Nationalized Healthcare In The Usa?

[HighlyIllogical]

Nationalized healthcare-Is it a good idea for the United States? Please, only substantitive comments that relate to the topic and which are well documented or supported.

[sdhonda]

It aint gonna happen. Plain and simple.

Unless a deadbeat dad holds up a hospital, then maybe something will go through, but ya.

[HighlyIllogical]

It can't happen. It's been proven too expensive in europe and nationalized healthcare, without competition, discourages improvement because there's no competition.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/3/06 02:18 PM, mackid wrote: It can't happen. It's been proven too expensive in europe and nationalized healthcare, without competition, discourages improvement because there's no competition.

Huh? The US spends per capita way more than any European state. And the Europeans get better healthcare to boot.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/3/06 01:57 PM, mackid wrote: Please, only substantitive comments that relate to the topic and which are well documented or supported.

Like your second post, right? Read this, it's a quick read.

http://pa.essortment..onalizedhea_rtqq.htm

[HighlyIllogical]

Did I ever argue that those who can't afford it shouldn't have health insurance? I think not. I said that if you have the means to get healthcare, then you shouldn't have the government pay for your care. That's unreasonable. Plus, we have to improve the quality of health care and competition is the best way to maintain it.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/3/06 03:21 PM, mackid wrote: I said that if you have the means to get healthcare, then you shouldn't have the government pay for your care. That's unreasonable.

Why is that unreasonable?

Plus, we have to improve the quality of health care and competition is the best way to maintain it.

How does having a middle man (the insurance company) have anything to do with maintaining quality healthcare?

[BAWLS]

At 1/3/06 03:21 PM, mackid wrote: I said that if you have the means to get healthcare, then you shouldn't have the government pay for your care. That's unreasonable.

Those who "have the means" pay higher in taxes, thus providing healthcare both for themselves and those who can't afford it. That's not unreasonable.

[ReiperX]

I support a nationalized health care system. It would have saved me a lot of trouble a year and a half ago.

I spent 5 years in the US Marines, always paid my taxes while in the service, always paid my taxes on my jobs I had before I joined. I got out July 7th 2004 drove cross country back closer to home so that my wife doesn't have to be 3000 miles from her family. I spend a month on unemployment because I'm trying to find a decent job so that I can provide for my family. Well wife and I are doing to TN for an interview and are in a bad car accident <my Tacoma tried to mate with a Semi Truck, ruled our fault but nothing my wife could have done to prevent the accident when our tire blew>. Luckily we were both ok but we went to the hospital anyways to make sure that there were no internal injuries <I was on the impact side of the truck when it hit, pipe came about 3 to 6 inches from going thru my neck>. So we go to the hospital, we take a shower at the hospital to get the glass off of us, nurse digs a smal piece of glass out of my ear and the doctor asks a few questions. In all that cost us $666.55. Living off of $180 a week I couldn't really afford insurance or to pay the bill. After this happened, yeah I became a supporter of national health care, both of our credits got hurt by this, and it caused a lot of troubles when we couldn't afford to pay it, not because we didn't want to, because we didn't have jobs yet.

[Papa-Smuff]

At 1/3/06 03:59 PM, ReiperX wrote: I support a nationalized health care system. It would have saved me a lot of trouble a year and a half ago.

In all that cost us $666.55. Living off of $180 a week I couldn't really afford insurance or to pay the bill. After this happened, yeah I became a supporter of national health care, both of our credits got hurt by this, and it caused a lot of troubles when we couldn't afford to pay it, not because we didn't want to, because we didn't have jobs yet.

Well should it really fall upon some one else to pay for your medical cost. Where do you think the money would come from, the government just magicaly just comes up with money. No inorder for them to pay for it they would have to raise taxes. So that means youd be making another person that may already have trouble paying the bill help pay for your hospital bills.

[ReiperX]

At 1/3/06 04:08 PM, Papa_Smuff wrote:

At 1/3/06 03:59 PM, ReiperX wrote: I support a nationalized health care system. It would have saved me a lot of trouble a year and a half ago.

