State-run health care

[siskokid888]

It's all about profits. The Prez raising the specter of government health care is driving the insurance companies (and a lot of doctors) nuts because of potential lost profits. And all they can talk about is "tort reform" - in other words, removing the last bastion of true democracy and protection we have - the courts- from the equation. All these tea party idiots and pundits are all insurance company shills. I'd like them to answer one question - what are you going to do about the 45 million people in this country without health care coverage? They never seem to have an answer for that.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Socialism has never worked anywhere anytime.

Because it's never been tried anywhere. The closest is Sweden (I think) and it's doing pretty good.

The definition of "socialism" appears to be very ambiguous these days, but the way that term is used in US political discourse, I don't think it applies to countries like Sweden. When people say that in the US it sounds like they are talking about Khmer Rouge Cambodia or possible the GDR '1965 or something.

But if Sweden is "socialist", then it's an absurd statement to claim "it has never worked anywhere anytime" since Sweden and other similar countries are routinely on top of all human development/health/wealth/etc. statistics worldwide.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It's all about profits. The Prez raising the specter of government health care is driving the insurance companies (and a lot of doctors) nuts because of potential lost profits. And all they can talk about is "tort reform" - in other words, removing the last bastion of true democracy and protection we have - the courts- from the equation. All these tea party idiots and pundits are all insurance company shills. I'd like them to answer one question - what are you going to do about the 45 million people in this country without health care coverage? They never seem to have an answer for that.

My favorite debate point brought up by opponents of public health care is that they don't want to pay for other people's medical expenses. They completely ignore that we already pay for their medical expenses: since the ER can't turn you away, those unpaid bills get passed on to everyone else.

So, how is public health care any worse? At least with a public option, the providers are getting paid, and people can see a doctor before their issue requires an ER trip.

 

[Praxius]

Just wondering what the big deal is. I watched a news item last night about Republicans going batshit crazy over Obama's new health care plan.

I don't see what the big deal is. In New Zealand we pay our taxes and the healthcare is free(ish). I've always been against user pays as incomes are so low.

Am I missing something? Or is there just a huge pro-user pays mindset in the US?

Well coming from someone who lives in Canada, and who seen the US use our system as the worst case scenario, while blowing things way out of reality, I don't get it either.

They use two or three worst case examples they can find in our system, twist it to sound even worse then they really were, and then try and claim that it's like this all over the country.

Death Panels? No such thing.

I've lived with this system all my life and I'm not destitute, I never had to wait months on end for an important operation, I don't wait days in the ER to be seen and whenever I needed something, I can get it without having to worry about a giant bill coming in my mail a few days later.

And from what I hear, the wait times in US ER rooms is about the same as here in Canada.

I've also heard the same old argument that our technology is limited or out of date because we can't afford it, which is also a lie, as we have just as good, sometimes better technology then most other countries, the US included. We have a very well trained and advance medical research teams all over the country, we have invented a number of things over the years which many other countries use today.... I'm not saying we're super great and that there are no problems with our system.... every system has problems.

The question remains, how many problems do you want to deal with?

I've also heard the argument about it being one more step to Socialism, OooOOoOooo Booga booga.... yet our country is still democratic, while still having some socialism within the system to maintain certain aspects of society.

And the US has socialism as well. Who else pays for your police, fire department, etc.?

If you'd think these things are important for a stable society, wouldn't it also make sense to have the same coverage over your health and education too?

I mean if you don't want the government to help with these things and you just want to take care of yourself 100% with no government involvement...... why have a government?

 

[Praxius]

My favorite debate point brought up by opponents of public health care is that they don't want to pay for other people's medical expenses. They completely ignore that we already pay for their medical expenses: since the ER can't turn you away, those unpaid bills get passed on to everyone else.

So, how is public health care any worse? At least with a public option, the providers are getting paid, and people can see a doctor before their issue requires an ER trip.

Here's another way to look at it:

Why think about it being that you're somehow paying for someone else, when you could look at the reality that you are paying into a system for yourself for 24/7 coverage if and when you need it..... just like everybody else.

Nobody is going to have a job everyday of their life, and something is eventually going to happen, none of us are imortal. If you think you are, well good luck with that.

The point is that some are going to need the system more then others. You may hardly ever need it, then again you may have some serious medical issue come up you never expected.

