Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Quote (Death Penalty @ 17th July 2008 16:05)

If you're complaining about reading my opinion on the matter, then you can simply skip over it in the future. This is a topic about health care, and I plan on making my arguement, regardless of who is incapable of reading a handful of paragraphs. Sorry if all these words are too challenging for anybody!

Quote

Here's the problem: It's not my problem, why should I pay for it?

Thank you! Why should I have to pay for someone else? Why should someone else have to pay for me? Why can't all of us just be responsible for our own health bills?

I don't object to anyone being able to recieve medical assistance. I object to the fact that the responsible, working public would have to pay for those who lead dangerous lifestyles. Also, I never used the term "gang bangers", which really has nothing to do with the situation.

This has everything to do with freedom. We should have the freedom to chose what we pay for! I should not be FORCED against my own free will to pay for someone else. If someone wants to DONATE the money that they earn to a charity that helps people pay their medical bills, then I congratulate them. However, NO ONE should be forced against their will to give their money to any charity cause.

BASICALLY, I believe that if someone wants to buy something for themselves, they should also have to pay for it... themselves!

In my last post I spoke of a lack of motivation. Leilong said it himself: If doctors get paid the same regardless of their skill or field, then what reason do they have to work hard? I tell you what they don't have: greed. Which is, believe it or not, the driving force behind the entire idea of a capitalist economy.

I had vowed to stay out of this topic any longer, because I think it has degenerated quickly into mudslinging. I find now, however, that I cannot be the better man and sit this out just yet, so here I go again.

First of all, the "Wall of Text" statement has been blown far too far out of proportion that it is honestly becoming hilarious. I didn't mean it as an insult of the amount you had written, but did you honestly expect me to quote your entire post? I was trying to keep my own from being massive and you, my friend, have jumped the gun. I gave your "opinion" a thorough reading and found that whatever opinion you feel you have expressed has actually added nothing to this discussion, nor firmly stating your opinion other than comparing socialized Health Care to your perceptions of socialist ideals v.s. what you believe America is.

Why should you pay? Well, for starters, you don't have to, so why is this an issue for you? Now, I -do- live in Canada and am subject to the taxes that go towards our Health Care service. I don't at all mind that those dollars may allow a drug overdose victim or someone who was shot up in a gang fight to receive medical attention. Why? It's simple, really. It's humane. Of course, if you value a few extra dollars on your paycheck every few weeks, that's your choice, but I'm comfortable knowing that someone's life could be saved as a result of it. I won't even begin to start arguing the politics of circumstance and what may lead someone to be involved in either drugs or gang violence. Are they irresponsible? Absolutely. Could they have avoided this all together? Sure. Does that make them any less deserving of being treated and being healthy? Not in the least. The opinion of "not wanting to pay taxes to serve their benefit" is not only selfish, but it is not different than saying "Well, why should I give money to help starving people in Africa, it's not my problem!"
Why can't we all just "be responsible" and "pay our own health bills"? It's simple, there are just some people who can't afford it and are made to suffer as a result. Surely not to the degree that Michael Moore exaggerates it to, but it -does- happen, and a free health care system WOULD help with that. Now, I've already stated what I think about it in regards to applying to to the U.S.A. so let's not make me repeat myself, hmm?

Perhaps if people would be forced to donate to charity, there would be a lot more funds for helping people truly in need of it, but hey, that's not your problem, right? That's a violation of your precious "freedom", isn't it?

I'm not even going to touch your ridiculous claims about motivation behind Doctors, or greed because I fail to see how that is any different from throwing fat wads of cash at privatized practice.

Equally, Leilong, I'm going to completely ignore your entire summary of the Canadian Health Care system and the alleged waiting times you've accused them of having for the simple reason that it is absurd. My Father had his appendix removed, as did a friend of mine and neither of them endured the experience you described and both were treated the very day that they were brought to the hospital. In fact, the worst wait I know of to date was my own experience, after being hospitalized and requiring my stomach to be pumped, I had to wait two hours. All things considered and given that I -wasn't- dying, that's really not so bad. It's easy to read a bunch of statistics online but frankly, I trust my own experience, being a Canadian citizen living with the system than any statistics you can dig up.


As a side note, can we keep these discussions civil, please? There is absolutely no need to call anyone a "blind twit" or to start throwing meaningless insults about, it does not impress anyone and only serves to detract from your arguments.

--------------------

Okay, but there was a goat!

I've opted to bow out of the discussion, but I wanted to poke my head in real quick to say that despite some of the heated exchanges there is a lot of good dialogue going on in here regarding the topic. I'm enjoying the point/counterpoints very much.

Please, keep it civil so the discussion can continue without a thread lock. There are lots of good viewpoints to be shared and explored in here.

Leilong, your post on 7.17 at 12:54 was excellent by the way.

Edit

slight edit because i speel gud

This post has been edited by Hamedo on 18th July 2008 13:00

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Erased post for the sake of civility.

