay for you to maintain that lifestyle? Chances are half of you are living better than me beyond your means but yet in 20 years I will be the one paying for your health care. :headbang:

1. For those of you who think I am some kind of nut. I am not going to shoot anything up anytime soon. http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/04/smbusiness/snipes_verdict.fsb/

2. Whoever said gold was a bad investment is totally clueless. I jumped into gold in 2003.
http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au1825nyb.gif
If I had invested in anything other than 1986 1oz Gold EAGLE's I might be getting ancy right now. But please do tell me good sir what 10oz's of 1986 uncirculated Gold Eagles will fetch you nowadays. :upyours:

God forbid you actually care about anyone other than yourself, ey bub ?

You're seriously going to try to mock me? At 21 I am raising a family :) and you're trying to say that I am selfish? Are you kidding me? You can't hold a light to what I've sacrificed for my family and my country. I'll sit on my high horse, because I am feeling big, and gladly go tell you to go :upyours:. I am leap years beyond you. I have what is the average debt of an American in my bank account. If I cared only for myself I would be as blind as the rest of your type and in the same predicament as the majority of Americans. After all isn't debt and the inability to pay for your own children's healthcare a byproduct of selfishness? Seriously? I don't "horde" cash and literal gold bullion for the luxuries of life but for the security of my family. So it irks me when I am forced to pay for the securities of those who can't see past next week. So they can (once again) continue to drive cars nicer than mine and live in houses nicer than my own. I make it so why cant everyone else? What's so different about me and what is it thats so different about me that I have to pay more?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/xmrkittermanx/WTF.jpg


You have a good day...

The problem with NHS in the United States is that anyone with half a brain is going to tell you that it's going to be a giant, sprawling bureaucratic mess that will be covered in red tape and cost so much that 50% of Middle Class paychecks will be going towards it. Not to mention that it's going to be too slow and inefficient to actually help anyone. That's just the fact of a Government run program.
You'd be better looking at Canada than the UK as a model. Canada has a public insurer which works like a private insurer, which reinburses pribately run hospitals, whereas in the UK all hospitals are owned and operated directly by the Department of Health. I'd argue that single payer is probably more efficient than both the UK and USA.

I've never had to pay for a doctors appointment, and I've never had any major waiting or anything, if I make an appointment I usually get it in the next few days, go in and use my Medicare card, and it's done...

a bank statement ? ?

You actually post a bank statement :confused:
Why on earth would you do that?

never mind that you cant prove its yours in any way, shape or form...

My point is: UHS doesnt mean you are paying for someone elses medical bills anymore then you are today. You see, ERs are not alowed to turn people away that need medical attention, even if those people arent insured. To cover the costs of treating uninsured people, the hospitals raise the prices on all the medical treatments, the costs for this are taken from your pocket by your insurance company.
Now with NHS in place, everyone is insured, therefore the prices of all medical treatments go down. Meaning that the gov needs to take less of your paycheck to pay for your *insurance* than your insurer is taking now.

I was just reading about Hillary's plan for Universal Health care. I was reading that she plans on garnishing my wages when I don't participate in her program. Has she not heard of the 13th Amendment?


Since when has a public office-holder ever cared about the Constitution?

Just to confirm there's no such thing as 'Stalinism' apart from the mythical bogeymen of the right, Stalin never used the term, neither did Mao, they just made additions and advancements of Marxism-Leninism.

And Panda Bears don't call themselves Panda's, but they still are. GTFOI.

I was just reading about Hillary's plan for Universal Health care. I was reading that she plans on garnishing my wages when I don't participate in her program. I don't understand why people have such an extreme reaction against 'free' healthcare Has she not heard of the 13th Amendment?

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Your wages are already garnished by the government, so by your apparent thought processes you're already a slave

Couldn't be bothred to read 4 pages of 'look at the silly ranter' so I just wish to know did the OP come back?

Couldn't be bothred to read 4 pages of 'look at the silly ranter' so I just wish to know did the OP come back?

A couple of times

Couldn't be bothred to read 4 pages of 'look at the silly ranter' so I just wish to know did the OP come back?

...with the same ol' tired line of 'I don't wanna pay for other people, blah blah blah' even though paying for profit health care still pays for other people (including those who don't pay in) as well as profit for the company that's protected by finding ways to deny care. He'd rather pay twice as much for his care then have it accessible to people he has deemed 'unworthy.' Typical short-sighted bullshit, spending two dollars to save one especially if he gets to self-righteously fuck someone in the deal.