When you pay into this system, it's no different then paying into a private insurance company.... except that unlike the private insurance company, there are more regulations, there are laws, there is more oversight, you remove the feringi from your health coverage. You don't have to worry about being denied due to something being "Experimental".... you don't have to worry about being seriously injured and not being able to work for a month or two, then worrying about your company letting you go, then no longer being covered by their insurance plan...... then worry about footing the bill and your monthly living payments all on your own.

And if it does work.... then go back to the old system. How will anybody know if it works if you don't try it?

You certainly won't know if you don't try.

And considering that the US is one of the few developed nations that doesn't have some sort of universal medical coverage and Canada has a higher life expectancy then people in the US as an example...... I personally just don't get it.

 

[John Picard]

The Government couldn't even keep Walter Reed in good enough shape, and you expect *me* to believe that it can efficiently run Health Care?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

My favorite debate point brought up by opponents of public health care is that they don't want to pay for other people's medical expenses. They completely ignore that we already pay for their medical expenses: since the ER can't turn you away, those unpaid bills get passed on to everyone else.

So, how is public health care any worse? At least with a public option, the providers are getting paid, and people can see a doctor before their issue requires an ER trip.

Here's another way to look at it:

Why think about it being that you're somehow paying for someone else, when you could look at the reality that you are paying into a system for yourself for 24/7 coverage if and when you need it..... just like everybody else.

Nobody is going to have a job everyday of their life, and something is eventually going to happen, none of us are imortal. If you think you are, well good luck with that.

The point is that some are going to need the system more then others. You may hardly ever need it, then again you may have some serious medical issue come up you never expected.

When you pay into this system, it's no different then paying into a private insurance company.... except that unlike the private insurance company, there are more regulations, there are laws, there is more oversight, you remove the feringi from your health coverage. You don't have to worry about being denied due to something being "Experimental".... you don't have to worry about being seriously injured and not being able to work for a month or two, then worrying about your company letting you go, then no longer being covered by their insurance plan...... then worry about footing the bill and your monthly living payments all on your own.

And if it does work.... then go back to the old system. How will anybody know if it works if you don't try it?

You certainly won't know if you don't try.

And considering that the US is one of the few developed nations that doesn't have some sort of universal medical coverage and Canada has a higher life expectancy then people in the US as an example...... I personally just don't get it.

From what I have observed, there are basically two camps in the anti-public health crowd:

1. Those who are completely misinformed about what it is and how it works, apparently under the impression that other countries euthanize their elderly, will deny you care if it's not "cost effective" or if you aren't "worth enough to society," and a bunch of other boogeymen that have no basis in reality.
2. Those who subscribe to some form of libertarian dogma, believing that if you can't afford your own health care, you shouldn't have any. Can't afford insurance? Tough. Get sick and get dropped by your insurer? Tough. Pre-existing condition? Tough. Not my problem.

There is some overlap between the groups, but those are pretty much the positions I have seen. People in the first group are just flat-out wrong, and will not usually accept any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint.

People in the second group, well, that's just the philosophy they subscribe to. While such people usually call themselves "libertarians," they are really Objectivists, and I find Objectivism to be an altogether cruel, sadistic, and evil political philosophy, one that has no place in a modern world.

 

[RoJoHen]

It almost reminds me of how my parents' attitudes changed as soon as my younger sister graduated from high school.

"Well, all our kids are out of school. Why do we have to keep paying education taxes?"

 

[Roger Wilco]

And considering that the US is one of the few developed nations that doesn't have some sort of universal medical coverage and Canada has a higher life expectancy then people in the US as an example...... I personally just don't get it.

I also heard a very convincing argument from one US politician (don't remember who), who said, that not having UHC is a market disadvantage for American companies, since other countries de-facto subsidise their own businesses by shifting the cost (and risk) of health care from the employers to the state.
Apart from the fact that it's very obvious, that it is in the state's interest to have a healthy population for a multitude of reasons.

 

[Squiggy]

The Government couldn't even keep Walter Reed in good enough shape, and you expect *me* to believe that it can efficiently run Health Care?

The issues in question were due to an outside (non-government) contractor I beleive.

 

[iguana_tonante]

There is no "I" in Socialism!

