The Government and Universal Healthcare

toomuchtime said:
Are you saying you want a national healthcare system like the UK's national health service or a national health insurance system like Canada's?

Neither. I am saying we should take a long hard look at a variety of the differing systems that are in place and make decision on which policies work best and which do not. Personally, I have looked at many different systems and believe that several parts of each can be succesfully emalgamated into a cohesive system. Specifics would include a small neighborhood clinical/hospital system with a general practioner available to take care of common issues, colds, flu, innoculations, blood pressure etc. This system would be a locally controlled system (i.e. municipal or county government) that would either supplement the clinic or provide a not more than pricing system. The second tier system would be a diagnostic/preventative health system that would be a part of either a single payer system. The third tier would be a serious illness/critical care system that would also be a part single payer system. These of course are just rough ideas of what an emalgamated system could look like. It would take a serious study of the numbers and best practices to come up with something viable that would work.
 
toomuchtime said:
Are you saying you want a national healthcare system like the UK's national health service or a national health insurance system like Canada's?

Neither. I am saying we should take a long hard look at a variety of the differing systems that are in place and make decision on which policies work best and which do not. Personally, I have looked at many different systems and believe that several parts of each can be succesfully emalgamated into a cohesive system. Specifics would include a small neighborhood clinical/hospital system with a general practioner available to take care of common issues, colds, flu, innoculations, blood pressure etc. This system would be a locally controlled system (i.e. municipal or county government) that would either supplement the clinic or provide a not more than pricing system. The second tier system would be a diagnostic/preventative health system that would be a part of either a single payer system. The third tier would be a serious illness/critical care system that would also be a part single payer system. These of course are just rough ideas of what an emalgamated system could look like. It would take a serious study of the numbers and best practices to come up with something viable that would work.

It sounds like you're not talking about a health insurance system but about the government directly managing the delivery of healthcare, and if that's the case, the idea is DOA on both sides of the aisle.
 
toomuchtime said:
Are you saying you want a national healthcare system like the UK's national health service or a national health insurance system like Canada's?

Neither. I am saying we should take a long hard look at a variety of the differing systems that are in place and make decision on which policies work best and which do not. Personally, I have looked at many different systems and believe that several parts of each can be succesfully emalgamated into a cohesive system. Specifics would include a small neighborhood clinical/hospital system with a general practioner available to take care of common issues, colds, flu, innoculations, blood pressure etc. This system would be a locally controlled system (i.e. municipal or county government) that would either supplement the clinic or provide a not more than pricing system. The second tier system would be a diagnostic/preventative health system that would be a part of either a single payer system. The third tier would be a serious illness/critical care system that would also be a part single payer system. These of course are just rough ideas of what an emalgamated system could look like. It would take a serious study of the numbers and best practices to come up with something viable that would work.

It sounds like you're not talking about a health insurance system but about the government directly managing the delivery of healthcare, and if that's the case, the idea is DOA on both sides of the aisle.

Whether it is DOA or not is beside the point. To abandon what is best for what is politically expediant is to abandon the country to perpetual mediocrity. That being said, I do not believe any such plan would be DOA. With an attitude like that we would still be living under the Articles of Confederation.
 
Neither. I am saying we should take a long hard look at a variety of the differing systems that are in place and make decision on which policies work best and which do not. Personally, I have looked at many different systems and believe that several parts of each can be succesfully emalgamated into a cohesive system. Specifics would include a small neighborhood clinical/hospital system with a general practioner available to take care of common issues, colds, flu, innoculations, blood pressure etc. This system would be a locally controlled system (i.e. municipal or county government) that would either supplement the clinic or provide a not more than pricing system. The second tier system would be a diagnostic/preventative health system that would be a part of either a single payer system. The third tier would be a serious illness/critical care system that would also be a part single payer system. These of course are just rough ideas of what an emalgamated system could look like. It would take a serious study of the numbers and best practices to come up with something viable that would work.

It sounds like you're not talking about a health insurance system but about the government directly managing the delivery of healthcare, and if that's the case, the idea is DOA on both sides of the aisle.

Whether it is DOA or not is beside the point. To abandon what is best for what is politically expediant is to abandon the country to perpetual mediocrity. That being said, I do not believe any such plan would be DOA. With an attitude like that we would still be living under the Articles of Confederation.