This post has been edited by AnarchistDream on 18th July 2008 17:34

--------------------

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

First of all, my appologies for a few unnecessary comments made in my last post. And, DF, they were mostly directed at AnarchistDream, who was complaining about walls of text. I don't really feel like quoting him.

My opinion is that I do not want socialized health care in America. So, therefore, I am giving reasons why I prefer the free economy America was built on to another socialized system.

Quote

I'm not even going to touch your ridiculous claims about motivation behind Doctors, or greed because I fail to see how that is any different from throwing fat wads of cash at privatized practice.

My biggest thing is that free economy works. If the government would just back off, then everyone would be better off. Why? Because then the doctors would be forced to compete to offer the lowest prices. If they know that, regardless, they are going to get paid by the government, then why should they bother attempting to make things as cost effective and efficient as they can?

Quote

Does that make them any less deserving of being treated and being healthy? Not in the least. The opinion of "not wanting to pay taxes to serve their benefit" is not only selfish, but it is not different than saying "Well, why should I give money to help starving people in Africa, it's not my problem!"

Every time I debate this issue with friends or teachers, the same thing comes up. By not wanting universal health care, I am often painted as a mean person who doesn't want to help those who are less fortunate, either by action or circumstances beyond their control. I personally donate to charity causes, and I encourage anyone else to do the same. As the VP of our school's student council, I've even organized charity events. However, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to give their money to a humanitarian cause. It's not that I disagree with helping others, especially when they need it most. Instead, I simply believe that every citizen has the right to spend their own money in whatever way they choose. The government doesn't have the right to tell us that we must donate money to this or that cause.

Quote

Perhaps if people would be forced to donate to charity, there would be a lot more funds for helping people truly in need of it, but hey, that's not your problem, right? That's a violation of your precious "freedom", isn't it?

Unfortunately, it is. It sounds like I am a terrible person, right? There would be a lot more funds available for those who may or may not need it. There would also be a lot less funds available for those who may or may not need it for other things. Because in a system like this, there are always those who gain, but at the same time a greater amount who loose. The government's job is not to sponser charity causes and loot its citizens to pay for them. The government's job is to protect our freedoms. It was not created to and should not be allowed to dictate how we live our lives.

As for the working poor, those who I sympathize the most for, If the government cut half of its taxing then they would much better off. Next, if our government cut its rediculous spending so that we could get the heck out of debt, we wouldn't have to keep printing bills to pay off debts. This would cut inflation down (inflation hits the poor the hardest) and the value of the dollar would recover. If taxes were lower, wouldn't you be more likely to donate to charity? Especially since many Americans are under the belief that the poor constantly recieve government "hand-outs" under the current system. Now, if the government eased some of the restrictions on medical care, and better protected them from frivolous lawsuits, prices would drop.

These are things that the government should and can do to help the poor.
One of the things it should not do is steal from its people.

--------------------

Currently Playing : Final Fantasy V
Most Recently Beat : Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Favorite Game : Final Fantasy X

The newest CoNcast is up! Have a listen!

Quote

Equally, Leilong, I'm going to completely ignore your entire summary of the Canadian Health Care system and the alleged waiting times you've accused them of having for the simple reason that it is absurd.

I apologize then, as I have never first-hand experienced it, and it may be that my sources had embellished what they told me. Sometimes (a lot of the time) american media likes to embellish things as a fear tactic. I still hold my stance about keeping it private. But I got a little caught up in what I was saying. I work in a hospital, and do NOT want to see this transition happen to the US medical system. I still think it's not a good idea for the US, but if it works elsewhere, it's not my place to say that it's wrong for you. I had just had this argument with a friend the night before, and still had all my "facts" on the surface, with the internet to try and back me up. Not everything I said was false tho, and as it may not sway an opinnion, the fact remains that I'm not all wrong.

Quote

Perhaps if people would be forced to donate to charity, there would be a lot more funds for helping people truly in need of it, but hey, that's not your problem, right? That's a violation of your precious "freedom", isn't it?

First of all, if the government can force you to pay into it, it's governmental, not charity. And the way you say it makes it sound cold, which I guess that it sort of is. But the US has always been a place for people to try and make their own way, not to greedily look for all the loopholes that will allow them a free ride on everyone else's dollar.
Welfare has gotten so out of hand in american society that those who are for welfare just let it happen because people are benefitting, and those that are against want to drop it to restructure, which will never happen as it should, so it lays stagnant and rotting while people constantly take advantage of the system. This is the typical issue when it comes to "free" programs in the US, and I don't want that to happen to medicine. There's enough corrupt government programs without bringing down the medical system. I'll gladly fork out wads of cash to ensure that my safety is assured within private medicine.

--------------------

If internal struggles were as enjoyable and glamorous as the self conflicted wars within video game characters, we would all be statues, reveling in perpetual self war. -Me

Play me on Rock Band 2, GH-WT, or any other Xbox GH!
Xbox Gamertag-MeanJerry

Quote (karasuman @ 17th July 2008 20:00)

Quote

I'm amazed at how little you think about a post before retorting with condescending rash responses. Kara, if you ever had a rapier wit it'd be with a wooden sword.

