Healthcare: A right or privelege

Healthcare should be a right, why should only the rich deserve good health? In America if you dont get health insurance from your employer your fucked, unless you are a welfare reciepient then you get medicare. Preople inbetween get squat. The AMA and other health lobbies dont want guaranteed healthcare because doctors wont be making millions anymore. i am a Vietnam vet and even the VA is getting choosy about what they take.. America need national health insurance

Ok guys and girls - My two cents!

I believe if you are a registered taxpayer and you PAY your taxes you should be entitled to good free healthcare, no matter which country you are in.

I just think there are too many fucking freeloaders in society that demand more than their useless freeloading fucking asses are worth.

The people that contribute the least are usually the fuckers that complain the most!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by wohali

In America if you dont get health insurance from your employer your fucked

Because of the government only giving tax advantages to those who get their insurance through their employer and have the money taken out before taxes. One of Obama's complaints about the McCain plan is that it will get rid of the employer provided model of insurance. We should be fighting for an individual model for insurance. McCain's plan is not perfect, but it gives people more of an advantage on their taxes than they currently get through pre-tax deductions and would let us decide what plan we want. I have had to decide between jobs before based on the insurance provided and wound up having to take less money to get decent insurance. This would let me keep my current plan even if I left my job.

Quote:

Originally posted by RugbySam

...
Briefly reviewing earlier posts I don't think anyone did claim it to be communist. My point was that I've heard, for many years now, arguments that socialized medical care is somehow un-American, undemocratic or anti-capitalist. The fault in American health care runs deeper than just the billing system. We, myself included, are eating highly processed, less than whole foods for a lifetime and then look to our doctors to pump us full of drugs (which have their own side effects) to make things right. It's a real shame.
What's not a shame at all, however, is public discussion about this and other important topics. Thanks for bringing it up EL.

Next time someone tells you socialized healthcare is communism tell them they no longer have the right to call 911. The police and fire departments are socialized groups.

That coming from a republican who is anti-socialized medicine.

Quote:

Originally posted by wohali

Healthcare should be a right, why should only the rich deserve good health? In America if you dont get health insurance from your employer your fucked, unless you are a welfare reciepient then you get medicare. Preople inbetween get squat. The AMA and other health lobbies dont want guaranteed healthcare because doctors wont be making millions anymore. i am a Vietnam vet and even the VA is getting choosy about what they take.. America need national health insurance

BMW's and mansions are a right too. Why do the rich only get BMW's and mansions?

With rights come responsibilities. Example; you have the right to own a firearm and with that right comes the responsibility to use that firearm in a responsible manner. If healthcare is a right who has the responsibility to pay for it? Because everyone can't afford to pay that means the responsibility falls on someone else's pocketbook. If the government (the taxpayers) provides healthcare for all does that mean they can dictate how the recipients behave? Can we make the people that don't pay eat a certain diet or abstain from risky sexual activity? If we tried to do that they would scream that there "rights" are being violated. There are no cost controls and without these kinds of controls the system would surely fail under it's own weight. We are already $54 trillion in the hole in unfunded entitlements I don't think we need to add to that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Latino

[reply=EL]
Do the supporters of socialized healthcare have any concerns over the government at some point mandating what you can and cannot eat; lifestyles; recreational activities etc?

I dont, cause i simply dont see that happening..
[/reply]

And therein lies the problem. It will either happen, which leads the populace down the slippery-slope of a Big Brother type situation, or it won't, in which case the system will be inefficient and a money loser, requiring even more taxes to pay for benefits and giving the government even more power over its citizens.

This is the classic "heads you win, tails I lose" situation.

Quote:

Originally posted by Loz

the ones who dont work, and need the health system...will use it..thats what its there for..
just like alot of the 20 something year olds who complain that theyre 'young and healthy' and dont need it, yet
still pay it, who then in 50 years time, when they dont work and cant afford to pay for health insurance anymore...or no one will insure a 70 year old with hip problems..will be then using the public system again..

The problem with this, like any other social program, is that the young people being taxed today are paying into the system far less than they will eventually receive in benefits. This is due to a number of factors, including technological advances, increased specialization, etc. I shouldn't have to explain how when someone pays a certain amount of money into a pot and then takes out more than they paid in is a long-term losing proposition.

It is nothing more than a government mandated Ponzi scheme.

Quote:

Originally posted by Southernboy10

House calls still happen in the bad old publicly funded EU/UK.