...with the same ol' tired line of 'I don't wanna pay for other people, blah blah blah' even though paying for profit health care still pays for other people (including those who don't pay in) as well as profit for the company that's protected by finding ways to deny care. He'd rather pay twice as much for his care then have it accessible to people he has deemed 'unworthy.' Typical short-sighted bullshit, spending two dollars to save one especially if he gets to self-righteously fuck someone in the deal.
The real gripe about the new Hilliary-care should be about being forced to participate. If someone has the means (or even lacking the means) and makes an informed decision to opt out, they should be allowed to do so. The conditions ought to be crystal clear, and an individual should bear the responsibility for his choice. But he should be allowed to choose.

Our government doesn't run anything it does efficiently, I have no confidence whatsoever that they could pretend to run a health care system. From someone who has massive health care issues, I have no desire for the government to be handling my care at all. And I am sitting on $55k worth of medical debt as I type. Our government has no business in our medical system.

Regulating insurance companies....now that is another story.

I will throw my two cents here and see what happens. I have good health insurance through my job, I own my home and have investments. I also want some form of universal health care in the U.S.
My reasons are simple. If everyone has some form of insurance medical costs should go down. If cost go down what I pay for my coverage should go down and my out of pocket should go down. The other benefit is that if I lose my job I would still be covered. I know my insurance savings will most likely go to pay for others but I will have the safety net of Government coverage if things go bad.

As for the gold as an investment fight. Gold has performed well but only in a down market. I have energy stock and have made good money over the last two years with them. Even in the recent down turn I am making money.
Gold is nice, Exxon-Mobile is better

The real gripe about the new Hilliary-care should be about being forced to participate. If someone has the means (or even lacking the means) and makes an informed decision to opt out, they should be allowed to do so. The conditions ought to be crystal clear, and an individual should bear the responsibility for his choice. But he should be allowed to choose.

Does that mean that you would support a situation where people like me could choose to fund and use a public health care system? Can I opt out of the free market system?

Our government doesn't run anything it does efficiently, I have no confidence whatsoever that they could pretend to run a health care system. ....

Do you mean allocative efficiency, or productive efficiency?

I'm genuinely curious about something, here. I keep hearing people claiming that a US NHS (Hey, that's fun to say) wouldn't work because the US is much, much bigger than the UK.

...but, forgive me if I'm wrong, aren't there much, much, much more people in the US who pay taxes, so the cost concern isn't much of an issue? And isn't the average US citizen wealthier than the average UK citizen?

Economically, at least, isn't the idea sound?

The real gripe about the new Hilliary-care should be about being forced to participate. If someone has the means (or even lacking the means) and makes an informed decision to opt out, they should be allowed to do so. The conditions ought to be crystal clear, and an individual should bear the responsibility for his choice. But he should be allowed to choose.

I see no problem with that

I'm genuinely curious about something, here. I keep hearing people claiming that a US NHS (Hey, that's fun to say) wouldn't work because the US is much, much bigger than the UK.

...but, forgive me if I'm wrong, aren't there much, much, much more people in the US who pay taxes, so the cost concern isn't much of an issue? And isn't the average US citizen wealthier than the average UK citizen?

Economically, at least, isn't the idea sound?

Yes

This is from another forum I frequent.

I know we've discussed this before, but I never cease to be amazed, after a hospital stay, how much I still have to pay even with insurance. My insurance at my current job isn't as good as my last, but in both cases, I still end up owing thousands of dollars. This time it may be more like $7,000 as opposed to the $5,000 with the better insurance. The most recent surgery was more major so that's probably part of the cause also. And I'm adding all the services including radiology, anesthesia, GI, surgeon, hospital, and whatever else they can come up with. I wish they could just put it all on one bill.

I know without the insurance it could probably easily be $20,000-$30,000, but I still feel like insurance should save me from owing thousands of dollars. I don't want to get into a health care debate, just venting.

So, if you were a sufferer of a chronic disease, your bank balance could easily be drained within a few years, despite paying for insurance.

I see no problem with that

Look at Creepy Lurkers post a few down from yours to find out what is wrong with it.

Honestly though, and don't mistake this for USA bashin'(hey thre are plenty more fun things to bash ya for) we here in the UK have had a free(ish) health service for donkeys now, I thought America was a leading light, so why are soooo far behind?

Honestly though, and don’t mistake this for USA bashin’(hey thre are plenty more fun things to bash ya for) we here in the UK have had a free(ish) health service for donkeys now, I thought America was a leading light, so why are soooo far behind?
I genuinely think it’s still a leftover from McCarthyism; the whole slippery slope argument that universal healthcare will necessarily lead to totalitarian Communism.

That and the massive business interests dedicated to preventing universal healthcare. Even Clinton and Obama are nowhere near from presenting a healthcare program as comprehensive as the UK's.