Oh, SNAP.

I had to quote something to start with... That made me laugh Kara.

Well, I've had an absolute nightmare of a time with health problems. I've been in hospital for a "major operation" once or twice each year since I was three. Mostly for ear operations (I'm now deaf in my right ear) and various cycling and now motorbike accidents (probably because I'm deaf in my right ear).

The point? The NHS has never let me down. For general clearing work I've had to wait between three and six months - which is bad - but when it counts I've been straight in. So I'm all for a public health service. I'm more than happy to pay my taxes now that I'm not needing to be treated - for the past and for the future. There is nothing charitable about it, it's a public system which you can depend on.

I'm sure the U.S. could implement a state-governed system, although I agree it would be difficult.

There are a few other things I'd like to point out:
-The NHS is not a "socialised" government body! Ask Maggie Thatcher or Tony Blair. There is still privatisation and competition abound. There doesn't need to be a polarisation of public and private.

-There is still a private sector available! My boss has a plan with BUPA who have recently fixed his shoulder and organised all kinds of muscle therapy the NHS wouldn't dream of. The NHS relies on the private sector as much as the taxpayer. Middle-class (quite an ambiguous class this one) people don't have to settle for second best.

-It's not expensive! I paid £40 in National Insurance this month.

-"Freedom" is simply a conservative term for "the freedom to make money". That doesn't help a single mother with four children.

To put it simply: there is still competition in public health, there doesn't need to be a polarisation between public and private, "socialism" is not a very meaningful term, and don't think that because your health system is governed by the state, you'll all have to wear the same cap and pay half your earnings to the reds.

Quote (Death Penalty @ 18th July 2008 19:25)

However, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to give their money to a humanitarian cause. It's not that I disagree with helping others, especially when they need it most. Instead, I simply believe that every citizen has the right to spend their own money in whatever way they choose. The government doesn't have the right to tell us that we must donate money to this or that cause.

Sorry to add this, but you do realise that the U.S. government does give aid from public finances? Here's one I found. Not just that, but historically, Woodrow Wilson's government saved literally millions of Russian peasant's lives during the Russian Civil War with his aid packages regardless of whether they were Bolshevik, Menshevik, White, Red, SR whatever. And that's not to mention the aid to post-World War Europe. I think that the U.S. has moved away from its "founding principles" of late.

This post has been edited by sweetdude on 19th July 2008 01:35

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (Death Penalty @ 18th July 2008 14:25)

First of all, my appologies for a few unnecessary comments made in my last post. And, DF, they were mostly directed at AnarchistDream, who was complaining about walls of text. I don't really feel like quoting him.

Actually I was advocating your right to have a massive post consisting for $5 words, but that's fine. I was pretty much dogging on people are are so attention deficit, they can't read a few well structured paragraphs. Are people around here having problems understanding the idea behind my posts? Am I being vague?

--------------------

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

I must say before I start, I like America, I couldn't imagine living elsewhere.

But America suffers from a multitude of problems, many of which serve to fuel each other.

Leilong July 17th

Quote

Denmark: Population 5,484,723 (July 2008 est.)
Canada: Population 33,212,696 (July 2008 est.)
^^ That's about 7X as much!
United States: Population 303,824,646 (July 2008 est.)
^^ That's 55X Denmark, and 9X Canada! 

In a smaller country, the people can support eachother easier, however, you may think that more people means more money in the pool, right? Well, it does, but it also means more people are drawing that money from the pool

Yes, VERY excellent point. In America, if we had an all-encompassing paid for health care, we'd use it. Seems like it would be good, but we'd use it regardless of whether you pay your taxes (You wouldn't turn down a child would you?), again, very nice, very humane, but we'd use it for adults who fail to pay their taxes. AND we'd use it regardless if you are an illegal immigrant, our base humanity would compel us to help regardless of any mitigating factors, while it may sound cold and heartless, having me pay for illegal immigrants to have ANOTHER reason to come to America, and leech off of us doesn't sound fun.

Although, completely hands off doesn't work either.

Death Penalty Posted: 18th July 2008 19:25

Quote

My biggest thing is that free economy works. If the government would just back off, then everyone would be better off. Why? Because then the doctors would be forced to compete to offer the lowest prices. If they know that, regardless, they are going to get paid by the government, then why should they bother attempting to make things as cost effective and efficient as they can?

That sounds nice, having the hospitals make things cheaper for us, but that would innevitably lead to reducing costs by any means necessary. Cut corners, less effective drugs, and malpractice would increase, before you say that people would pay for quality work, I'll point out the construction business, they're trusted to build the structures we live and work, and people want to build those buildings cheaply, and those they hire cut corners, use substandard materials, etc. BECAUSE they compete with each other and attempt to lower their costs.

I honestly don't think there is a "perfect" solution, if there is, it will take a MUCH more clever man or woman than I.

