The Reality of Socialized Medicine

[oggbashan]

If you're talking about our federal elected politicians? Those two statements are in total contradiction with one another.

There is no reason states can't do it, other than they are scared to chase money makers out of their state.

The reason we can't do it at a federal level is because a whole bunch of states don't want it, and the ones that do can't agree at all on how. So it's not happening, because the Constitution says unless we get a super majority of congress and states all on the same page? All the states have the right to run their own shit.

Here is what I don't get, I don't understand why that's such a problem? Why is it so imperative that the USA force all 50 states into a unified federal HC system??

Why is it so important to so many people outside of say Utah to force the people of Utah into some shit they don't want??? Why not just let the people who live in whatever state decide how they want to live?

What I seem to see in this thread is an ugly American version of 'Sod you peasant - I've got healthcare - you can't have it.'

It does NOT have to be government run. It just has to cover everyone at a reasonable cost but Americans don't seem willing to do anything but accept the massive rip-off some of them have, and condemn anyone without money or a sponsored scheme to live in pain, or go bankrupt.

 

[JackLuis]

What I seem to see in this thread is an ugly American version of 'Sod you peasant - I've got healthcare - you can't have it.'

It does NOT have to be government run. It just has to cover everyone at a reasonable cost but Americans don't seem willing to do anything but accept the massive rip-off some of them have, and condemn anyone without money or a sponsored scheme to live in pain, or go bankrupt.

Ogg, it's all about Insurance Co's profits, it's not about principles. Fuck Principles, this is a Rethuglicunt Administration.

 

[zotique]

What I seem to see in this thread is an ugly American version of 'Sod you peasant - I've got healthcare - you can't have it.'

It does NOT have to be government run. It just has to cover everyone at a reasonable cost but Americans don't seem willing to do anything but accept the massive rip-off some of them have, and condemn anyone without money or a sponsored scheme to live in pain, or go bankrupt.

You're correct, but the "I don't want the gumint to have anything to do with me" crowd is so sucked into the big pharma and insurance company propaganda they'll never see the light.

Besides, as someone once said; even the poorest Americans don't see themselves as poor, they're temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

 

[gunthernehmen]

What I seem to see in this thread is an ugly American version of 'Sod you peasant - I've got healthcare - you can't have it.'

It does NOT have to be government run. It just has to cover everyone at a reasonable cost but Americans don't seem willing to do anything but accept the massive rip-off some of them have, and condemn anyone without money or a sponsored scheme to live in pain, or go bankrupt.

"It does NOT have to be government run. It just has to cover everyone at a reasonable cost"

There is no innate right to healthcare services. Your country chooses to provide it "almost" universally. Mine doesn't. Don't you get that?

Anyway, how do you propose to make it happen? The Federal government CAN'T. That's the job of the States.

What's your plan to accomplish this without increased taxation?

 

[TheWhiteBull]

What I seem to see in this thread is an ugly American version of 'Sod you peasant - I've got healthcare - you can't have it.'

It does NOT have to be government run. It just has to cover everyone at a reasonable cost but Americans don't seem willing to do anything but accept the massive rip-off some of them have, and condemn anyone without money or a sponsored scheme to live in pain, or go bankrupt.

Well there are several reasons that may be the way you see it; inherent biases, different experiences, the general lack of civil conversation in topics like this.

For instance, although I oppose universal healthcare in all of the forms it has been proposed here so far I do actually believe every person deserves treatment. The problem though is that every person also has a right to not be forced to provide treatment to others, even if it is in the form of money they don’t wish to pay. It’s essentially a case of conflicting rights and we place more emphasis on different ones.

 

[magicalmoments]

#404 above
Read the thread.
There are some posters saying that there are presidential candidates who are actively pushing Marxist socialist policies of state ownership and control of the means of production. I've googled, I've watched the speeches and debates, I've read the published blurbs that are available including the green new deal and I can't find any reference to this.
So yes, I am seriously interested in where those posting this claim get their information from, because not even Fox are running this as a story and I would have thought they would be all over it.

 

[gunthernehmen]

#410 above. Read #404 but this time, comprehend it.

Con men rarely say what they really want.

How about you tell us how we can get this magical free tuition and free healthcare and free frigging bean sandwiches without raising taxes through the roof.

It doesn't matter anyway because illegal.

A president that tries to implement universal healthcare should face impeachment!

 

[oggbashan]

JayCuck - your statements prove that Americans have an inept set of politicians whether left or right.

There are solutions that other countries have tried without massive spends or government micro-management.

The fact that one side supports the status quo and the massive rip-offs and the other side suggests massive government spending shows you have no real sensible choice.

That is sad, and stupid, but Big Pharma's money buys your politicians.

 

[gunthernehmen]

There are solutions that other countries have tried without massive spends or government micro-management.

What is your vision for what a Federal government ought to provide or be responsible for?

 

[oggbashan]

What is your vision for what a Federal government ought to provide or be responsible for?