Ok... Did I say something to make me a hypocrite? What did I say that you can assume that I am not logically consistent? In what you did mention, you act as if everyone is always a willing participant to those Government monopolies. Like we have a choice in the first place. The point is I opt out of Government subsidies when I have the chance. So save yourself a lot of trouble and tell me where exactly the morality lies in the Government stealing out of my paycheck to pay for something I don't want. Why is Hillary proposing that I help pay for your children's/wifes health care? Am I their daddy or are you? Who on this forum is that weak of a man/parent that you can't raise their own family? If you can't raise your kids why are you a parent? If you're struggling why do you pay for internet and why are you not LOOKING for a second job. If YOU'RE A FUCKUP who blows their money on stupid shit why do I have to pay for you to maintain that lifestyle? Chances are half of you are living better than me beyond your means but yet in 20 years I will be the one paying for your health care. :headbang:

No. If you are going to call taxation "stealing" then I demand that you stop being a hypocrite and stop benefiting from public goods immediately. It is no different in principle to universal health care. So if you have a beef with universal health care, calling taxation slavery, be logically consistent, and stop "forcing others to work for you".

Look at Creepy Lurkers post a few down from yours to find out what is wrong with it.

Did, and still don't see a problem with it, it just points out why it would be stupid to opt out.

I see no problem with that
Me either. If I don't want to buy insurance at work, right now, I don't have to. Unfortunately, Hillary can't stand the idea of independent action.

I genuinely think it’s still a leftover from McCarthyism; the whole slippery slope argument that universal healthcare will necessarily lead to totalitarian Communism.


I don't really think so, considering that the USA's welfare state is actually massive.


That and the massive business interests dedicated to preventing universal healthcare. Even Clinton and Obama are nowhere near from presenting a healthcare program as comprehensive as the UK's.

This is probably more accurate. But it is also difficult to suddenly make a national health service out of the blue, for a population so massive, already highly taxed.

Does that mean that you would support a situation where people like me could choose to fund and use a public health care system?

As long as I can choose whether or not to be part of it -- In fact, a group of you and your pals getting together for a better rate on health care would be great.

As long as I can choose whether or not to be part of it -- In fact, a group of you and your pals getting together for a better rate on health care would be great.

No. That's not what I was asking. I'm not getting together with a buch of people for a better price from the free market. I am asking if it would be possible to opt out of the free market system entirely in your ideal system.

I was just reading about Hillary's plan for Universal Health care. I was reading that she plans on garnishing my wages when I don't participate in her program. Has she not heard of the 13th Amendment?

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

I will not work for those who are careless about their health i.e 60% of Americans. I will not pay for the silly visits of over concerned mothers and hypochondriac's. I have had great health care through TRICARE (US Government Insurance) and have seen how such a system is abused. When people have health care as cheap as TRICARE they tend to bring themselves and their children to doctors for the silliest things. (i.e Colds, Cuts) Why should I be forced to pay for it? After the government caused the problem in the first place? THE US GOVERNMENTS MEDDLING HAS CAUSED THIS. To give you a little background I grew up both rich and poor and have experienced life on both sides of the fence. ($80,000 dollars a month to less than $900) So if you want a debate don't try that approach. I have only been to the E.R once in my life ,when my daughter was born, and thank god. I DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN WIC BTW. I have had dislocations, broken hands, road rash, cuts that "required stitches", and sleep apnea but I NEVER GET SICK because I never go to the doctor and never have myself force fed "Anti-Biotic's". People don't need half the medical care they think the do. Even if they did why should I be forced to pay for it? Do people not see the immorality of stealing my wealth and giving it to those who are "less fortunate"? You're in a crunch? Get rid of your house you cant afford, Cut your credit card (which I never owned), get rid of your new car, quit buying your new clothes etc etc. I have over $50,000 dollars in investments and savings at 21 years old despite my $28,000 dollar salary. Growing up, and even now, I see people with less money who are more likely to take part in these federal programs with big screen TV's, Cable, designer clothes, Xbox 360's, no kid and a new Cell Phone. Meanwhile here I am sacrificing everything while these fucks BLOW their money so I can take care of them when they're 60. Thank god I have a good bulk of my investment in GOLD. At least its not being ate away by inflation too. I haven't bought clothes, shoes in over a year and my daughter sleeps in a used crib and eats in a used high chair. Here I rant feeling like I am about to be backed into a corner by my FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Say what you want but Hillary and the rest of liberal America wants to steal from us who've been frugal and sacrificed for our children's future. I say fuck that and fuck any "Amercian" who supports that. Thank god for the 2nd Ammendment. I fought your dumb ass wars, cheated your pointless death, and all I ask is that America now leave my petty savings (freedom) alone. I don't want your health care, welfare, socialism. I don't want your "Homeland Security" insured life. I WILL RISK MY LIFE FOR MY "FREEDOM" ONCE AGAIN. I don't need some stupid ass kid wanting nothing more than free college for that. I just want to WORK and EARN my money in a FREE MARKET.