There are probably a million and a half reasons as to why government provided health-care works, and a million and a half as to not. Frankly, I do not see the point of a forum to draw such black and white lines, while this is a very serious topic, and deserves respect, I do not think that we are approaching this from a proper angle. As a semi-example, I'd point to the starting post to this forum.

blizzera god Posted: 16th July 2008 01:15

Quote

something has been pissing me off alot for awhile and its americas health care. i live in canada where there is free health care but 4000$ for AN AMBULANCE RIDE???? I would rather crawl to the hospital. 6500$ for fixing a finger???

its inhuman to charge for such things.
if uve seen sicko u know a women took her dying daughter to a hospital and the said her plan doesnt cover this hospital but her daughter needed treatment. she was forced to wait till she could get to another hospital but by this time her daUGHTER PASSED AWAY!!@!!$#$^$!#&^$&!

maybe America should put so much money into their war effort and put some into health care.

If anyone can tell me how this misspelled, biased, and exaggerated post is a serious and respectful way to approach this subject, then be my guest (by Personal Message), but I would like to put this whole topic to bed.

--------------------

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter, don't mind."
-Dr. Seuss

Quote

Actually I was advocating your right to have a massive post consisting for $5 words, but that's fine. I was pretty much dogging on people are are so attention deficit, they can't read a few well structured paragraphs. Are people around here having problems understanding the idea behind my posts? Am I being vague?

my bad... That's why I dislike debating like this... I can be easily confuzzled... sorry about that!

Quote

That sounds nice, having the hospitals make things cheaper for us, but that would innevitably lead to reducing costs by any means necessary. Cut corners, less effective drugs, and malpractice would increase, before you say that people would pay for quality work, I'll point out the construction business, they're trusted to build the structures we live and work, and people want to build those buildings cheaply, and those they hire cut corners, use substandard materials, etc. BECAUSE they compete with each other and attempt to lower their costs.

Ahh yes. You see, free economy has an answer to low quality as well. It's called the consumer vote. If I've tried a medicine that is supposed to clear my headaches and it doesn't help, then I know that I need to try something else. If this medicine B works, then I know that, in the future, I will never buy medicine A and always buy medicine B when the headache problem arises. Eventually, enough consumers will have made the same consumer vote and medicine A will loose business. Then, they will either disband the product altogether or create a more potent one.

Universal health care is a socialized system, because everyone pays into it and whoever needs it takes out of it.

For those who get regular treatment, this option would be wonderful. Unfortunately, for those of us who don't get into motorbike crashes, broken limbs, whatever, the system does not pay off.

Now if everyone who took money OUT of the system for a health expense also paid INTO the system, things wouldn't be near as bad. Unfortunately, we have a population of poor who would be unable to pay into such a system and, at the same time, require its assistance just as much. In addition, we have 12 million illegal immigrants and counting. It is unfair that they are able to recieve the bennefit of our taxes without paying any themselves.

Am I against giving to the less fortunate? Not at all. The complete opposite really. What I am against is the government FORCING us to give our money to a cause. It's the FORCING part (hence the all-caps) that I disagree with. This is not constitutional.

Quote

-"Freedom" is simply a conservative term for "the freedom to make money". That doesn't help a single mother with four children.

Though obviously my ideas are quite conservative, it isn't just the freedom to make money. It's the freedom to chose how, where, and why you spend that money. What will help that single mother with four children is when people CHOOSE to donate to her local food banks, or when the Catholic shelter, paid for by choice of area citizens, takes her in so that her children don't have to sleep in the rain.

Quote

Sorry to add this, but you do realise that the U.S. government does give aid from public finances? Here's one I found. Not just that, but historically, Woodrow Wilson's government saved literally millions of Russian peasant's lives during the Russian Civil War with his aid packages regardless of whether they were Bolshevik, Menshevik, White, Red, SR whatever. And that's not to mention the aid to post-World War Europe. I think that the U.S. has moved away from its "founding principles" of late.

Unfortunately, it does and it has. The US' founding fathers strongly believed in non-interventionalism. The idealist Wilson and all presidents since FDR have gradually taken us further and further away from the constitution. Public finances shouldn't be used for ANYTHING outside of America. No gifts to other nations, no police actions, no security teams stationed in other nations, and no foreign aid. The American government's job is to protect and serve the American people.

America has become a welfare state. We have too many of these social problems that either don't work or will not work in the soon future. Our government has gotten too big. If it pulled its ugly, diseased hand out of the economy, then prices would fall. In the end, the above programs will ruin America and what it once stood for. This is why America cannot allow yet another socialist policy to be built.

--------------------

Currently Playing : Final Fantasy V
Most Recently Beat : Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Favorite Game : Final Fantasy X

The newest CoNcast is up! Have a listen!

Guys, seriously, the next person who states their opinion in more than one sentence and concludes by expressing a desire to end the discussion is going to get warned on general principle.

Instructions for Posting in This Thread

I Think the Discussion Should End
1. Don't post in this thread.
2. No, really, don't.

I Think the Discussion Should Continue
1. No name-calling, complaining about walls of text, defending your super special posting style, etc. Just discuss the topic at hand.
2. Please, for the love of all that is decent and holy, stop misspelling "ridiculous." It's an i. I swear it is.