Re government being proscriptive over lifestyle issues, yes they did try that in the UK to a degree & the public reaction was pretty strong. So now they're encouraging healthier lifestyles & providing help with quitting smoking, diet etc. In Spain there's so far no issue re healthy lifestyle but then you hardly ever see on obese person, although they all smoke their heads off - well a lot do.

Like I said above, if the ‘insurance’ payee is unable to control costs through logical economic practices, there will either be cost cutting measures elsewhere, decreasing the level of benefits being paid or the company will be a money losing entity and go out of business.

Of course, that’s not a problem if the government runs payment/insurance industry since they can always procure more funds, so there is no need to be cost effective AND they can legislate cost effective measures when taxes become too unpopular to continue raising.

Quote:

Originally posted by Southernboy10

The idea of everyone paying for themselves is OK if every body can.…I don't see that denying anybody the best modern health care available is acceptable socially in the modern world.

This is a logically flawed argument. The only reason anyone can get the “best” of ANYTHING is because others cannot. If everyone received the “BEST” that would become the standard. The problem, however, is in paying for “the best” of whatever it may be. The best, by definition, requires the highest level of performance and service. People who perform at the highest level often wish to be compensated at a level commensurate with their level of performance in comparison to the average.

This can go on and on, but the point is, with little exception, you get what you pay for, and you cannot pay for more than you can afford. This is accurate on the individual level and on the national level.

Quote:

Originally posted by Southernboy10

Me me me, is part of what's caused the global crisis we're all enjoying right now & it is also short sighted. A healthy population is good for any country..

This is a joke, right?

You first make the argument that everyone is entitled to the best healthcare, regardless of their ability to pay. Then you say that the problem with the world is a “me, me, me” attitude? Oh, you mean like people who want things without having to pay for the expense in providing those things?

A healthy population may be good for a country, but fiscal responsibility is MUCH more important for a country. Without a healthy economy a sovereign nation cannot exist.

Quote:

Originally posted by 4tookerplace

I hate this fucking argument. I can't get health care for my handicapped son because I'm not poor, or rich enough. Socialize it, if you don't like it, take your fucking gun and hide someplace where nobody gives a shit about anyone else. I'm so pissed off about this shit, I actually want to start busting heads.

I empathize and your situation is unfortunate. Honestly.
I cannot, however, in good conscience, say that bankrupting a country to avoid individually unfortunate situations is a better alternative. And as was said previously, socializing the healthcare system will not eliminate the haves and have-nots.

Quote:

Originally posted by RugbySam

I find it mildly amusing that people throw up the communist red scare flag as soon as the topic comes up.
We don't seem to mind that we can send our kids to school for free across the nation for 12 or so years where they have access to 2 or 3 meals a day(btw, I worked at a few schools where these meals were all some of the kids would eat for the day). Seems that it would be in our collective best interest to be able to send our kids to the hospital too.

What? Education != healthcare.

And if you think national education is “free” you’ve obviously not familiar with school-district taxes levied on landowners throughout the country. They’re excessive and only getting larger as school districts are unable to contain costs. Couple this with the state benefits that most school district employees receive that are almost universally MUCH better than those received in the private sector and you come to realize that our national education system is a financial black hole and socializing healthcare would only create another.

Nobody in this thread, as far as I can tell, has argued that public education is more efficient than private schooling. In fact, most of the highly prestigious pre-secondary schools in the nation are, in fact, private.

Quote:

Originally posted by RugbySam

I was on my way to being a doctor and have many friends that are doctors now. Huge school loans (on the order of mortgages) to pay off, HUGE insurance premiums to pay and getting squeezed from both sides when it comes time to collect from patients and insurance companies. The ones that did it for money have to specialize and the ones that did it just to help human beings in need are being suffocated by bureaucracy. I don't envy any of them.

This is all accurate, IMO.

Quote:

Originally posted by Southernboy10

I stand by the idea that health care should be provided on the basis of need, not ability to pay.

It is. Hospitals are required to treat emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Further, a majority of the hospitals in the US are not-for-profit organizations (EL-OH-EL on that, but that’s another subject). One of the requirements for these non-profit hospitals is that they provide a certain amount of free care for patients in their communities. This includes operation of free clinics and the writing off of lots of bills for people who can’t pay for services they received. Unfortunately, many people don’t take advantage of these services, but they are available in many communities.

Quote:

Originally posted by digger44

where i come from healthcare is free...i dont see why it cant be everywhere...when your sick enough to need professional medical help whos got 100.grand eccessable right away not too many...sounds like only the rich can live...im kinda suprised there isnt more (John Q) happenins around the world...good luck in your fight (I mean right)to free healthcare for everyone

Heathcare is never free. You, and your fellow citizens, pay dearly for it.