Not necessarily Federal but state organised because of the US constitution but a basic system of healthcare for those not covered at present that provides access for those who cannot afford the bills. Perhaps a local sales tax? Instead of being totally free at the point of use for ALL medical services which can lead to an insatiable demand, a backup service that covers serious medical conditions that affect quality of life. So not free pills, not replacing charitable cover for life-threatening incidents, but a service that would help people whose life is impaired by health issues.

Many parts of the UK used to have that before WWII. Many people belonged to a trade union or friendly society non-profit scheme that would pay (or pay towards) doctor's consultations and hospital procedures for members and almost all hospitals had a charitable fund that would pay for treatment of those who genuinely couldn't afford it not for transient sniffs and headaches but for recognised long term medical problems.

The federal government perhaps ought to recommend the basic parameters to be met by a state and oversee a system that arranges for reciprocal cover between state organised schemes so someone travelling between states is still covered. That exists in the EU with the EPIC scheme despite the different ways that EU states have arranged their healthcare. Any EU citizen who has a medical problem when not in their own country can access medical services exactly the same as a citizen of that state - with all the limitations and provisos that apply to that country's scheme.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What I seem to see in this thread is an ugly American version of 'Sod you peasant - I've got healthcare - you can't have it.'

NO...nobody is saying that.

Everyone can have HC, they just don't get to put a gun to someone else's head to make them pay for it.

Big difference.

It does NOT have to be government run.

Then you are talking about any sort of HC system, that's just a charity and we have a bunch of them.

It just has to cover everyone at a reasonable cost but Americans don't seem willing to do anything but accept the massive rip-off some of them have, and condemn anyone without money or a sponsored scheme to live in pain, or go bankrupt.

That is freedom......" everyone pay for your own shit because your a responsible for your own shit. " IS FREEDOM.

What do you think the biggest, absolutely most important and arguably defining political value in the USA??

Freedom? Or equal outcomes for all??

Ogg, it's all about Insurance Co's profits, it's not about principles. Fuck Principles, this is a Rethuglicunt Administration.

JcakLuis hates freedom....HATES it.

He wants to stick a gun to other peoples heads and force them to pay for his shit.

You're correct, but the "I don't want the gumint to have anything to do with me" crowd is so sucked into the big pharma and insurance company propaganda they'll never see the light.

The core values of the USA aren't insurance company propaganda.

#404 above
Read the thread.
There are some posters saying that there are presidential candidates who are actively pushing Marxist socialist policies of state ownership and control of the means of production. I've googled, I've watched the speeches and debates, I've read the published blurbs that are available including the green new deal and I can't find any reference to this.
So yes, I am seriously interested in where those posting this claim get their information from, because not even Fox are running this as a story and I would have thought they would be all over it.

LOL....how do you think any of those progressives are going to do any of the shit they are promising??

Same way they make "Medicare for all" work......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1iEzxW0z5A&t=143s

by doing away with private insurance services.

Same way Maxine Waters will make fuel affordable for all by nationalizing the oil companies like Venezuela.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0BdKkEKTrs

And on and on and on....you're living in denial

 

[oggbashan]

LOL....how do you think any of those progressives are going to do any of the shit they are promising??

Same way they make "Medicare for all" work......

Simple - cancel all medical cover for people who argue like you, or increase the premium to 150% of your current income.

 

[bhurry]

easy

MOVE if life is better some place else

 

[BotanyBoy]

Simple - cancel all medical cover for people who argue like you, or increase the premium to 150% of your current income.

LOL....that angry against people who support freedom hua???

Nothing triggers a collectivist lefty more than the idea of individual liberty

I notice that like most lefties you refuse to ever ever ever EVER dare answer this question....

What do you think the biggest, absolutely most important and arguably defining political value in the USA??

Freedom? Or equal outcomes for all??

Besides ogg....like most people with some means, if the state came after me in such a way I'd just take my ball and leave.

I did it to California along with millions of other tax payers fleeing that "progressive" state. Gee....I wonder why they are scared to run their taxes all the way up to 97.5% the way progressives want to on a national scale.

MOVE if life is better some place else

Boom...headshot.

 

[oggbashan]

LOL....that angry against people who support freedom hua???

I'd just leave.



Boom...headshot.

No. Angry with people who use specious arguments to deprive fellow citizens of access to healthcare.

 

[gunthernehmen]

MOVE if life is better some place else

That's actually part of the reasoning for leaving most things for the states to deal with.

The Founders KNEW the states would put their own spin or flavor on things and if you don't like the way Kentucky does it, you're free to move to Montana or whatever.

One size does not fit all.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No. Angry with people who use specious arguments to deprive fellow citizens of access to healthcare.

I'm not arguing to deprive anyone access to healthcare.

I 100% support everyone having access to healthcare and never so much as implied otherwise. Having access to healthcare doesn't have anything to do with sticking a gun to someone else's head to force them to pay for it.

I even support states having public HC services if they want to provide for those who can't afford it.

I just don't support a 1 size fits all being forced at a federal level, because back to being un-American.

There is nothing specious about any of those arguments.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's actually part of the reasoning for leaving most things for the states to deal with.

The Founders KNEW the states would put their own spin or flavor on things and if you don't like the way Kentucky does it, you're free to move to Montana or whatever.