--------------------

Veni, vidi, dormivi.

Quote (Death Penalty @ 19th July 2008 18:34)

For those who get regular treatment, this option would be wonderful. Unfortunately, for those of us who don't get into motorbike crashes, broken limbs, whatever, the system does not pay off.

You might not use it now, but your neighbours or friends might have a crash, your children might smoke, and you will get old one day. Everyone has to go to hospital at some point for surgery, even if it's on your death bed, and chances are somebody close to you will as well. From my experience everyone gets their money's worth!

Quote (Death Penalty @ 19th July 2008 18:34)

What will help that single mother with four children is when people CHOOSE to donate to her local food banks, or when the Catholic shelter, paid for by choice of area citizens, takes her in so that her children don't have to sleep in the rain.

I mean in terms of healthcare rather than welfare in general. I doubt a select group of local people would invest thousands of pounds in each year over ten years to treat her child's chronic ear infection. People don't like spending money unless they have to. The proverbial single mother would probably benefit more from a public health system rather than spending her time trying to gather funds from people with the "freedom" not to offer help. Sure, she doesn't have to spend money unless she wants to, but she hasn't got any.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote

You might not use it now, but your neighbours or friends might have a crash, your children might smoke, and you will get old one day. Everyone has to go to hospital at some point for surgery, even if it's on your death bed, and chances are somebody close to you will as well. From my experience everyone gets their money's worth!

If everyone's getting out of it what they put in, then what's the advantage? Responsible saving and planning ahead is a better answer to the question of health care than a safety net.

If someone smokes, then they should be responsible for paying their own bills. Why should someone like me, who excercizes daily, eats well, and doesn't partake in risky activities, have to pay for someone who CHOSE to do something that they KNEW would cause them physical harm? There are two fair ways you could deal with this:
1. The government could make laws restricting activities so that no one will be able to choose to participate in dangerous activities. Then they could outlaw foods that are unhealthy, and force everyone to do athletic activities so that they are in shape. Now everyone is at an even playing field, so the government could then create the universal health care system.
2. The government can stay out, and stick to the job that they were intended to do. No restrictions, and everybody retains their freedom of choice, as the constitution intended.

Does any of that make sense? The individual choices we make must be respected. At the same time, however, whoever is making that choice must be held responsible for their actions.

Would it be nice to have all the poor innocent mothers with their baby children that they responsibly and knowingly created given free medical care? YES!!!! Does that make up for all the scum bags that would abuse the system with their lack of responsibility? NO!!!! That's why private charity is better: the donors are allowed to choose their cause and region while still knowing that the company will give help to those who need AND deserve it.

At the same time, I know for a fact that, in America at least, everybody would not be getting their moneys worth. Why? As I have already explained, the poor would be unable to pay but able to reap the benefits, while the 12 million illegal immigrants wouldn't have to pay, but would also be able to acquire medical care. That's a lot of people. And in this "free" health care system, who would absoarb the cost of the medical treatment that they require? The average American. So now the middle class is forced to pay for both their own health care, but also others. Does that sound fair that the government would be stealing from you in order to pay for other people's expenses? Does that sound like freedom of choice to you? Is that what America stands for?

--------------------

Currently Playing : Final Fantasy V
Most Recently Beat : Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Favorite Game : Final Fantasy X

The newest CoNcast is up! Have a listen!

Am I right in saying that the gap between the poor and wealthy in the U.S. is far wider than Britain? That's the only reason I can come up with. I don't understand where the idea that poor people wouldn't be able to pay taxes comes from.

You're right, you could save for an accident, but why not just pay health insurance? Because they can't afford it. There a lot of people who have no money to save just incase they fall ill. I'm not talking about junkies and drunks here, I mean nurses, solicitors, teachers, police officers, students, soldiers, etc. Some may be wealthy (especially the teachers ) but others may have family members to look after or any number of reasons why they won't be able to pay a hefty medical bill. I think it's totally unfair to exclude such a huge number of people who would benefit from a public health service just because of the few who would use it for free.

I still don't see how charity donations are even remotely comparable to government tax funding.

Again, freedom and equality is a great ideology, but in reality there is no freedom when there is no money. And people less fortunate than yourself, this can be your friend or relative, may feel bound and tied by the equally tight pockets of their neighbour.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Well, I can say that having a social medical system I'm sure has it's flaws also but, I spent the winter of 2007-2008 in South Korea and came down with a bad case of food poisoning.. while the medical is not FREE it is cheap. I was in the doctor's office for a total of 20 minutes and was charged $15 US for treatment and medicine (and no, american money does not mean you have a lot of money in korea.. everything generally costs the same as it does here). I have experienced this system on this occasion and a few others with my girlfriend going there.. Being a Korean citizen, she had insurance also and was charged about $2 US for each of her visits. The system is good, and it does work.. I can say that because I have experienced it.. but what I will also say about it is that Korea has a very disciplined culture, very unlike our own. It is extremely uncommon for someone to go see a doctor unless they just HAVE to so there is little abuse of the system.. America on the other hand, I think would abuse the system greatly. I think we would have problems with taxes because of it. So, personally I'm not one to say that social medicine is bad or that it doesn't work. It does work, and I can attest to that but I think the flaw here would lye in the culture.. not the idea of the system.. just my personal opinion.