You're right... there's two!

But two Is make a we.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

There is no "I" in Socialism!

You're right... there's two!

But two Is make a we.

How appropriate.

 

[Gertch]

Massachusetts doesn't have socialized health care.

I didn't say we did. We have to purchase health care or qualify to get it from the state or be penalized.

The state provided health care costs have exploded as mentioned. This has led to the government cutting people off and talking about rationing. Plenty of stories in the Boston Globe Democrat about this.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

I'm mainly for getting this health care package passed, with some reversations.

But I totally get why people are against it. Many people in America have strong fears about the government becoming too strong and gaining too much power over their lives. I think that is a good and healthy fear. Sure, some people take that fear to an extreme and start getting crazy over it...I'm not into that at all.

What I don't think some of the Europeans posting here really get it, we want the power to control our own destiny in the USA. I don't think it's about wanting people to suffer and die to make room for others.

Anyway despite what I've said I still hope this healthcare thing happens. But I see the backlash against it as a good thing in this country. Anytime the government starts trying to seize more power and get more control of our lives I want people to be suspicious, ask a lot of questions and raise up a ruckus about it. Because frankly, many times the Gov. does screw things up and many of these politicians are completely evil and power hungry.

 

[JuanBolio]

Anytime the government starts trying to seize more power and get more control of our lives I want people to be suspicious, ask a lot of questions and raise up a ruckus about it. Because frankly, many times the Gov. does screw things up and many of these politicians are completely evil and power hungry.

I agree with this in general, but not when it comes to genuinely helpful policies like universal health care. I wish people had made a stink and a ruckus this size when it came to the Bush-era expansions and security programs.

 

[QuasarVM]

My favorite debate point brought up by opponents of public health care is that they don't want to pay for other people's medical expenses. They completely ignore that we already pay for their medical expenses: since the ER can't turn you away, those unpaid bills get passed on to everyone else.

So, how is public health care any worse? At least with a public option, the providers are getting paid, and people can see a doctor before their issue requires an ER trip.

Here's another way to look at it:

Why think about it being that you're somehow paying for someone else, when you could look at the reality that you are paying into a system for yourself for 24/7 coverage if and when you need it..... just like everybody else.

Nobody is going to have a job everyday of their life, and something is eventually going to happen, none of us are imortal. If you think you are, well good luck with that.

The point is that some are going to need the system more then others. You may hardly ever need it, then again you may have some serious medical issue come up you never expected.

When you pay into this system, it's no different then paying into a private insurance company.... except that unlike the private insurance company, there are more regulations, there are laws, there is more oversight, you remove the feringi from your health coverage. You don't have to worry about being denied due to something being "Experimental".... you don't have to worry about being seriously injured and not being able to work for a month or two, then worrying about your company letting you go, then no longer being covered by their insurance plan...... then worry about footing the bill and your monthly living payments all on your own.

And if it does work.... then go back to the old system. How will anybody know if it works if you don't try it?

You certainly won't know if you don't try.

And considering that the US is one of the few developed nations that doesn't have some sort of universal medical coverage and Canada has a higher life expectancy then people in the US as an example...... I personally just don't get it.

From what I have observed, there are basically two camps in the anti-public health crowd:

1. Those who are completely misinformed about what it is and how it works, apparently under the impression that other countries euthanize their elderly, will deny you care if it's not "cost effective" or if you aren't "worth enough to society," and a bunch of other boogeymen that have no basis in reality.
2. Those who subscribe to some form of libertarian dogma, believing that if you can't afford your own health care, you shouldn't have any. Can't afford insurance? Tough. Get sick and get dropped by your insurer? Tough. Pre-existing condition? Tough. Not my problem.

There is some overlap between the groups, but those are pretty much the positions I have seen. People in the first group are just flat-out wrong, and will not usually accept any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint.

People in the second group, well, that's just the philosophy they subscribe to. While such people usually call themselves "libertarians," they are really Objectivists, and I find Objectivism to be an altogether cruel, sadistic, and evil political philosophy, one that has no place in a modern world.

Nobody in the US DIES because of lack of insurance. In the US, people are treated REGARLESS of whether or not they have insurance. People saying otherwise are LIEING (such as Pelosi and Obama, etc.). And this lie has been promulgated for FAR too long. It is ILLEGAL to refuse healthcare to anyone. Doctors cannot and do NOT refuse care.