In all that cost us $666.55. Living off of $180 a week I couldn't really afford insurance or to pay the bill. After this happened, yeah I became a supporter of national health care, both of our credits got hurt by this, and it caused a lot of troubles when we couldn't afford to pay it, not because we didn't want to, because we didn't have jobs yet.

Well should it really fall upon some one else to pay for your medical cost. Where do you think the money would come from, the government just magicaly just comes up with money. No inorder for them to pay for it they would have to raise taxes. So that means youd be making another person that may already have trouble paying the bill help pay for your hospital bills.

If I had been paying taxes towards it for the past 5 years in the military and the 2 years of working before that, they I would have paid in well more than it would have cost for the hospital visit. Its like public schools, why should I be paying for some other kid's education? Because thats something that is needed, because it helps people. Guess what paying extra taxes for nationalized health insurance would do, the same.

[IllustriousPotentate]

We'll probably see a move towards more nationalization of health care in the US. I have concerns about how it will work. I know that it is used in many other countries, with various rates of success, but I think our nation is much too large and diverse for such a massive plan. Moreover, I don't see what any difference would be between a government run HMO plan where bureaucrats tell you what you need for your health and a private HMO where insurance adjusters tell you what you need for your health.

I do know, however, that when you have to pay for something out of pocket, you're far less likely to seek trivial or unnecessary remedies or treatments than if everything is taken care of.

That said, I don't list too strongly to either side, seeing as how our health system isn't in the best shape right now. However, as for myself, I would prefer to be able to select how much risk I am willing to accept and make my own financial and medical decisions, rather than have the government make them for me.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 1/3/06 04:08 PM, Papa_Smuff wrote: Well should it really fall upon some one else to pay for your medical cost. Where do you think the money would come from, the government just magicaly just comes up with money. No inorder for them to pay for it they would have to raise taxes. So that means youd be making another person that may already have trouble paying the bill help pay for your hospital bills.

You know there's an easy answer to this problem. If the Government doesn't want to raise taxes it can just divert money away from other things. I'm sure America could quite easily afford to take a large cut out to its weapons budget , and I'm sure they could come up with other ways to get the money without raising taxes.

Wellmaybe not all of it but it would lessen the burden on the tax payer as the increase wouldn't be as much.

[arz756]

Bad idea... People shouldn't depend on the government for healthcare, education, or protection. Look at anywhere else and what do you see when it comes to government run healthcare. Long waiting lines and sub-par quality. Charities are setup for people who acually need help.

[Ravens-Grin]

First we need to put the healthcare industry in a semi-decent position in order to even contemplate the federal government's funding

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 1/3/06 05:29 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: First we need to put the healthcare industry in a semi-decent position in order to even contemplate the federal government's funding

And you would do this how? The most logical step would be to increase spending to improve the facilities. That means that the price of insurance would go up so more people would be left not being able to afford proper healthcare. not the ebst way to do it really.

The best way to get the health system into a" semi decent state" is for the government to fund it, at least partially.

Govt gives money to companies that run hospitals and they spend it on whatever aspects they deem worthy. Hospitals improve, the efficency remains the same as it's still run by a private company but the fact that the government pays some of the cost means that the company has more money to spend elsewhere so the whole round service improves and you get more for your money.

[MortifiedPenguins]

No it will never happen, hell in my state we have enough problems raising taxes for education(and were ranked second in state for the amount of tax towards education) so no one will ever want to increase thier taxes to pay for someone elses health care.

Anyways, why should i have to pay for someone elses health care.

[Papa-Smuff]

At 1/3/06 05:25 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: You know there's an easy answer to this problem. If the Government doesn't want to raise taxes it can just divert money away from other things. I'm sure America could quite easily afford to take a large cut out to its weapons budget , and I'm sure they could come up with other ways to get the money without raising taxes.

Wellmaybe not all of it but it would lessen the burden on the tax payer as the increase wouldn't be as much.