One size does not fit all.

This seems to be a genuinely difficult concept for people to grasp, especially the collectivist who seem to think the totalitarian god state is the only way to do things or refuse to accept the fact that the USA isn't a unitary state and as such has some strict rules that make it very very very difficult for the fed to bully the states who don't want what the bigger/richer states like Texas and California want.

Not to mention we were founded and built upon the ideals of individualism and liberalism.....not collectivism and socialism.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Not necessarily Federal but state organised because of the US constitution but a basic system of healthcare for those not covered at present that provides access for those who cannot afford the bills. Perhaps a local sales tax? Instead of being totally free at the point of use for ALL medical services which can lead to an insatiable demand, a backup service that covers serious medical conditions that affect quality of life. So not free pills, not replacing charitable cover for life-threatening incidents, but a service that would help people whose life is impaired by health issues.

Many parts of the UK used to have that before WWII. Many people belonged to a trade union or friendly society non-profit scheme that would pay (or pay towards) doctor's consultations and hospital procedures for members and almost all hospitals had a charitable fund that would pay for treatment of those who genuinely couldn't afford it not for transient sniffs and headaches but for recognised long term medical problems.

The federal government perhaps ought to recommend the basic parameters to be met by a state and oversee a system that arranges for reciprocal cover between state organised schemes so someone travelling between states is still covered. That exists in the EU with the EPIC scheme despite the different ways that EU states have arranged their healthcare. Any EU citizen who has a medical problem when not in their own country can access medical services exactly the same as a citizen of that state - with all the limitations and provisos that apply to that country's scheme.

If you believe that government should be involved in healthcare delivery at all, yes, it is the place of the states, not the federal government. Not unlike your EU, where healthcare is not delivered at the EU level (just coordinated a little) but my the member Nation States.

So again, many states have programs similar to what you outline, including my own, although I maintain private insurance because the service is superior. As for the other states, if the citizens have issues with the way things are done they're free to leave for greener pastures.

Of course, the cost of living in those states is vastly higher in part due to the cost of maintaining comprehensive social welfare systems, but that's another debate.

Either way, it is a philosophical debate as to whether the government SHOULD be involved at all. I don't think so. You do.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If you believe that government should be involved in healthcare delivery at all, yes, it is the place of the states, not the federal government. Not unlike your EU, where healthcare is not delivered at the EU level (just coordinated a little) but my the member Nation States.

I've already tried explaining that to him.

He just ignores it.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Either way, it is a philosophical debate as to whether the government SHOULD be involved at all. I don't think so. You do.

I don't necessarily think federal government should be involved except perhaps in suggesting basic parameters and coordinating cover for people travelling between states.

What I do think is that US politicians federal and state have failed to consider the problem seriously, just shouting at each other.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't necessarily think federal government should be involved except perhaps in suggesting basic parameters and coordinating cover for people travelling between states.

And states that don't want it??? What of them??

Texas says "Fuck you pay me." is their HC system along with 27 other states....what do you suppose they do about that?

What I do think is that US politicians federal and state have failed to consider the problem seriously, just shouting at each other.

They take it seriously they just hold different views so radically different there is no middle ground to be had....thus the shouting.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Nothing triggers a collectivist lefty more than the idea of individual liberty

I notice that like most lefties you refuse to ever ever ever EVER dare answer this question....

I would say I live in a pretty socialistic society, yet we have a charter of rights and freedoms, which lays out pretty much that we have defined individual liberty and freedoms. Very similar to what the US has in regards to it's Constitution.

There is not one right that you have in the US, that Canadians do not also enjoy.

I would use the term "hogwash" or "fear mongering" as an answer to the above.

Oh we also have socialised health care, paid for via taxation. Tax collected by the Federal government, money distributed to each province. The Feds define the coverage ( which makes it portable from coast to cast to coast), each Province is mandated to deliver the service. Our current Government paid cost per Capita is Less than the current cost per Capita paid by the US government.

Now if you could just figure out how to get your insurance companies to work with out making a profit, you'd be there too!!

 

[BotanyBoy]

I would say I live in a pretty socialistic society, yet we have a charter of rights and freedoms, which lays out pretty much that we have defined individual liberty and freedoms. Very similar to what the US has in regards to it's Constitution.

Similar but not.

There is not one right that you have in the US, that Canadians do not also enjoy.

Freedom of speech for one. Yes, "hate speech" especially when it's undefined exactly what that means, is free speech.

Pretty sure even though you have limited legality you don't have a right to to armament either and you're subject to losing them all should you have some shootings happen.

Now if you could just figure out how to get your insurance companies to work with out making a profit, you'd be there too!!

Nothing works without making a profit....do you work for free???

This is why you must get the authority of government involved to try and force it.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Similar but not.



Freedom of speech for one.

Pretty sure you don't have a right to to armament either.

We have the rights to free speech, and the right to own firearms,( with a few rules more rules than the US has) sorry. Maybe you should read our's, instead of just assuming?

Nothing works without making a profit....this is why you must get the authority of government involved to try and force it.

LOL too funny, and I should say, it was the people who forced the Government into paying for health care, not the other way around...