Anyway this topic is about the welfare state isn't it?
work for those who are careless about their health i.e 60% of Americans Source?

I WILL RISK MY LIFE FOR MY "FREEDOM" ONCE AGAIN. Freedom is not possible, it's more an ideal.http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=547737

People don't need half the medical care they think the do. Source?

Okay well most people who are on benefits genuinely need it, yes it's true there will be people who will try to cheat their way past it (but this happens with everything humans do, it's just adaptation, and there's already measures in place to try to track fraudsters), but I doubt people think, "I know I’ll lose my job and get benefits because that way I get money!" or "I know I’ll marry loads of people because I’ll get paid more for each one!".
Would you? I know I wouldn't want to go on benefits unless I genuinely needed it.
This topic is quite a heavy one but I think it warrants mine (and other people's) attention.
I'll see if I can find some sources and statistics and quotes for my opinion for you because I’m feeling kind.Let's see.

(Anthony Giddens, 2006 5th edition, Sociology. Great Britain: Polity Press.)

"An important role of the welfare state is managing the risks faced by people over the course of their lives: sickness, disability, job loss and old age. The services provided by the welfare state and the levels of spending on it vary from country to country." Page365, Para 3.
So the welfare state is a system put in place to help people who really need it, but it varies from country to country.

"The idea of welfare dependency is a controversial one and some deny that such dependency is widespread.’ Being on welfare' is commonly regarded as a source of shame, they say, and most people who are in such a position probably strive actively to escape from it as far as possible.
Carol Walker has analysed research into how people living on income support manage to organise their lives. She found a picture very different from that painted by those who argue that living on welfare is an easy option. Of unemployed respondents in one study, 80 per cent had experienced deterioration in their living standards since living on welfare. For nearly all, life became much more of a struggle. For a minority, on the other hand, social assistance can bring improvements in living standards. For instance, someone who is unemployed and reaches the age of sixty is relabelled a 'pensioner claimant' and can claim benefits 30 per cent higher than those previously obtained.
The category of those whose circumstances may improve does in fact include single parents. Research indicates that as many as a third of single parents- almost all of them women- were better off after the break-up of their marriage than they were before. The large majority, however, became worse off. Only 12 per cent of people living on social assistance in the 1990s said they were 'managing quite well'. Most said they were 'just getting by' or 'getting into difficulties'. Planning ahead is difficult. Money cannot be put aside for the future, and bills are a matter of constant concern. In spite of its importance, food is often treated as an item, which can be cut back on when money is short. Walker concludes:
'Despite sensational newspaper headlines, living on social assistance is not an option most people would choose if they were offered a genuine alternative. Most find themselves in that position because of some traumatic event in their lives: loss of a job, loss of a partner or the onset of ill health' (Walker 1994:9)". Page 372, Para 2.

This further adds weight to my point that people on benefits, the majority aren't there my choice and given a better option they would rather be off benefit support. I also thought that was an useful quotation in favour of benefit support, and it's based on research done previously published in 2005 so the author has had time to consider if it's relevant and/or useful.
But there's so much information on poverty and welfare benefits that I could never post enough to cover what a huge topic it is; I hope I’ve covered some important points on the welfare state. Let me know if i've missed anything.

Me either. If I don't want to buy insurance at work, right now, I don't have to. Unfortunately, Hillary can't stand the idea of independent action.
I would want to, but I can't.

No. That's not what I was asking. I'm not getting together with a buch of people for a better price from the free market. I am asking if it would be possible to opt out of the free market system entirely in your ideal system.
Interesting idea... I don't suppose it's mandatory to participate in free market capitalism. Couldn't you get together with other like-minded whatever-ists, live in a little enclave and subvert market forces in your own community?

I would want to, but I can't.

Maybe you can marry into it...

Interesting idea... I don't suppose it's mandatory to participate in free market capitalism. Couldn't you get together with other like-minded whatever-ists, live in a little enclave and subvert market forces in your own community?

Actually, it has been mandatory to participate in free market capitalism several times throughout history. Pinochet is the classic example. Free market does not equal economic freedom.

And I would opt out of the free market healthcare system. For many reasons. Including the fact that it does not work on a theoretical and has shown itself to be more inefficient in reality.

Wow, if you think Tricare is abused (and I have that as well) you haven't been to your local emergency room lately. The care there is free for those without insurance so if you are unfortunate enough to have a real emergency you could be dead before they finally get around to you.

That's why they've got this thing called triage. It means that people with actual emergencies get in first, even if they arrived last.

And a real national healthcare program would take care of that problem because people will see a doctor before it becomes an emergency.

Look at Creepy Lurkers post a few down from yours to find out what is wrong with it.