The problem with the “only the rich can live” argument is that there has to a line drawn somewhere. In my opinion, a government exists only to defend the borders of a nation, and to protect the liberty of its citizens. That’s it. You can throw in the “pursuit of happiness” as well, if you’re a Jeffersonian, I suppose, but only the pursuit of it. The rest, IMO, is up to the citizens themselves.

Arguments can be made that people need food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, policing, fire-protection, pensioners’ benefits, etc. in order to survive. These may or may not be accurate, depending upon which you’re referring to, but it is the job of the government to provide NONE OF THEM. The government is not an entity to coddle its citizens, it’s there for only a few specific purposes. It is just the populism of politicians and the realization of voters that they have the ability to vote for the dispensation of ‘public’ funds that have added legitimacy to the powers the government has confiscated.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nicenlong

We have privileges in this country, but with that said; the government should regulate certain aspect of our lives so we can be protected.

We have significant differences in ideology, I suppose. Personally, I side with Benjamin Franklin, who said: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

The government should have no place saying what I am allowed to do so long as those actions don’t infringe on the rights of other citizens.

Quote:

Originally posted by Seryano

For a Government, its people are its number one resource. It is from its people's work and creativity
that a country gains status in the world.

You make the mistaken assumption that a government should care about its "status in the world." The job of a government isn't to care about its status amongst other governments, its sole job should be to protect the liberty of its citizens.

Quote:

Originally posted by Seryano

If the people of a country are not educated, the country cannot prosper. If the people are not healthy the country cannot prosper.

Countries do not prosper. People do. The more income and benefit redistribution the government undertakes the fewer people that are allowed to prosper. This is antithetical to the purpose of a government.

Quote:

Originally posted by Seryano

Those of you who don't think the government should provide health care should visit countries that don't
and see how their people live...er...survive.

I live in a country that doesn't provide health care for its citizens and we seem to be 'surviving' pretty well. In fact, the United States has the largest GDP in the world, and there isn't a close second. The correlation isn't a coincidence. Of course, I’m sure you can point out how there are lots of countries with higher GDP’s by Personal Purchasing Power (like Brunei and Qatar) but there are few that would legitimately argue that the US isn’t the world’s preeminent economic power, which, IMO, is the most important measure of the success of its citizens and international power.

Quote:

Originally posted by Latino

in public health care it dont matter how much money you have...if you decide to use it, you will get attention just like everyone else..

But the point is you will get better care, faster care, etc. which is still not fair.

Quote:

Originally posted by Loz

i love how you associate non-socialism with freedom.
Chile been one of the only countrys to DEMOCRATICALLY elect a socialist govt to power, then have the US come in and bring them 'freedom' and paying for a dictator to bring in 'freedom' through torture and oppresion is not really freedom..

Off topic, but the US government is not interested in the best interests of people in other countries. They are interested solely in what is in the best interests of the US government; so if a dictatorial despot is likely to be more amenable to the desires of the US government whereas a populist, legitimately democratically elected leader will be a thorn in the side of the US government the US Government will side with the dictator in almost every situation.

THIS IS ONE OF THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST GIVING THE GOVERNMENT MORE POWERS, which includes the oversight of the healthcare of its citizens.

Quote:

Originally posted by Seryano

When I see the kind of drivel posted here I think it's no wonder the USA is going down the tubes.
It's no wonder they voted for a stupid corrupt asshole like Bush. The USA got what it deserves.

Only 3% of the country has a passport. Our "beloved" president never left the country until after he "took" office. He had no real record of personal success. He got everything he has due to his father's connections.

And even after his false war was exposed for just an armed oil grab, the stupid people of the USA RE-elected the bastard! Incredible!

There's no quality thinking in the USA and when there is, it is stifled by the loudmouth idiots on concervative Talk Show Radio.

So keep the health care "system" you have now and see where it gets you on the world stage...no where.

The USA, as a great power and leader in the world is finished. It's had its 200 year reign. China will take over now. The Roman Empire fell apart and the USA is doing so now, the stupidity is epidemic.

I'm gonna shut up now and just look at the nudes. No more from me. It ain't worth it.

Ok, after eliminating all the nonsense that has nothing to do, topically, with this thread, I’ll address the point you make. The healthcare system we have now has worked for the last 200+ years and has led to the US emerging as the dominant economic power on the world stage for the better part of the last century.

Your catcalls that the sky is falling are premature.