Yeah, sure our soldiers out there already have to pay for their own armor and drive in unprotected vehicles. So ofcourse the right thing to do is to take funds from them.

[LordXanthus]

This is a bit of a personal issue for me. As a US citizen who has absolutely no health insurance, and precious little chance to acquire any, I am fully supportive of nationalized healthcare. What can I say? I get sick, too, and I can't afford to pay exorbitant medical bills. You would not believe how many times I have had to deal with meager self-treatment, or beg relatives for money to pay medical bills.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/3/06 06:49 PM, LordXanthus wrote: This is a bit of a personal issue for me. As a US citizen who has absolutely no health insurance, and precious little chance to acquire any, I am fully supportive of nationalized healthcare. What can I say? I get sick, too, and I can't afford to pay exorbitant medical bills. You would not believe how many times I have had to deal with meager self-treatment, or beg relatives for money to pay medical bills.

yeah but should someone else be responsible to pay that for you. Fuck i just got a job too, and it's hard to fucking work, i don't want any more of my money being taken away.

[MarkyX]

At 1/3/06 04:06 PM, Mick_the_champion wrote: It's just plain crazy that a civilised nation should have to pay for health care.

All nations are like that. Universal healthcare is done via tax payers. So even though I'm young and healthy, I'm going to paying for someone I don't know who got a hip injury due to their own stupidity.

[smith916]

At 1/3/06 03:35 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 1/3/06 03:21 PM, mackid wrote: I said that if you have the means to get healthcare, then you shouldn't have the government pay for your care. That's unreasonable.

Why is that unreasonable?

That's Like Bill gates asking for welfare from the government, if he already has the money to pay for it then why should he have it, give it to someone else who needs it.

Plus, we have to improve the quality of health care and competition is the best way to maintain it.

How does having a middle man (the insurance company) have anything to do with maintaining quality healthcare?

Where did he say insurance i ask you.

[smith916]

At 1/3/06 06:49 PM, LordXanthus wrote: This is a bit of a personal issue for me. As a US citizen who has absolutely no health insurance, and precious little chance to acquire any, I am fully supportive of nationalized healthcare. What can I say? I get sick, too, and I can't afford to pay exorbitant medical bills. You would not believe how many times I have had to deal with meager self-treatment, or beg relatives for money to pay medical bills.

A person such as yourself deserves government aid if he or she is in such a predicament.

But that doesn't apply to other's who have the money, so why turn heathcare into a smorgus board.

[Monocrom]

At 1/3/06 01:57 PM, mackid wrote: Nationalized healthcare-Is it a good idea for the United States? Please, only substantitive comments that relate to the topic and which are well documented or supported.

I agree it's a great idea! I'm sick & tired of people saying, "Well, if you get really sick just go to the Emergency room." Okay, one, you usually end up sitting in the waiting room for several hours for medical attention. Two; speaking from experience, expect to get a ridiculously, over-inflated bill after you go home! Three, I find it to be obscene that the only countries left in the world that don't have Universal-Healthcare are 3rd-World-Nations and America!!! WTF!.... This is going to be a big problem for me sooner, rather than later, since I'm older than the average NG user.

[lapis]

At 1/3/06 02:18 PM, mackid wrote: It's been proven too expensive in europe and nationalized healthcare, without competition, discourages improvement because there's no competition.

Maybe we don't want competition. Competition means that some hospitals won't survive the struggle, or that others will reduce the quality of the the service to attract customers by supplying cheaper healthcare. This is not what we as a society want; healthcare is a primary good (good as in both tangible goods and services), sometimes essential for survival and we don't want people to not fully be able to enjoy it.

You can't just leave a primary good to charity; charity is unpredictable and dependent on humans and the economy. It's one of the jobs of the state to provide a primary good when the market fails to do so. No civilised society should allow it's people to rot from sickness.

And discouraging improvement? Healthcare is an industry where most of the people working in it chose the profession to help people instead of making quick money. I think that the losses in improvement will be minimal and by far worth the cost of leaving people out of the health care they need.