Honestly though, and don't mistake this for USA bashin'(hey thre are plenty more fun things to bash ya for) we here in the UK have had a free(ish) health service for donkeys now, I thought America was a leading light, so why are soooo far behind?

White Southern Men who consider themselves the moral center of the nation don't want their tax dollars to help good things happen for black people.

The real gripe about the new Hilliary-care should be about being forced to participate. If someone has the means (or even lacking the means) and makes an informed decision to opt out, they should be allowed to do so. The conditions ought to be crystal clear, and an individual should bear the responsibility for his choice. But he should be allowed to choose.

The problem is, society has a big problem with letting people bleed to death while getting thrown out of a hospital. Which means that your tax dollars are going to pay for it anyway. This way, it's done more efficiently and you ultimately spend less.

Clinton's healthcare plan isn't a matter of moving from what you favor to what she favors. We've already got what neither of you favors, and we're never going to get what you favor because while lots of people like the theory, only the most hardened of assholes favor it while in the proverbial foxhole.

No. If you are going to call taxation "stealing" then I demand that you stop being a hypocrite and stop benefiting from public goods immediately. It is no different in principle to universal health care. So if you have a beef with universal health care, calling taxation slavery, be logically consistent, and stop "forcing others to work for you".

Uh, yeah it is, fool. Everyone uses roads, even if you drive or ride the bus. Not everyone uses doctor's. Simple.

He never said he didn't mind taxes for roads, post offices, etc. He only said he didn't want to pay for other people's health care. I agree. I don't want to pay for other people's health care, and I don't want other's paying for me.

Uh, yeah it is, fool. Everyone uses roads, even if you drive or ride the bus. Not everyone uses doctor's. Simple.
.
Very few people if any get out of this life without using a doctor.

Maybe the Amish, but childbirth at home is not all that common, and that's just the beginning of life, not the end...

http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/tout/story/MrT061010.jpg

Uh, yeah it is, fool. Everyone uses roads, even if you drive or ride the bus. Not everyone uses doctor's. Simple.

He never said he didn't mind taxes for roads, post offices, etc. He only said he didn't want to pay for other people's health care. I agree. I don't want to pay for other people's health care, and I don't want other's paying for me.

You might want to reread the posts, since you obviously have no concept of what was being said.

You might want to reread the posts, since you obviously have no concept of what was being said.

...

Trot was saying the OP is a hypocrite 'cause he uses some public things, while objects to others. I pointed out that not everyone uses doctors, though most do, many do not use them only infrequently. Why should they have to pay for people who use them all the time?

The world is not black and white, trot. There are shades of gray. People can accept some public programs and object to others.

...

Trot was saying the OP is a hypocrite 'cause he uses some public things, while objects to others. I pointed out that not everyone uses doctors, though most do, many do not use them only infrequently. Why should they have to pay for people who use them all the time?

The world is not black and white, trot. There are shades of gray. People can accept some public programs and object to others.

Look at the reason that he gave. He objects to universal health care because he thinks taxation is theft, and it will make him a "slave", working for other people's benefit. If he is going to give that standard, then he should not be a hypocrite.

If anyone is making the world black and white, it is him.

...

Trot was saying the OP is a hypocrite 'cause he uses some public things, while objects to others. I pointed out that not everyone uses doctors, though most do, many do not use them only infrequently. Why should they have to pay for people who use them all the time?

The world is not black and white, trot. There are shades of gray. People can accept some public programs and object to others.


MenMindingTheirOwn referred to taxation as slavery, Trot was pointing out that if that was the case (i.e. the OP really felt that way) then MenMindingTheirOwn should refrain from using anything that was publicly funded... How is that so hard to understand?

I never understood the claim of "eyes dun wanah paz 4 othur paypals"


Private or public your money goes to fund other people's trip to the doctor. Money is pulled from premiums or taxes to pay for the covered treatments.

I never understood the claim of "eyes dun wanah paz 4 othur paypals"


Private or public your money goes to fund other people's trip to the doctor. Money is pulled from premiums or taxes to pay for the covered treatments.

Seems obvious, doesn't it? Makes it even more ridiculous when you compare our per capita spending to other nations...

Very few people if any get out of this life without using a doctor.

Maybe the Amish, but childbirth at home is not all that common, and that's just the beginning of life, not the end...

http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/tout/story/MrT061010.jpg

No. The Amish use typical western doctors. Their religion opposes luxury, not the 20th century (which I realize we are no longer in, but it's the one they chose not to wholly enter).

...

Trot was saying the OP is a hypocrite 'cause he uses some public things, while objects to others. I pointed out that not everyone uses doctors, though most do, many do not use them only infrequently. Why should they have to pay for people who use them all the time?

The world is not black and white, trot. There are shades of gray. People can accept some public programs and object to others.