So...myth busted on that one. Repeating the lie -- Joseph Goebbel's style -- will not make it so despite all vain efforts to twist lies into reality.

People come to the US from all over to get care because socialized medicine SUCKS. People die from THAT waiting to get care. The US currently -- although not a PERFECT system -- has the best healthcare in the world bar none.

I personally know Canadians, Brits, and others who have COME HERE to the US for treatment that they COULD NOT get in their native lands...at least not without being on a waiting list or having to endure healthcare RATIONING.

What is that kiddies? That's where you WAIT until the government decides you (if they do decide in your favor) that you can get that organ transplant you might need, etc. You know...life saving surgeries, etc! And of course, if you are a certain age..then SCREW YOU! Only young are allowed to live -- a' la' the horror of Logan's Run!

Oh yeah...some nirvana there. Only problem is -- we ALL presumably get old and need that care eventually. Do you want Big Mac Daddy Socialist Regime to decide when or if you get it?

I don't and half the US population (at least) believes the same.

The number of people here who think it's OK to hand their lives and eternally MORE power to the government really disturbs and sickens me.

When government controls your healthcare, they will eventually tell you how much you can eat...what you can eat...etc., etc. That's just the healthcare.

They won't stop there.

It's about CONTROL. And by that, they mean to CONTROL...YOU!

I could go with plenty of facts to support this concern, but why bother...you socialists have made up your minds. But, consider this -- once the tentacles of government control are immersed in your lives you will NEVER get them out -- short of revolution. Going to the ballot box to overturn it after you decide you don't like it won't be an option. Socialism is a failed system that robs humans of their humanity. It turns people into slugs and leeches with no drive or determination to anything...and why should they? Everything is "free".

All this crap is the real life equivalent of Borg-ism. The warning in Trek of collectivism was appropriate and accurate...and some of you want to jump in willingly!

Sad.

Socialists never give up power and control willingly. So, what's wrong with Socialism (I still can't believe I read such comments...even here.)? It's an oppressive and power-gobbling form of government that robs people of incentive, drive and ultimately their humanity. But, I suppose there is NOTHING wrong with it if you want zip, zero, nada control of the decisions in your life and care not a whit about having choices and freedom!

People who are willing to concede their freedom do NOT deserve it. You deserve to live in a nanny-state, but please go and create your own (some desert island somewhere would be a good idea!) and let the rest of us continue to live in freedom.

Wake up, little pre-programmed socialists! Your verminous and subversive Communist college professors were...and ARE...WRONG!

 

[Gertch]

I guess we aren't the greatest country on Earth afterall. France just moved into the number one spot.

Not since January, no. And let's not forget that even though the French pay 17% of their pay for health care 90% of them still have to buy complementary insurance.

Socialism has never worked anywhere anytime.

Socialised medicine has worked everywhere it's been implemented and every country that has it ranks above the United States, but sure, if you repeat this lie enough it might become true.

Wow, nice facts there.

Perhaps check into Britain's colon and breast cancer rates compared to ours. Oh, and don't forget Canada is looking into privatizing. Sweden on the other hand has a nice health care system but they only have about 9 mil people where the US has 330 mil.

Why should I believe that letting government run my doctor's office will make my health care better?

A friend of mine brought this up: "The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775, Social Security was established in 1935, Fannie Mae was established in 1938, Freddie Mac was established in 1970, Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965, AMTRAK was established in 1970, Cash for Clunkers established 2009. All are broke, and people ask why I object to government control of health care. Would you put your health in a company with a 0% success rate?"

 

[cultcross]

Wow, nice facts there.

Perhaps check into Britain's colon and breast cancer rates compared to ours.

Nice cherry picking. Try looking into our life expectancy and infant mortality rates compared to yours. We going to play this all day? The WHO ranks all UHC nations, overall, above the United States for healthcare. That is a 'nice fact.'

 

[JuanBolio]

Nobody in the US DIES because of lack of insurance. In the US, people are treated REGARLESS of whether or not they have insurance. People saying otherwise are LIEING (such as Pelosi and Obama, etc.). And this lie has been promulgated for FAR too long. It is ILLEGAL to refuse healthcare to anyone. Doctors cannot and do NOT refuse care.

