Most Americans Want Universal Health Care

[Andy9o8 0]

As I've said many times before, in an affluent country like the US, it's absolutely disgraceful that we don't have some kind of universal health coverage for everyone, especially the vast middle class that basically is screwed on health care when the bread-earner gets laid off from his/her job, or is self-employed, or is classified as an "independent contractor".

Part of the problem is the gross over-use of the term "socialized medicine", which is such an emotional hot button in the US, where "socialism" being a dirty word is part of our culture, that the term itself shuts down reasonable discussion before it even starts. It becomes a FoxNews buzzword, like "death tax", "flag burning" or "defense of marriage". Result: discussion over.

If the NHS systems that exist in, say, the UK or Canada have deficiencies that most Americans are unwilling to live with, fine. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater and refusing to even consider the concept, why not use the other countries' systems as our R & D, and develop something better?

Already, for the mutual benefit of society, our commonly-pooled resources (i.e., taxes) pay for highway construction and upkeep, police departments, many fire departments, the military, Social Security (FWIW), air traffic control (ha!), public education, etc. Why we can't find some way to fairly and equitably develop and fund SOME kind of universal health care with an American flavor is simply beyond me.
It's shameful that we don't.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

The girl whose mother chose to be a baby breeder and collect welfare had a greater need than the dad who was already working 80+ hors a week to feed his family. It may seem fair to you but not to me, and I'm hardly a cold hearted guy.

I know where you are coming from. My point is don't punish the girl for having a lazy slut mom.

Personally I paid my own college costs by joining the militar, and then grants and loans. And at the time tuition was about $26,000 a year..... So yes, there are options.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

$500 from every tax payer (more from wealthy tax payers), including those not needing government paid health care, could very well make it work.

Majority rules in the USA - or are you anti-democracy?

First off, you need to re-read your govt class textbooks. The US is NOT a democracy.

Second, most people will be in favor of being given something they would otherwise have to pay for.

Third, everyone knows how wasteful and screwed up the gov't is - and you want to put it in charge of your healthcare?

Lastly, do some reasearch - that 'free ride' isn't as free as you think it will be. You think an HMO is bad? Wait until .gov is deciding what is a "necessary procedure" or not.

Example: A Canadian man with a brain tumor had to come to the States and get a CAT scan (or MRI - I don't recall which) - Canadian healthcare system didn't feel his condition was serious enough to warrant an immediate test.

His US doctor said that if he had waited the 4 months to get his tests done, that he would have been terminal by that point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

The girl whose mother chose to be a baby breeder and collect welfare had a greater need than the dad who was already working 80+ hors a week to feed his family. It may seem fair to you but not to me, and I'm hardly a cold hearted guy.

I know where you are coming from. My point is don't punish the girl for having a lazy slut mom.

Personally I paid my own college costs by joining the militar, and then grants and loans. And at the time tuition was about $26,000 a year..... So yes, there are options.

Yes, there are a myriad of ways. I borrowed money, got scholarships and worked my way through. I asked my kids to do the same. I'll help them fill out applications, help them with school work, but I won't completely fund their college. They have chosen to borrow, work their way through, and one joined the military (he had other reasons besides scholarships)

Here is the rub. My oldest son is now 25. He has struggled getting grants & loans as even though he has lived on his own for years and makes almost nothing ($18k as a machinist) he could not qualify because my income was too high. Now THAT is wrong!

steveOrino

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Those not needing government health care? Are you looking to exclude people from it? Who are you excluding? Why are you excluding them? What's up with that?

Those already WITH health care don't need government help.

That's not sounding very "universal" to me... sounds more like another redistribution scheme to soak "the rich" again.

Quote

Quote

More from wealthy taxpayers? Why? Let them pay for what they use.

Sorry, that's not how it works in a socialist society.

Fixed that for you.

Quote

Quote

Mob mentality is for the weak. Show some balls and get away from the mob mentality.