--------------------

Climhazzard is the timeless evil robot who runs some of the cool stuff at CoN (mostly logging chat, since there are no quizzes at the moment), all the while watching and waiting for his moment to take over the world. -Tiddles

Sephiroth, my hat is off to you. You have said everything I wished I could have, more eloquently than I could have ever worded it. You summed up something I could not entirely convey through a wall of text in a paragraph.

It's too bad that the US can't have more honor. Maybe if something could still inspire shame and embarassment in the abusers of the system, health care could be monitored properly by government. But until the day that families learn respect and control, this kind of public healthcare will fail in the US. That's probably why the system seems to work in Canada as well... you may not have a directly honor-bound culture, but you lack the freeloading, holier-than-thou, d-bags that the US is overladen with. I'm sure you have a couple, but per-capita, we win, and I'm not proud of that.

--------------------

If internal struggles were as enjoyable and glamorous as the self conflicted wars within video game characters, we would all be statues, reveling in perpetual self war. -Me

Play me on Rock Band 2, GH-WT, or any other Xbox GH!
Xbox Gamertag-MeanJerry

Alright. This is a tricky subject. I will just comment on my own opinion.

I do live in the USA. I am in support of government health care. I'll tell you about my OWN personal experiances, and nothing else.

Situation about a year ago, when I had Health care....

Me and my wife were both working. Neither of us had a degree, but we did okay for ourselfs, together earning about $40,000 a year. I had health insurance through my job, and was paying $130 a PAYCHECK (every 2 weeks, so almost $3500 a year) for healthcare. We are both in good health, and would see a doctor maybe once or twice a year, mostly for stuff like Allergies or worried about having strep throat.

Now that I am going back to school, money is quite a bit tighter, and my wife isn't offered health insurance benifits through her job. Honestly, we couldn't afford those premiums at this point in our lives. We'd love to be able to see a doctor to keep in good health. We KNOW we're in deep trouble if one of us has significant problems, but honestly, what can we do?

Now, I'd GLADLY pay $40 a to sponser a government health care program. Knowing that my $40 a month would go towards helping people who need that help, and that other people would help me out if I needed it.

Do I think that our government could pull it off? I don't think they could. Would people take advantage of it? I'm almost positive. I think alot of work would need to be put into it to make it work. I think we need to limit our ridiculous medical lawsuits, so that doctors aren't paying 20% of their incomming funds for lawsuit insurance. I'll admit I don't quite understand all the problems with our healthcare system. I just know it doesn't work for alot of Americans, and that SOMETHING needs to be done.

--------------------

"And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped” -Sir Bedevere the Wise

Contrast that with my scenario though, Fadien.

At my job, no money is taken out of my paycheck for health insurance. When I have to go to the docter, I pay a small deductible. Once a certain deductible amount is met for the year, the rest is covered 100% for most things. I have 2 free dental cleanings a year listed as preventative treatment, excellent eye care, and a mostly unused but very good perscription drug plan.

What benefit do I, and the millions of other Americans like me, get from socialized healthcare? I don't present that to say that the system should be tailored for me or people in my situation, but just to present the other side of things. For every American that would benefit from socialized healthcare, I would wager that there are 5 that would not.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (Hamedo @ 2nd August 2008 08:56)

Contrast that with my scenario though, Fadien.

At my job, no money is taken out of my paycheck for health insurance. When I have to go to the docter, I pay a small deductible. Once a certain deductible amount is met for the year, the rest is covered 100% for most things. I have 2 free dental cleanings a year listed as preventative treatment, excellent eye care, and a mostly unused but very good perscription drug plan.

What benefit do I, and the millions of other Americans like me, get from socialized healthcare? I don't present that to say that the system should be tailored for me or people in my situation, but just to present the other side of things. For every American that would benefit from socialized healthcare, I would wager that there are 5 that would not.

However, as much as you do not want to the quality of your health insurance lowered, there's an entire caste of people such as myself who can't afford to pay a $1,500 dollar deductible before they ever get any benefit out of a health insurance plan that already cost them thousands a year. This is why I feel that government health insurance should be supplemental, rather than total.

--------------------

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

Quote (Hamedo @ 2nd August 2008 07:56)

For every American that would benefit from socialized healthcare, I would wager that there are 5 that would not.

I am sure you're quite lucky. Your insurance sounds very nice.

From what I can find, it's not quite what you think.

This was the newest census published.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Pulled from page 26

Quote

Both the percentage and the number of people without health
insurance increased in 2006. The percentage without health insurance
increased from 15.3 percent in 2005 to 15.8 percent in 2006,
and the number of uninsured increased from 44.8 million to
47.0 million.

The number of people with health insurance increased to 249.8 million
in 2006 (up from 249.0 million in 2005). In 2006, the number of
people covered by private health insurance (201.7 million) and the
number of people covered by government health insurance (80.3 million)
were not statistically different from 2005.