And healthcare hasn't proven to be too expensive in Europe, governments are very well able to keep on supplying it. It costs money, sure, but at least it's money spent on the benefit of society.

[smith916]

Here's an Idea, why dont doctors just CHARGE LESS for inspecting people's Boo Boo
s and check ups and peeing in the cup.

3rd would countries dont have medicare because they

1) Cant tax there people who are already dirt poor

2) have poor hospitalization.

America doesn't have medicare because it's CAPTIALISM.

Here's one of the basic laws of the economy,
the more companies as a whole charge for their goods, the more money people need,

the more money people need, the more money the government has to give them,

the more money the government gives them the more money the government needs

the more money the government needs, the more it has to tax and print money

the more the government taxes and prints money, the less money that people have

the less money people have, the more money people need

Rich, is just a common liberal term used to describe anyone who earns more than somone who ISNT on welfare, aka, you, me, him, we're all considered rich.

Taxing people who actually do earn more than most people and the unemployment rate will go down, this more people will need medicare, mediaid, and welfare, and the cyle continues.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 1/3/06 03:59 PM, ReiperX wrote: I support a nationalized health care system. It would have saved me a lot of trouble a year and a half ago.

I spent 5 years in the US Marines, always paid my taxes while in the service, always paid my taxes on my jobs I had before I joined...Well wife and I are doing to TN for an interview and are in a bad car accident <my Tacoma tried to mate with a Semi Truck, ruled our fault but nothing my wife could have done to prevent the accident when our tire blew>. Luckily we were both ok but we went to the hospital anyways to make sure that there were no internal injuries...So we go to the hospital, we take a shower at the hospital to get the glass off of us, nurse digs a smal piece of glass out of my ear and the doctor asks a few questions. In all that cost us $666.55. Living off of $180 a week I couldn't really afford insurance or to pay the bill. After this happened, yeah I became a supporter of national health care, both of our credits got hurt by this, and it caused a lot of troubles when we couldn't afford to pay it, not because we didn't want to, because we didn't have jobs yet.

What about vets benefits? Perhaps these could be extended? And then, since you couldn't afford it at the time, the government should provide it for you then and when anyone can't afford it. Those who can afford it should have to pay on their own or through an insurance company.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 1/3/06 07:43 PM, smith916 wrote: Here's an Idea, why dont doctors just CHARGE LESS for inspecting people's Boo Boo
s and check ups and peeing in the cup.

Well, by doing this, we discourage qualified people from becoming doctors because there won't be impetus (i.e. $) for them to become doctors. Then, we have an influx of crappy, underpaid doctors who move here from the 3rd world and will work for substandard wages.

3rd would countries dont have medicare because they

1) Cant tax there people who are already dirt poor

2) have poor hospitalization.

How about corruption, no infastructure, high HIV/AIDS prevalence rates etc?

America doesn't have medicare because it's CAPTIALISM.

Uhh...actually, medicare is the name of a government program in the united states that provides poor, differently-abled and elderly people with care.

Rich, is just a common liberal term used to describe anyone who earns more than somone who ISNT on welfare, aka, you, me, him, we're all considered rich.

That's just funny. I can't even dignify that with a response.

Taxing people who actually do earn more than most people and the unemployment rate will go down, this more people will need medicare, mediaid, and welfare, and the cyle continues.

How's that for you? Tax more and unemployment goes down! When taxes go up, businesses fire people who they don't percieve to need. Make sense now?

[MegalomaniacVirus]

Nationalized healthcare is socialism.

Sorry, socialism is wrong. Besides, if there were nationalized health care, it would be as good as the one I have so it would hurt me.

[Elfer]

Hmm.

All I'm going to say for now is that in Canada, this isn't so much seen as an issue of "Is this good for me and my medical needs" but rather an issue of "Should everyone, regardless of income, have access to healthcare"

Since socialized healthcare has been around for some time now, a lot of people here consider access to medical care a human right rather than something to be bought and sold.