Because when they need them, they really need them. The people who tend to neglect preventative healthcare tend to be the ones who develop the most costly health problems. And because they weren't paying in all that time, the healthcare that everyone else was getting was more expensive, and so is the care that he eventually ends up needing.

If what the OP says is true, he probably needs to have a little chat with the IRS.

Look at the reason that he gave. He objects to universal health care because he thinks taxation is theft, and it will make him a "slave", working for other people's benefit. If he is going to give that standard, then he should not be a hypocrite.

If anyone is making the world black and white, it is him.

Well, in that sense, yeah.

@Dom: Maybe...

I haven't been to a doctor (other than a dentist) in...geeze...2 years? I've got a bit of a cold or something right now, but I'm getting better. In another couple days I'll be 100%. I don't need to go the doctor. Why waste the doctor's time when I'll be fine in a few days?

When people aren't sick, there is no need to go to the doctor, and people do not need to go the doctor for small ailments such as colds, cuts, etc.

Maybe the OP should also concede then that wage labor is slavery? Wages after all only give the worker a small fraction of the true productive value of his labor. If anyone is a parasite on people it's the bourgeois, under the sphere the bourgeois comes welfare capitalist taxation, government regulation etc, all designed to alienate the workers from their true value.
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/6128/capitalismig1.jpg

Hardly
Ahh, one-word replies...

Maybe the OP should also concede then that wage labor is slavery? Wages after all only give the worker a small fraction of the true productive value of his labor. If anyone is a parasite on people it's the bourgeois, under the sphere the bourgeois comes welfare capitalist taxation, government regulation etc, all designed to alienate the workers from their true value.

Hardly

I'll pay a dollar five for someone to break both the OP's legs and hack into his health insurance agency's database and remove all records of him.


Maybe then he'll learn why these so-called 'careless' people need health insurance.

Well, in that sense, yeah.

@Dom: Maybe...

I haven't been to a doctor (other than a dentist) in...geeze...2 years? I've got a bit of a cold or something right now, but I'm getting better. In another couple days I'll be 100%. I don't need to go the doctor. Why waste the doctor's time when I'll be fine in a few days?

When people aren't sick, there is no need to go to the doctor, and people do not need to go the doctor for small ailments such as colds, cuts, etc.


One big fat strawman you are showing us there. Please get back onto the point.

You are right nobody needs to use the health service all of the time, except I guess those with terminal illness or disease. What happens though if you are involved ina RTA, or a mugging, or a shooting, or any type of accident where hosptial services are required? Does it make more sense for some of your tax dollars going to a health service whereby you benifit in times of emergancy, or being refused treatment becuase of a cash flow problem?

All in all which is the more humane attitude?

One big fat strawman you are showing us there. Please get back onto the point.

You are right nobody needs to use the health service all of the time, except I guess those with terminal illness or disease. What happens though if you are involved ina RTA, or a mugging, or a shooting, or any type of accident where hosptial services are required? Does it make more sense for some of your tax dollars going to a health service whereby you benifit in times of emergancy, or being refused treatment becuase of a cash flow problem?

All in all which is the more humane attitude?

what's a strawman?
Is that like making a point that is too skinny and padded by weak evidence?
i keep thinking of the Wizard of Oz everytime i see that.

Since when has a public office-holder ever cared about the Constitution?

WINNER!

Does that mean that you would support a situation where people like me could choose to fund and use a public health care system? Can I opt out of the free market system?

Why not?

It's your money.

what's a strawman?
Is that like making a point that is too skinny and padded by weak evidence?
i keep thinking of the Wizard of Oz everytime i see that.

Heh a strawman is an attempt to argue against a position that the other participant does not actualy hold.

The position being argued is NOT as Trollgard says one of people going to the doctor needlessly.

I would like to point out that all the objections to universal healthcare in this thread have been ideological, rather than rational or economic.

The free marketeers seem to dislike it because it's 'public'. They have yet to present any evidence that a universal healthcare is inefficient, economically unsound, or impractical.

So, I guess that's what I'm asking for. For al of you who claim that the free market is a better solution than public healthcare, I want to see your arguments.

They have yet to present any evidence that a universal healthcare is inefficient, economically unsound, or impractical.
What would you see as evidence? I can give you the economic reasons, but they're theoretical. I can give you examples, but they'd be annecdotal.

Realistically, as far as outcomes are related, I would expect very simple medical procedures to be handled well by a public system and therefore that poor people would probably exhibit better health as a result. However, and this doesn't seem to be an isolated event, shortages in staff are so frequent that non-critical surgeries and similar procedures have very long waiting lists, with people's living standards being lower than possible while they wait.