The weak, eh? I can't believe you would be so intellectually dishonest as to compare the need for health care in the USA and the part democracy may play in the process to social injustices like slavery. Democracy ended slavery and brought about social reform that changed this country for the better. Protecting the minority is a part of what Democracy does. In this case it will protect the less fortunate by providing them with health care.

"Protecting the minority is a part of what Democracy does."

Incorrect - appeasing the majority is what Democracy does.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,400]

>I'd welcome it because one of my sons has ahrd time paying for health insurance.

>On the other hand, I can afford private health insurance and I'd rather have it.

Both good points. Which is why I am for an official two-tiered system. The lower level (basic preventative care, basic ER services, most pediatrics, catastrophic coverage) should be covered by the government. It effectively is now - people who can't afford healthcare just show up at ER's and are treated. If we standardized such care we could do it for much less money.

The second tier would still be private, and would include elective surgery, transplants, more complex reconstructive surgery etc. That way people could still choose what sort of more advanced medical services they wanted.

Think you have a back problem but have no money? Go to an ER, fill out a form, and you'll get seen, where a doctor will check you for obvious problems and send you home with painkillers if he can't find anything.

Want better service? Walk into a private center, pay as much as you want (or give em your Blue Cross Gold Card or whatever) and get a battery of tests, scans and consultations.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I'd welcome it because one of my sons has ahrd time paying for health insurance.

>On the other hand, I can afford private health insurance and I'd rather have it.

Both good points. Which is why I am for an official two-tiered system. The lower level (basic preventative care, basic ER services, most pediatrics, catastrophic coverage) should be covered by the government. It effectively is now - people who can't afford healthcare just show up at ER's and are treated. If we standardized such care we could do it for much less money.

The second tier would still be private, and would include elective surgery, transplants, more complex reconstructive surgery etc. That way people could still choose what sort of more advanced medical services they wanted.

Think you have a back problem but have no money? Go to an ER, fill out a form, and you'll get seen, where a doctor will check you for obvious problems and send you home with painkillers if he can't find anything.

Want better service? Walk into a private center, pay as much as you want (or give em your Blue Cross Gold Card or whatever) and get a battery of tests, scans and consultations.

I think that is a much more workable solution, although with the gov't involved, I doubt the savings aspect of it...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

$500 from every tax payer (more from wealthy tax payers), including those not needing government paid health care, could very well make it work.

I'm paying 3-4k a year into Medicare, something I won't even be eligible to use for decades, and its running a massive projected debt of tens of trillions.

So how is $500 going to do a damn thing to cover me now?

This isn't bad math, it's fantasy math. Perhaps brought to us by the same people who don't believe in right or wrong answers for math in school.

[nathaniel 0]

In other news, most Americans would pay $500 in additional taxes if everybody could get new car every year. I want a Ferrari!

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Royd 0]

Quote

I'd rather work my butt off and live in a country where everyone has access to education and good health care than work my butt off to live in a country where poor people get poor education and poor health care. Having healthier, well-educated people in our country (even if some don't work for it) would make it a better place to live IMHO.

There are those who work and produce because they enjoy it, then there are those who work because they have to. Under the socialist system, many of those in the latter group would sit down on their fat asses and say that they have earned a break, leaving the few to foot the bill.

That doesn't disturb you?

[Royd 0]

Quote

And growing up on welfare with a mom who can't seem to stay in a stable relationship? Doesn't sound like much of a "free ride" to me. Personally, I would have been happy to see that she was using the educational resources available to her to make a better life for herself.

No offence to your mother, but how many times do you give someone a leg up before you realize that they are not really interested in rising above where they are at.

[billvon 2,400]

>Under the socialist system, many of those in the latter group would
>sit down on their fat asses and say that they have earned a break, leaving
>the few to foot the bill.

You are confusing universal health care with communism. No one will "foot the bill" for people who are not working; they will be flat broke as always. And if they get hit by a car, they will get cared for, just like they do now. Nothing will change for these people.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Nothing will change for these people.

this is true, but I think he was talking about those that will join "these people" because you just took away a big motivation for them to work. That will expand the group labeled "these people" and thus making it even more expensive for the group labeled "the rest".

