National Health Insurance Now, Not Later

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

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

Brazil

yeah it's in some form alright

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

Brazil

yeah it's in some form alright

You might be interested to know that that list contained 7 out of the 8 G8 nations, the 8th being the US.

[rebeccajo 14]

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?

Charles, "welfare" does not equal "freeloader".

If you want to reform the welfare system, that's another kettle of fish.

Honestly, I cannot BELIEVE that anybody would equate the basic human right to be treated by a doctor with some form of welfare or call it a 'freeloader' system. That just smacks of a complete disregard for human dignity.

[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?

Charles, "welfare" does not equal "freeloader".

If you want to reform the welfare system, that's another kettle of fish.

Honestly, I cannot BELIEVE that anybody would equate the basic human right to be treated by a doctor with some form of welfare or call it a 'freeloader' system. That just smacks of a complete disregard for human dignity.

one could make the argument that welfare recipients are freeloaders.

[rebeccajo 14]

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?

Charles, "welfare" does not equal "freeloader".

If you want to reform the welfare system, that's another kettle of fish.

Honestly, I cannot BELIEVE that anybody would equate the basic human right to be treated by a doctor with some form of welfare or call it a 'freeloader' system. That just smacks of a complete disregard for human dignity.

one could make the argument that welfare recipients are freeloaders.

Just as one could make the argument that all gunowners are warmongers.

Now back to topic.

[DelcoCouple 1]

Now back to topic.

The topic really is very simple but people are unable to admit to reality

1. US citizens already pay taxes that are used for medical care provision

2. They then pay an insurance premium

3. They then also pay inflated costs as consumers of other products to cover the Insurance premiums that US employers pay as a cost of doing business.

Yet somehow a number of people in the US think it would be bad to pay just once instead of 3 times because that would be socialist

Edited February 8, 2007 by DelcoCouple

[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?

Charles, "welfare" does not equal "freeloader".

If you want to reform the welfare system, that's another kettle of fish.

Honestly, I cannot BELIEVE that anybody would equate the basic human right to be treated by a doctor with some form of welfare or call it a 'freeloader' system. That just smacks of a complete disregard for human dignity.

one could make the argument that welfare recipients are freeloaders.

Just as one could make the argument that all gunowners are warmongers.

Now back to topic.

that's been made a time or two already

Now back to topic.

The topic really is very simple but people are unable to admit to reality

1. US citizens already pay taxes that are used for medical care provision

2. They then pay an insurance premium

3. They then also pay inflated costs as consumers of other products to cover the Insurance premiums that US employers pay as a cost of doing business.

Yet somehow a number of people in the US think it would be bad to pay just once instead of 3 times because that would be socialist

one major issue i have with it is every time the "guvnment" tells us what are the benefits to something and what it will cost, the benefits are lower than advertised and the cost higher. so we could end up paying 4 times for this plan, ya know?

Edited February 8, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[DeadPoolX 9]

The problem with welfare is that it's not utilized properly. It's a fine idea, in theory. Of course, so was communism. The point is that welfare is meant to get people "on their feet" so they can begin working again and become useful members of society. Instead, what happens (on quite a large scale) is that many welfare recipients decide that they like being catered to instead of looking for work and/or working for a living, so they therefore do become "freeloaders" of the system.

A case in point: One of my professors (a strong liberal Democrat) was helping some people out one time, and she asked a young man what he did for a living. Now this young man had no apparent diseases, disabilities, psychological disorders, etc. His answer? "I claim a welfare check!" My professor was taken aback for a moment, as even though she's a liberal Democrat, she doesn't believe in people mooching off the system.

So while I think getting rid of welfare entirely is a bit much, I think it needs some drastic overhauls.

As for national healthcare, I've already given my reasons why I dislike the idea -- I don't trust the government (as a whole; I don't care who is in-charge) to handle my health and well-being. If the government actually did something right for a change, I'd be shocked.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's fair enough - but why do you trust a company to do the exact same thing?

Another question. Whose well-being is it in that you have to pay wildly differing amounts of money for prescription drugs?

Edited February 8, 2007 by erekose

[DeadPoolX 9]

That's fair enough - but why do you trust a company to do the exact same thing?

Another question. Whose well-being is it in that you have to pay wildly differing amounts of money for prescription drugs?

I don't trust a company. I hate HMOs and PPOs. They're a pain in the butt to both physician and patient.

I never once said the American healthcare system was perfect. It could use a "tune-up" too. I just don't think national healthcare run by the government is the answer, that's all.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

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!

Yes, but you are also ignoring the fact that Americans spend more private money on healthcare than anywhere else yet still not everyone gets coverage. The healthcare system in this country is not a shining example of free market economics since there is no incentive for patients or doctors to control costs since most people's expenses are paid by a third party (their insurer). Doctors are generally paid for individual services and so have an incentive to perform too many procedures, and the huge tax subsidies for employer-purchased health insurance encourage expensive care.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As it is drug companies and insurance companies seem to be driving hospitals to adopt their models. Now it seems that all three (including the govt) are already holding us hostage.

It is a shameful reflection of our values that we have made health care something other than a service or indeed a right. Profit first...

Clearly if 7/8 G8 countries can run public healthcare systems (of course with varying degrees of success), and still have world-leading economies, the economic argument would seem somewhat phoney.

As I've experienced it, where I live and work now, the cost of living is much higher than it was living in an outer London suburb and commuting to the city everyday. I had more disposable income too.

[rebeccajo 14]

The argument that with nationalized medicine you are paying for some 'freeloaders' health care doesn't hold water either. At least not with me.

Last time I looked the people on welfare ALREADY HAVE a medical card and get seen pretty quickly at the ER. In short, their medical costs are ALREADY being paid for with the tax dollars of working people.

But what about the little guy in the middle? The guy working but not for a corporation who insures him?

Yeah - he's a freeloader with no 'right' to health care.

Give me a break.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

People who have no insurance are still seen in the ER and receive care -- this is paid for by higher premiums for by the insured (private money). So even though we have no national healthcare you are still subsidizing the uninsured (or the so-called freeloaders).

[Thingee 0]

No. Going to the ER isn't free for those without insurance. You get a bill. It can be several bills depending on what needed to be done. The reason people without insurance go to the ER is you have an awfully hard time getting an appointment in an office without an insurance card. You get charged a great deal, but you get seen.