Quote:

Originally posted by Southernboy10

Someone said on another post earlier something about health care OR freedom, indicating you can't have both.

I agree that this statement is actually wrong. It can be more accurately stated as: You can have a government or you can have freedom. They are mutually exclusive and therefore every effort should be made to limit the role a government plays in the lives of its citizens.

Quote:

Originally posted by wohali

Healthcare should be a right, why should only the rich deserve good health? In America if you dont get health insurance from your employer your fucked, unless you are a welfare reciepient then you get medicare. Preople inbetween get squat.

Should transportation be a right? Employment? Clothing? Food? Television? Haircuts? It is ridiculous to expect the government to pay for services rendered to individuals when THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T MAKE ANY MONEY.

I’ll more accurately restate your second sentence there: In America if you don’t have health insurance you can’t get services that cost thousands of dollars for free.

Wow, how unreasonable.

Quote:

Originally posted by wohali

The AMA and other health lobbies dont want guaranteed healthcare because doctors wont be making millions anymore. i am a Vietnam vet and even the VA is getting choosy about what they take.. America need national health insurance

Most doctors do not make millions. In fact, after malpractice insurance there are many specialties in the medical field that are not profitable for physicians to continue to provide. These include neurology, orthopedics, and obstetrics. Couple these insurance costs with the costs associated with medical school, the hours required in residencies, the financial squeeze the government and insurance industries are putting on physicians, the costs associated with running a practice (nurses fees, rents, equipment, etc) and there is a tipping point at which people no longer choose to enter the medical field, or at least cannot run their own practices anymore. Doctors VERY rarely make millions, and to be honest, if I’m going to have someone cutting me open and holding my life and well being in their hands, I won’t mind if they’re compensated much higher than the average traffic cop or kindergarten teacher.

Quote:

Originally posted by marcell1001

I believe if you are a registered taxpayer and you PAY your taxes you should be entitled to good free healthcare, no matter which country you are in.

I just think there are too many fucking freeloaders in society that demand more than their useless freeloading fucking asses are worth.

As I've generally been saying, getting services for which you do not directly pay is freeloading. Just because the government is acting as an intermediary (and taking their cut in the process) doesn't make the process equitable.

Great analysis EL, that took some serious time, thanks for your well reasoned explanations (beer)

One point to those who keep saying that socialized health care is great and US health companies are evil. In the UK, it has come to light that the government is paying doctors to cut down on how many people they refer to the hospital. If a private company had done this there would be investigations and probably some criminal charges or civil penalties. And of course the old canard of how the evil businesses don't care about the people. But since the government is doing it there is little anyone can do and very little outrage. Is that what we really want?

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

But since the government is doing it there is little anyone can do and very little outrage. Is that what we really want?

BUT ITS FREE!!! WE NEED IT FOR FREE!!!

Also, it shouldn't surprise you that governments can and do get away with much more egregious offenses than the private sector. It's kind of the same reason you never see a double-parked police car getting a ticket.

Didn't say I was surprised. Just as I won't say I am surprised when those clamoring for "free" health care dismiss any fact they don't like.

Quote:

Originally posted by marcell1001

Ok guys and girls - My two cents!

I believe if you are a registered taxpayer and you PAY your taxes you should be entitled to good free healthcare, no matter which country you are in.

I just think there are too many fucking freeloaders in society that demand more than their useless freeloading fucking asses are worth.

The people that contribute the least are usually the fuckers that complain the most!!!

Do you understand Its not free, Socialized medicine is paid for buy the tax payers. So just like the guy that said if your employer doesn’t supply health care you fucked. I am an employer and do supply health benefits 75/25. Who ever said this is my responsibility. Socialized medicine would help with my over head and we all would pay our fair share. But talking to relatives in Canada they tell me you do not want there system. Any Canadians care to tell me different. Last time I was in Canada and went to the store there were two taxes. A total of 15% tax on what you purchase.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

One point to those who keep saying that socialized health care is great and US health companies are evil. In the UK, it has come to light that the government is paying doctors to cut down on how many people they refer to the hospital. If a private company had done this there would be investigations and probably some criminal charges or civil penalties. And of course the old canard of how the evil businesses don't care about the people. But since the government is doing it there is little anyone can do and very little outrage. Is that what we really want?

I dont think Public health care is GREAT!
and i dont think the american system totally sucks....or are evil. But the UK system is totally different to ours, plus their govt REALLY is a big brother, since they love to watch what all their citizens are doing while in public, i mean with an insane amount of cameras watching over a country the size of one our smallest states is insane


thats why i like the system we have..
we pay 1.5% tax to help contribute towards public health...on top of our income tax.
and if we chose to go private, we get a 30% rebate from the govt come tax time.