The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance decreased to 59.7 percent in 2006, from 60.2 percent in 2005.

So, 40% of the population is either uninsured, or already on government healthcare.

Of the 60% of those covered by private healthcare, I am sure that not all of them are as nicely covered as you are. I'm sure there are many who have a deductable that needs to be met before they get any coverage, and have to pay large premiums. That was my situation when I was insured by my last job.

Edit: I fixed a few typos, though I'm sure I have missed some still. The T key on my laptop doesn't like to register

This post has been edited by Fadien on 2nd August 2008 16:24

--------------------

"And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped” -Sir Bedevere the Wise

Based on those statistics, socialist healthcare might be better for those who have no private policies or insurance through an employer. I still believe firmly that those who will not use it, should not be paying for it.

As suggested earlier, perhaps this could work as a supplemental healthcare, rather than a main provider? What if only those Americans who met certain requirements could sign up for it, and as such they would be the only ones who were taxed additionally to cover it? From what I've seen posted in here, the contribution from tax is supposedly minimal anyway.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

I agree, it could work as a supplemental healthcare. However, I disagree with the point that only those who use it should pay for it. There are ALOT of things taxes are used for, that everyone gets taxed for, that not everyone feels they should.

I have no children right now. Does that mean that I shouldn't pay taxes that go to Public schools? Or those who have home schooled, or children that go to private schools. They shouldn't have to pay for taxes on public schools, right? The government has spent ALOT of money on the war. Those that disagree with the war shouldn't have to pay the taxes that go towads it, right? What about those that drive their own car around town, should they pay for taxes used on public transportation? With having to pay for their own gas, as expensive as it is now, why should they pay for public transportation? Even though I have all three of those situations, I understand the need, and have no problems paying those taxes.

Now, assuming that it is supplemental coverage, and those that qualify would be able to get it, and everyone that doesn't need it wouldn't, right? Wouldn't it cost alot less to run a program that doesn't cover 100% of the population? So taxes wouldn't need to be AS high, right? They could take a bit more out of the paychecks of those working that are covered by it. I wouldn't argue with that. But it wouldn't work if the only people covered would pay for it. Alot of the people who would be covered are low income families.

I'm sure there is some kind of middle ground that could be reached. It's a tricky subject though.

Edit: Just one more thought to add. I think America is great. I know we are lucky to have freedoms we enjoy daily. We have alot of advances in medical technology. I just think every american should able to stay in good health. I don't think any american should be denied treatment/medication they need to live a healthly life. I understand that there are two sides to the coin though. This is a great discussion. I'm enjoying it alot, and will continue to do so as long as it stays clean.

This post has been edited by Fadien on 2nd August 2008 19:01

--------------------

"And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped” -Sir Bedevere the Wise

Quote (Fadien @ 2nd August 2008 10:21)

So, 40% of the population is either uninsured, or already on government healthcare.

And we already can't really afford them.

So imagine how much quicker the deficit would climb if we increased that outgoing cost by 150%. I'd have to move to Europe just so that I could hear the US economy crash without being deafened by it.

Hamedo: it sounds like you have a pretty sweet health care plan. My guess is that you work for someplace that is medical in nature if you have a 100% coverage clause in it.

My insurance is similar: The first $750 I have to pay to doctors, medicines, etc. is completely covered by the insurance. The next $750 comes directly out of my pocket, no exceptions. Any medical issues after that point are covered 80%, unless I'm at my hospital that I work for, in which case, it's 100% covered for the rest of the year. I'm planning on having a minor surgery in September, so I'm finally going to hit (and probably completely consume) the self required $750 and then have the rest covered by my 100% at my hospital. Best part: it's $35 a paycheck, and they pay $30 of it, so $5 a paycheck. Good insurance exists, and if you have it, the last thing you want to see is that benefit go away because someone else can't get it.

--------------------

If internal struggles were as enjoyable and glamorous as the self conflicted wars within video game characters, we would all be statues, reveling in perpetual self war. -Me

Play me on Rock Band 2, GH-WT, or any other Xbox GH!
Xbox Gamertag-MeanJerry

Quote (leilong @ 2nd August 2008 13:15)

Quote (Fadien @ 2nd August 2008 10:21)

So, 40% of the population is either uninsured, or already on government healthcare.

And we already can't really afford them.

So imagine how much quicker the deficit would climb if we increased that outgoing cost by 150%. I'd have to move to Europe just so that I could hear the US economy crash without being deafened by it.

You really think that would be what causes the US economy to crash? There is alot of wasteful government spending that funds could instead be put towards medical coverage. A simple google search pulled up this example.

Quote

A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. The GAO blamed a system that relied on department personnel to notify the travel office when purchased tickets went unused

Auditors also found 27,000 transactions between 2001 and 2002 in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. The department would purchase the ticket directly and then inex­plicably reimburse the employee for the cost of the ticket. (In one case, an employee who allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account). These additional transactions cost taxpayers $8 million.