Because the public system also tends to be a monopsony employer, wages tend to be lower for the high-paying end of the medical profession. So you get many of the best doctors leaving for private hospitals that pay more, perhaps overseas. So for the really, really complicated stuff, at this point I'd rather get the operation at a really fancy private hospital in the States than here in Queensland.

As for inefficiency, there are two arguments here: one is that if people don't pay for a visit to the doctor themselves, they go more often than they would if they did. That can be a good thing, but if it turns out that they just pulled a muscle, that's a bad thing because it wasted time and resources. Secondly, the allocation of resources doesn't respond to market forces that get stuff where it produces returns, which in turn means where it's needed, but is handled by bureaucrats. Sometimes you have good rules on how to allocate funds, sometimes you don't. But since a certain wish for getting equal medical care out there regardless of location or the income of the area, chances are they will never be as efficient as would be the outcomes of a medical system based on many small providers being in competition for patients.

What would you see as evidence? I can give you the economic reasons, but they're theoretical. I can give you examples, but they'd be annecdotal.

Realistically, as far as outcomes are related, I would expect very simple medical procedures to be handled well by a public system and therefore that poor people would probably exhibit better health as a result. However, and this doesn't seem to be an isolated event, shortages in staff are so frequent that non-critical surgeries and similar procedures have very long waiting lists, with people's living standards being lower than possible while they wait.


Well, the main problem with this argument is that this just isn't true, for reasons that I will ultimately explain below. The consistent fact of the matter is, however, that the wait times of most countries with socialized medicine is precisely the opposite of what your argument predicts: fairly short wait times for routine procedures, and extensive wait times for very complicated or specialized procedures, because the government hires more general medical practicioners than it does specialists. Specialists thrive in a system where they can charge at a rate comparable to the rarity of their services, which is why they often are trained and stay in the U.S.


Because the public system also tends to be a monopsony employer, wages tend to be lower for the high-paying end of the medical profession. So you get many of the best doctors leaving for private hospitals that pay more, perhaps overseas. So for the really, really complicated stuff, at this point I'd rather get the operation at a really fancy private hospital in the States than here in Queensland.


Potentially true but false in practice for structural reasons. The U.S. has the best medical training programs and has the most extensive flight infrastructure. As such, it's easier for patients who will pay any price for a trial medical procedure to reach, say, Chicago in the U.S. than Queensland. Because of this infrastructure, profits are higher despite higher costs. It's the same reason why Silicon Valley doesn't pack up and move across the Nevada border: sure Nevada doesn't have a corporate income tax, but it also doesn't have the infrastructure or ready access to the best new computer programmers from the UC school system; hence, Silicon Valley stays where taxes are higher because it also means higher profits.


As for inefficiency, there are two arguments here: one is that if people don't pay for a visit to the doctor themselves, they go more often than they would if they did. That can be a good thing, but if it turns out that they just pulled a muscle, that's a bad thing because it wasted time and resources. Secondly, the allocation of resources doesn't respond to market forces that get stuff where it produces returns, which in turn means where it's needed, but is handled by bureaucrats. Sometimes you have good rules on how to allocate funds, sometimes you don't. But since a certain wish for getting equal medical care out there regardless of location or the income of the area, chances are they will never be as efficient as would be the outcomes of a medical system based on many small providers being in competition for patients.

This is where I ultimately disagree with you, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Narrowly, the idea that people go to get themselves poked and prodded more often if they have easier time doing it may fit with classical economic theory, but it has two key problems associated with it: first, it's a non-sequitur when dealing with the actual problems of the health care industry, and second it doesn't necessarily equate to a bad thing economically even if it were true. The rise in medical care costs are most heavily associated with end-of-life care and care of the elderly; these are not people who typically choose to go the doctor more or less but go to the hospital because they cannot exactly tell the paramedics no thanks after they have a stroke. As such, raising the price of incentives to restrict access to medical care to restrain costs is restraining access to a group that is not responsible for medical care costs anyway, and consequently you are talking about a complete non-sequitur. Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that the cumulative impact of treating even simple injuries such as a pulled muscle often outweigh the temporary costs associated with them. A pulled leg muscle, for instance, can lead to limping, and the strain on the other leg from prolonged limping can lead to stress damage in the good leg. A man who goes to the doctor to treat a pulled muscle is over the long term more economically effective than a man who does not and ends up with a stress fractured leg and cannot walk.