I dont believe in completely going public...too costly and too many problems, but theres no way id live in a country which didnt have one
at the very least, an aussie standard of public health.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

The government should not be involved in the heathcare of private individuals... PERIOD

Uh, the rest of the industrialized world has a comprehensive health care package for all citizens and they aren't bankrupt, unlike our economy. Of course, Sweden, e.g., doesn't spend $10B/month on some stupid war(Iraq) that solved nothing and is going nowhere. They spend their cash on their citizens. Brilliant concept.

Quote:

Originally posted by Southernboy10

It's interesting to see a debate like this when you live in a country where everyone has free health care and has had since the last war.

Things that strike me are: Comments like "My coverages will sky rocket." So, do we only think about ourselves? Also if you have private health cover don't you pay? Taxes in UK, Spain & much of Europe are surprisingly similar to the US but very few have private health care as it's not necessary. Both Spain & the UK posted health budget surpluses last year too. I'm not saying everything is perfect but is it anywhere?

It is also false economy to let people survive on their own. I've tried getting ad hoc health care in the US & it usually means queuing somewhere like a doc in the box along with all those at the bottom of the income scale who're paying for treatment as they need/can. So, they have minimal care, don't pick up problems before they develop & so have lower life expectancy & poorer productivity for society - oops getting into abstract theories turns off those who like black & white answers I know but unless you want the same old cycle it needs consideration.

In the EU I can have the finest health care available and for nothing. Isn't that something worthwhile? Anybody out there got an insurance policy that covers absolutely everything, no exclusions, no questions asked, you simply get what's needed no matter who you are? It sounds like what every modern civilised society should should have to me.

Thank you. A comment from someone who knows and not from my fellow U.S. morons who have no idea what a universal healthcare system actually means.

There was a study done in the Washington DC area where I lived. They followed our subway system from the inner city out into Montgomery County, MD -- one of the richest counties in the nation. As you went from subway stop to subway stop, headed further and further to the suburbs (and up the income ladder), the life expectancy of the residents went up higher and higher.

I don't recall the final analysis, but it was an alarming difference. Now I'm sure all of you compassionate conservatives have no problem with the idea that the wealthy deserve to live longer than the poor -- cause that is what it comes down to.

To respond to one of EL's comments, socializing our healthcare system will change the "haves" and "have-nots". It will dramatically increase the "haves".

Quote:

Originally posted by Stimpy57

They spend their cash on their citizens. Brilliant concept.

Perhaps a "brilliant concept" in the mind of a socialist, however I prefer to see citizens allowed to spend "their cash" themselves.

It's nice to have healthcare on tap if I need it, 1.5% of my income tax is not much to pay. You never know what can happen and it helps to get looked after straight away without any fucking around. However, there is also a private system I can use if I want.

If anything, as a father of 4, I worry about what could happen.

My wife and I make a very good income. Not rich, but very comfortable. We both have degrees and we both have full time professional cars in which we advanced far.

We also take a lot of car trips. The health insurance is in her name. Its her policy. She started her career before I had finished college. Its a good policy which I could only match -- not improve -- if we switched the insurance to my name through my employer.

If during one of our car trips we had a terrible accident and she died and I was horribly injured, my health insurance would go away and I'd have a pre-existing situation that wouldn't be covered by switching to a policy through my work.

So while I could make sure my kids were covered, we'd probably burn through all of my wife's life insurance money with my medical bills.

The point, it isn't the poor and lazy who are vulnerable in our current system. Any of us could end up in the shit really quick. I know its just one example, but a lot of individual examples have added up to 47 million uninsured in our country. Look at the economy. Every business that goes under is another set of workers who not only don't have jobs, but don't have insurance either.

I'm sorry there are always going to be the lazy and unmotivated who abuse every system. But because of those few, we would punish the so many in need? This is America. I thought we took care of our own.

Quote:

Originally posted by Stimpy57

...

Uh, the rest of the industrialized world has a comprehensive health care package for all citizens and they aren't bankrupt, unlike our economy. Of course, Sweden, e.g., doesn't spend $10B/month on some stupid war(Iraq) that solved nothing and is going nowhere. They spend their cash on their citizens. Brilliant concept.

Solved nothing? Apparently you, or your family, were never tortured by Saddam. You clearly are not an Israeli. Saddam gave $60,000 to the family of any successful suicide bomber in Israel. Speak for yourself.