That is an entirely different subject though.

The idea though, is that a little bit from everyone's pocket goes a long way. Yes, that would require the dreaded "T" word to be raised. (Taxes )

--------------------

"And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped” -Sir Bedevere the Wise

The problem with supplemental coverage is that insurance companies will start basing their coverage off of how much they can get out of the government as a maximum profit level. Not to mention that insurance companies are firm on how much they actually pay hospitals. My wife's wife's ER bill was somewhere around $2,000 total for the visit, my wife's awesome coverage stiffed the hospitals inflated pricing and only wound up paying them about 200 bucks. With that kind of aggressive coverage, and such little payout, as much as some people pay their insurers, it's no wonder why health care is so expensive, and why companies are so huge.

--------------------

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

Quote

Would it affect the middle class? In a devastatingly negative way. The extra taxation, particularly now with the economy in the state it is in, would be too much for the vast majority of Americans to bear.

-hamedo

Living in California, a state that is biased towards the left wing I'll say my piece on Universal healthcare or any other socialist policy.

California has had many entrepreneurships the back-bone of any capitalist country, however within the past two decades they've come and gone. Why?
because it's cheaper to have your company in Texas, China, or Japan

left wing policies get passed easily in California to tax more to give more.
Isn't it a great idea to tax the rich to give to the poor.
___not in America the rich always find a way to save on taxes, not illegally. they hire somebody to figure it out.

so the taxes fell to the middle class and businesses. and in California the businesses had to move elsewhere California legislature kept adding programs and taxes; for example I know someone who became rich after they made their own company, after a few decades the business was heavily taxed and profits were lower than they had previously been. Texas offers the guy free land (and a lot less taxes) if he signs a contract to build a new factory and have his business in Texas.. His company crunches the numbers and they can build their product for a lot cheaper and sell it at the same price. so the guy moved to Texas.

as a result of politicians chasing away businesses, while keeping and adding social welfare programs, California has a growing deficit. Schools are underfunded the fire department police department, and other necessary organizations have to lobby with California each year to try and make sure they don't receive less money.

this may sound like a slippery slope when it comes to social welfare programs, but it is what has been happening in California the last few decades.

not to say a social healthcare system on its own would fail in America, even with losses over the last few business cycles Americans have a lot more money than they realize. If America were to cut back on (remove) a lot of social programs which have not been working, a social healthcare system could be successful. but ,for social healthcare to exist with current social welfare programs the situation would be too problematic. Too much of a tax burden for the middle class

This post has been edited by Cloud_Strife510 on 4th August 2008 03:20

--------------------

"Have you ever seen a baby do that before?"

Quote (leilong @ 2nd August 2008 14:15)

Hamedo: it sounds like you have a pretty sweet health care plan. My guess is that you work for someplace that is medical in nature if you have a 100% coverage clause in it.

A tax software company, actually.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Reading the different views on healthcare has been pretty interesting as this was a hot topic for me when California was looking to pass legislation for a medicare for all or universal healthcare system. There were a few systems that were in the works one was the medicare for all system comparable to Canada and the others were ones that were combinations of private and government funded. Or something about tax breaks for those that paid their own premiums for the commercial/private carriers.

Whatever direction this goes does have a direct effect on me but not as much on the healthcare side. I work for Blue Shield of California which is not-for-profit in comparison to our similar competitor Blue Cross of California (now Anthem Blue Cross) which is a for-profit insurance carrier. Going to a completely equal socialized system not only threatens I feel my healthcare benefits but my livelihood as well. My company alone employs 4500 people across California and in a completely socialized situation those 4500 people would have to look for new jobs and most likely lower paying jobs. Not to mention the thousands of health insurance brokers that whose jobs are to find people health insurance policies. That's a lot of people out of work.

But that wasn't really the point of my post. I wanted to point out the issues with a government run health system that is currently happening in California. California has had issues with balancing its budget this year, thus they have not allocated the appropriate funds to Medi-cal the no cost insurance for the poor. Thus, the hospitals and doctors offices that participate in this program are not getting any money for the services they have rendered or will render. (not to mention that reimbursement in general is about 20 cents to the dollar) Thus some hospitals (that cannot turn patient's away) are in danger of shutting down because they are not getting their funds. I imagine too that even the doctors offices that participate in the Medi-cal program have to keep treating these patient's despite not getting reimbursement. So, I guess the thought is that if the governemnt has issues with allocating and budgeting (which we know that they do) that the places we would go to get our treatment would suffer, ultimately causing us to suffer.

I also wanted to agree with the idea that someone mentioned earlier that if the governemnt has to pay for our healthcare they should be able to put restrictions on how we take care of ourselves. If they have to pay for your emphezema or lung cancer because you smoke, they should be able to tell you that you can't smoke and etc. Personally, even though I don't participate in doing harmful things to my health other than not having the best diet, I wouldn't want that freedom taken away from me or anyone else for that matter, even if I don't particularly agree with the practice.

--------------------

Elena Indurain

Currently Playing: Suikoden II