The more programs such as these, and the more people will move from "the rest" to "those people". But, under true communism, at least we'll all have something in common, we'll all become "those people".

But, that should be the final evidence, if we are all "those people" or "those that work government jobs to support Those People" - then if we are happy in that state, it'll be the final proof of certain posters' idea of utopia. If most all are very upset about it, that should prove out the other side.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Under the socialist system, many of those in the latter group would
>sit down on their fat asses and say that they have earned a break, leaving
>the few to foot the bill.

You are confusing universal health care with communism. No one will "foot the bill" for people who are not working; they will be flat broke as always. And if they get hit by a car, they will get cared for, just like they do now. Nothing will change for these people.

Doesn't everyone work under communism? No free-loaders? Which is exactly who will benefitr the most from a universal healthcare system.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

The US is NOT a democracy.

OK... a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy.

Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
Benjamin Franklin

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Doesn't everyone work under communism? No free-loaders? Which is exactly who will benefitr the most from a universal healthcare system.

In a perfect implementation, most of us would benefit. The largess of paperwork to bill between insurers and providers is expensive, as is forcing the poorest to use the ER for basic care.

In poor implementation, the poor and the lower middle class who were underinsured benefit and everyone else gets slower service at the same high cost (or worse).

[NCclimber 0]

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." – Thomas Jefferson

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." – Thomas Jefferson

Not sure the Founding Fathers' words as so lasting when it comes to economic policy. They lived in pre industrial America, and of course, were slave owners. Where do they fit into the two categories above? Forced to work, and all is taken away from them?

[billvon 2,400]

>Doesn't everyone work under communism?

No.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Doesn't everyone work under communism?

No.

For example? USSR? China?

[billvon 2,400]

>but I think he was talking about those that will join "these people"
>because you just took away a big motivation for them to work.

Freeloaders who don't work TODAY get free health care if they get hit by a car. Heck, they get free health care if they just show up with the sniffles.

Under the system I propose, freeloaders who don't work get free health care if they get hit by a car. They get free health care if they just show up with the sniffles.

What motivation has changed? If they don't work they get free (very basic) health care. They don't get plasma screen TV's. If they get a job, they can afford better health care and plasma screen TV's. No motivations are changing.

[billvon 2,400]

>For example? USSR? China?

Everyone does not work in the USSR or in China. Communism is a nice idea that doesn't work in practice as a system of government. It does work pretty well on a smaller scale - US National Parks are purely communistic, and they work pretty well.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Freeloaders who don't work TODAY get free health care if they get hit by a car.

there will be an increase in freeloaders - it's not a difficult point to understand - a lot of people work just for the health benefits alone

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I can't believe you would be so intellectually dishonest as to compare the need for health care in the USA and the part democracy may play in the process to social injustices like slavery.

I didn't "compare the need for health care and the part that democracy may play in the process" to a social injustice. I stated the social injustices for which democracy is uniquely suited. Actually, democracy and anarchy. I could rasie a vote as to who should be banned, you or me. Then, upon vote, one of us gets banned. Majority rules, right? Even though neither of us did something for which banning has ever been an appropriate remedy.

Oh, even better - you know, what if a portion of the actual majority doesn't vote, while all of the actual minority DOES vote? Then you have a minority rule, but democracy in principle.

What's even more ironic about ochlocracies is that they usually have leaders, i.e., revolutionaries who lead a coup d'etat (majority overthrowing the government) and setting themselves up as dictators. Lenin did it. Castro did. And we see characteristics of careful manipulation of mobs by those who use their mobs to bring about their power.

What are your thoughts on things like the Constitution - something that is read quite often to direct conflict with the will of the people?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
Benjamin Franklin

Or, what you seem to be adopting:

Democracy should be to wolves and one sheep deciding on who will become the gyro meat. The sheep is the rich person - fat enough so that it can afford to give up a couple of legs to the wolves, and it probably got that way by eating wolves, anyway. Yeah, right, like we believe it's a vegetarian. We only want to take two legs - it'll have two left. THEN it will know what life for wolves is like...

My wife is hotter than your wife.