So...myth busted on that one. Repeating the lie -- Goebel's style -- will not make it so.

People come to the US from all over to get care because socialized medicine SUCKS. People die from THAT waiting to get care. The US currently -- although not a PERFECT system -- has the best healthcare in the world bar none.

I personally know Canadians, Brits, and others who have COME HERE to the US for treatment that they COULD NOT get in their native lands...at least not without being on a waiting list or having to endure healthcare RATIONING.

What is that kiddies? That's where you WAIT until the government decides you (if they do decide in your favor) that you can get that organ transplant you might need, etc. You know...life saving surgeries, etc! And of course, if you are a certain age..then SCREW YOU! Only young are allowed to live -- a' la' the horror of Logan's Run!

Oh yeah...some nirvana there. Only problem is -- we ALL presumably get old and need that care eventually. Do you want Big Mac Daddy Socialist Regime to decide when or if you get it?

I don't and half the US population (at least) believes the same.

The number of people here who think it's OK to hand their lives and eternally MORE power to the government really disturbs and sickens me.

When government controls your healthcare, they will eventually tell you how much you can eat...what you can eat...etc., etc. That's just the healthcare.

They won't stop there.

It's about CONTROL. And by that, they mean to CONTROL...YOU!

I could go with plenty of facts to support this concern, but why bother...you socialists have made up your minds. But, consider this -- once the tentacles of government control are immersed in your lives you will NEVER get them out -- short of revolution. Going to the ballot box to overturn it after you decide you don't like it won't be an option. Socialism is a failed system that robs humans of their humanity. It turns people into slugs and leeches with no drive or determination to anything...and why should they? Everything is "free".

All this crap is the real life equivalent of Borg-ism. The warning in Trek of collectivism was appropriate and accurate...and some of you want to jump in willingly!

Sad.

Socialists never give up power and control willingly.

Wake up, little pre-programmed socialists! You communist college professors were...and ARE...WRONG!

You make a fair point about our system never allowing anyone to die from lack of insurance (at least in emergency situations - when it comes to long-term care you're WAY off the mark. What good is emergency treatment going to do a cancer patient who has been unable to afford the months of chemo, radiation, and drugs needed to roll back her tumors?) and that our level of health care is equal or superior to any in the world, bar none.

You lose me, however, when you go off on your right-wing tangent, especially the bit about Borg-ism. The Federation not only had universal health care but probably free food and housing for all as well.

This isn't about collectivism or government control - its about people sick of being under the yoke of profit-minded insurance corporations that most often don't give a damn about human life, or worse not being able to afford that and having to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.

You say socialists never willingly give up control, but I find that far less likely and frightening than capitalists always choosing to make a buck over saving a life.

If you really hate socialized public services that much I suggest you start campaigning against public schools, police forces, fire departments, roads, the military... everything you pay taxes for that might benefit others and not you.

 

[Praxius]

From what I have observed, there are basically two camps in the anti-public health crowd:

1. Those who are completely misinformed about what it is and how it works, apparently under the impression that other countries euthanize their elderly, will deny you care if it's not "cost effective" or if you aren't "worth enough to society," and a bunch of other boogeymen that have no basis in reality.
2. Those who subscribe to some form of libertarian dogma, believing that if you can't afford your own health care, you shouldn't have any. Can't afford insurance? Tough. Get sick and get dropped by your insurer? Tough. Pre-existing condition? Tough. Not my problem.

There is some overlap between the groups, but those are pretty much the positions I have seen. People in the first group are just flat-out wrong, and will not usually accept any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint.

People in the second group, well, that's just the philosophy they subscribe to. While such people usually call themselves "libertarians," they are really Objectivists, and I find Objectivism to be an altogether cruel, sadistic, and evil political philosophy, one that has no place in a modern world.

That's something else I never got.... who cares if you have a pre-existing condition? Why should that somehow deny you any sort of coverage?

It's a medical condition, whether it was there for years or you just got it last night, it needs medical treatment. How the heck does it suddenly become the individual's responsibility to treat all on their own or that because you already have this illness, it's suddenly avoided like the plauge for you to either let get worse or pay an arm and a leg to get treated?