National Health Insurance Now, Not Later

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think that National Public Healthcare will take off over here, due to the huge monopoly of health insurance companies - and the many lobbyists they employ.

There's only one Health Insurance company in the US?

No. There's also more than one media company too

How can it be a huge monopoly if there are more than one?

Are we playing semantics here?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This graph is always worth pulling out -- from that instrument of socialism The Economist. Guess what? As a % of GDP, the US spends as much public money as Canada and Britain, both countries with "socialized healthcare" for all of its citizens, and only marginally less than Germany and France.

Nice.

[DelcoCouple 1]

I don't think that National Public Healthcare will take off over here, due to the huge monopoly of health insurance companies - and the many lobbyists they employ.

There's only one Health Insurance company in the US?

No. There's also more than one media company too

How can it be a huge monopoly if there are more than one?

An industry can have a monopoly on a service.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think that National Public Healthcare will take off over here, due to the huge monopoly of health insurance companies - and the many lobbyists they employ.

There's only one Health Insurance company in the US?

No. There's also more than one media company too

How can it be a huge monopoly if there are more than one?

An industry can have a monopoly on a service.

The correct term would be oligopoly

[DelcoCouple 1]

I don't think that National Public Healthcare will take off over here, due to the huge monopoly of health insurance companies - and the many lobbyists they employ.

There's only one Health Insurance company in the US?

No. There's also more than one media company too

How can it be a huge monopoly if there are more than one?

An industry can have a monopoly on a service.

The correct term would be oligopoly

Or perhaps more correct in terms of Insurance Monopolistic Competition.

[dalegg 143]

I don't think that National Public Healthcare will take off over here, due to the huge monopoly of health insurance companies - and the many lobbyists they employ.

There's only one Health Insurance company in the US?

No. There's also more than one media company too

How can it be a huge monopoly if there are more than one?

Are we playing semantics here?

Not even slightly.

And what is with this

An industry can have a monopoly on a service"an industry can have a monopoly on a product

That would have to be the most broad use of the term monopoly I've ever heard.

With this can't we say

The toy industry has a monopoly on toys

The auto industry has a monopoly on autos

All of the grocery stores have a monopoly on groceries

The porn industry has a monopoly porn

Home owners have a monopoly on houses

We could do this for everything. I think what you are implying is that there is some sort of trust, as if they aren't really competing, which is really just absurd.

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

The porn industry has a monopoly porn

i demand we break up this monopoly, porn for everyone!

[Nessa 23]

[Boiler 45,499]

This graph is always worth pulling out -- from that instrument of socialism The Economist. Guess what? As a % of GDP, the US spends as much public money as Canada and Britain, both countries with "socialized healthcare" for all of its citizens, and only marginally less than Germany and France.

Nice.

You beat me to it, but the evidence proves that the US is more Socialist in spending on Healthcrae than most European countries. More of it is wasted but that is another story.

My guess is that those who are so anti such a system do not realise that, ignornace is bliss.

I really do not like the NHS, had a couple of nasty experiances. Fortunately I have OK cover through my wife's employer, well I do now, but I burnt my hand the other day and the first thing I thought was how much could this cost me.... Something I would never have done before. I also have friends here with financial horror stories.

I had top up Private cover in the UK, it is taxable benefit. Which is logical.

What does not seem logical to me is that those who can afford to buy Insurance get a tax break whilst those who can not do not.

After 3 years I have come to the conclusion that the US is more the land of special interests than capatalism, I might lean to conservatism, small c, but I see very little in common between Conservatism and the Republican party.

[GaryC 7]

This graph is always worth pulling out -- from that instrument of socialism The Economist. Guess what? As a % of GDP, the US spends as much public money as Canada and Britain, both countries with "socialized healthcare" for all of its citizens, and only marginally less than Germany and France.

Nice.

Not really nice. If the government already spends as much or more than other countries and everyone still does not have coverage, how much more would they spend to get everyone covered? The cost is just to high! I say never to socialized health care!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think that National Public Healthcare will take off over here, due to the huge monopoly of health insurance companies - and the many lobbyists they employ.

There's only one Health Insurance company in the US?

No. There's also more than one media company too

How can it be a huge monopoly if there are more than one?

Are we playing semantics here?

Not even slightly.

And what is with this

An industry can have a monopoly on a service"an industry can have a monopoly on a product

That would have to be the most broad use of the term monopoly I've ever heard.

With this can't we say

The toy industry has a monopoly on toys

The auto industry has a monopoly on autos

All of the grocery stores have a monopoly on groceries

The porn industry has a monopoly porn

Home owners have a monopoly on houses

We could do this for everything. I think what you are implying is that there is some sort of trust, as if they aren't really competing, which is really just absurd.

Thats why I used the other term - Oligopoly. Thats about really what we're talking about here.

[Fuzzness 2]

Socialized healthcare is the only way to go to see that all americans get proper healthcare. There is no other way. The current system definately does NOT work. It's all about how much money the dr's can get out of you or your insurance.

Socialized healthcare works in Canada, in Sweden, it can work here.

[rebeccajo 14]

......... I do not think we have a right to health care any more than we have a right to a car or a house. Those are things to be worked for and earned not just given. The constitution does not state we have the right for free health care.

*shakes head*

Even the hypocratic oath taken in medical school admonishes the physician to treat all patients.

Gary, if there were some sort of nationalized medicine, it wouldn't be free. So we aren't talking about giving it to 'freeloaders'.

It's also important to realize that no matter what economic system one lives in, there will always be some segment of society that get 'taken care of'. Because there will always be mental illness, retardation, family collapse, and other calamaties of life. That doesn't make these people 'freeloaders'. It makes them 'unfortunate'.

Being treated by a doctor for a burn or a car accident, having daily medications that are needed to sustain a healthy life, or even having a surgical procedure so that you CAN go back to work and earn a living aren't guaranteed by the constitution. Because they shouldn't have to be. It's a basic human necessity and it's being ground to dust in America by big insurance companies and for-profit hospitals. And the cost of it is unevenly distributed on the backs of employers like yours who DO pay for it.

Don't you even stand here and tell me that being treated by a doctor is the same thing as owning a car or a house. That it's something you have to EARN. I will never disparage a hard working man for owning a bigger house than me or driving a nicer car because he worked his way up the ladder. But he doesn't have the human RIGHT to get in line at hospital in front of a working class schmuck who doesn't happen to work for XYZ company. That's just absurd.

Edited February 8, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

Gary, if there were some sort of nationalized medicine, it wouldn't be free. So we aren't talking about giving it to 'freeloaders'.

so welfare recipients won't be eligible for this nationalized medicine program then?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not sure the idea can be written off "out of hand" as being more expensive - the funding of public systems is really quite diverse and there are some pretty wide differences in the way that healthcare is financed across different countries.

All of these countries have at least some form of public healthcare programme in place.

Argentina

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Brazil

Canada

Cuba

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

The Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Russia

Saudi Arabia

Seychelles

South Korea

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sweden

The Republic of China (Taiwan)

United Kingdom