The broader point that I mentioned above is that you make the unwarranted assumption that price of medical care works just like any other elastic good, which is how you base your assumptions of how medical care pricing structure ought to work. But as we can tell from the example of the elderly woman above, in many important ways, the medical care system does not work in this manner at all. Her hospital, her paramedic care, and whether or not she recieves service are usually a function of proximity and need on her part, not choice. She chooses medical care at best from the limited options provided by her employer, she chooses who takes her to the hospital based largely on which company gets to her first, she goes to whichever hospital is closest rather than which one she wants, and her ability to choose from competing medical care options is usually limited when she's fallen and broken a hip. At each point, her ability to choose differs markedly from the choice structure usually associated with elastic goods; if anything, the choice structure models an inelastic set of goods much more effectively. That being the case, we as a political society have some obligation to say whether we accept the consequences of inelastic good pricing structure. If we were talking yachts, I would say sure, no problem, but we're not. We're talking about the continued survival of fellow citizens. As such, I don't see either the same problems of regulation that you do.

The consistent fact of the matter is, however, that the wait times of most countries with socialized medicine is precisely the opposite of what your argument predicts: fairly short wait times for routine procedures, and extensive wait times for very complicated or specialized procedures, because the government hires more general medical practicioners than it does specialists.
I'm basing this point on my own experiences here in Australia. Hospitals are government-run and in all states the system is creaking everywhere and wait times for non-emergency, elective surgeries are measured in years. I'm not saying that this is necessarily what happens, but in practice that's the sort of thing that public systems have to contend with. In a private system the company that can't provide you with the service doesn't get your money - in the public system the choice is taken from you and you get treated accordingly.

Specialists thrive in a system where they can charge at a rate comparable to the rarity of their services, which is why they often are trained and stay in the U.S.
Which would have to be a plus point for the private system, wouldn't you say?

Potentially true but false in practice for structural reasons...
Two things to say about that - you have a point if your idea of a socialised system actually makes it illegal to run private medical businesses (which seems like a silly policy to me). Then doctors might have no choice but to accept less money in return for being able to work in the US healthcare industry. If there is a private employer available, the best doctors will consequently choose to have both.

Secondly, there isn't a given supply of doctors around. I have a friend studying medicine - his semesters start earlier and end later, he gets much, much less holidays than we do, his degree is six+ years and involves a lot of long hours doing practical work that other students don't have to bother with. As far as I can see, there is no reason to expect that he's going to be earning more money than me in relation to the extra effort needed to get his degree.

Of course there are other motivations to become a doctor, but there is going to be a group of marginal potential students who will pick a different profession, meaning that you reduce the total number of medical professionals around without any changes to the infrastructure provided.

This is where I ultimately disagree with you, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Narrowly, the idea that people go to get themselves poked and prodded more often if they have easier time doing it may fit with classical economic theory, but it has two key problems associated with it: first, it's a non-sequitur when dealing with the actual problems of the health care industry, and second it doesn't necessarily equate to a bad thing economically even if it were true.

The rise in medical care costs are most heavily associated with end-of-life care and care of the elderly; these are not people who typically choose to go the doctor more or less but go to the hospital because they cannot exactly tell the paramedics no thanks after they have a stroke. As such, raising the price of incentives to restrict access to medical care to restrain costs is restraining access to a group that is not responsible for medical care costs anyway, and consequently you are talking about a complete non-sequitur.
Granted, the inefficiency wouldn't be huge, but it would still be there. Even though old people use up most of the resources (here's an idea...another social security-type fund to allow socialised healthcare for old people, but not young ones?), they don't use all of them.

Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that the cumulative impact of treating even simple injuries such as a pulled muscle often outweigh the temporary costs associated with them. A pulled leg muscle, for instance, can lead to limping, and the strain on the other leg from prolonged limping can lead to stress damage in the good leg.
How do you treat a pulled muscle? I have one in my leg right now...what do you expect the doctor to tell me if I turned up there today?

At each point, her ability to choose differs markedly from the choice structure usually associated with elastic goods; if anything, the choice structure models an inelastic set of goods much more effectively.
But that's not how it has to be. Healthcare or insurance companies could offer entire packages including paramedics, surgery, recovery and so on that you can sign up for long before you actually need them. The restriction of choice only comes about by you not having the time, since you're in the process of kicking the bucket. Choose earlier and the service is no different from any other. At least in the cities healthy competition shouldn't be a problem, and that's where most people live.

As such, I don't see either the same problems of regulation that you do.
Incidentally I'm actually in favour of replacing the current mess (http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9407716) of rules, regulations and pork-barrelling in the US with a socialised system, provided there is the option to choose a private provider. But that's assuming that the US government is actually capable of putting a working universal system together, which I doubt. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't, in my opinion.

So the best option would probably to get yourself an education and a decent job and be in a position to take care of yourself.

Marxism, Leninism, McCarthyism, Stalinism, Clintonism*

*I claim all applicable rights to use, copy, distribute, demand royalties from the use of, and angrily yell this term. Please disregard the claims of anyone else who has used this term before me. Thank you and have a nice day.

Obama '08

Fixed and you can have the rights and Hillary/ :p

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/Clintonism.jpg