What exactly are you claiming is superior and what exactly are you claiming is mediocre?
 
In my opinion, They use the same health care system only theirs is subsidized by the federal government, so it costs less. If your talking about socialized medicine, I say no to that. Because that will be the ploy to lure Americans into Communism. Just like the Chinese did with their people. Socialized medicine was one of the deciding factors to make the Chinese people go communistic. Then after communism was safe and secure in office the government took away the free health care.

After that many of the Chinese people played the stock market trying to make a little money for their old age. Just like Bush wanted us to take our social security money and play the stocks markets and do away with government social security. There is nothing wrong with the social security system. What's wrong is the politicians keep stealing from it and abusing it, for example by aiding the illegal aliens. They allow illegal aliens to receive social security benefits for their qualifying Anchor Babies. Up until 2006 - 2007 the illegal alien elderly were allowed to receive monthly social security checks and Medicaid. Then Bush was pressured to change that and uphold the laws.

The politicians know they have to financially bankrupt Americans for things to change towards socialism. Strong thriving people don't need handouts. Take away those peoples jobs, livelihoods and homes with no ability to pay to get them back. Then those people are venerable and more willing to accept what's offered by the people in power. The politicians are thinking 30 years in advance. The only way they'll get their One World Economy/Government is to break the American people and dumb down the youth by allowing illegal drugs into the country and cutting off education funding. All the while using the taxpayers money to complete their plan. So, are we going to let this happen? NO.

For things to change we have to change. The American people need to vote out existing politicians and put in new ones and take control and tell them what we want, instead of always being the ones who are shafted by the greedy career criminal politicians. VOTE THE BUMS OUT!

Let's see; you argue against government run healthcare, but you argue in favor of government run retirement accounts (Social Security). BTW, SS and Medicare is underfunded. Even if we hadn't been borrowing from it for so long, it still would have run short, just later by a few years.

Based on the current downturn in the stock market, Bush's idea of privatizing part of SS doesn't look like such a great idea now. However, doing so was meant to be a long term investment by individuals, not a short term one. Either way, Bush was right in trying to bring the issue to the table. What he got was nobody wanting to talk about it. Long term, we only have two choices. Raise taxes for it or raise the age when people can collect. The sooner we do it, the better it will be for those who are currently younger. The longer we wait, the more they will end up paying to pay for us, who are not paying in nearly as much as we will take out. When younger people figure this out, you can be sure things will change.
 
So if someone disagrees with you they're ignorant? Thats a good debate point!?

Just like a road, an effective police force and air safety measures; a effective healthcare system IS an infrastructure item. The ability of a society to ensure the health and viability of their citizens is DIRECTLY related to whether a society thrives or fails. As far as being socialism...pfft. A national healthcare system aids in capital markets it doesn't detract from it.


I guess your definition of infrastructure is the difference between a Capitalist, and a Socialist.

When you have something that is vital for both the commercial success, stability of, security of and overall success of a society then it is natural for the society, as a whole, to ensure that that something is managed well. The government, being the only entity directly representative and accountable to the society, is the best agent for this management. This is not socialist. I support a single payer national healthcare system because I am a capatilist. In order for our capital markets to be competitive, stable with a vital, able workforce a national healthcare system is a necessity. I believe a single payer system with either a public trust NGO non-profit or the government itself managing the system is the best, most manageable and most responsive to the public and therefore the best entity to manage such a system. I support national healthcare precisely because I am a capitalist not because I am a socialist.

There are many benefits to a one payer system; freeing up business from the responsibility of providing health insurance to employees is most certainly one of them. The most basic reason for moving toward a one payer system is to reduce overall costs. And yes, it might come at the expense of a slight loss in service. In order to offset that, private insurance could still be allowed which is not in the Canadian system.

Here's the thing; cost is the only driving factor we should be considering at this point, and this is why; in 1990 the average American paid 14% of income for healthcare. In 2009, the average American is paying 18.5% of income for healthcare. Because healthcare costs are rising much faster than income, if these rates remain the same as they have over the last 20 years, by 2040, the average American will be paying 25% of income for healthcare. To be quite honest, at 25% of income, our entire healthcare system will collapse, as only the very wealthy will be able to afford healthcare. Certainly, businesses will not foot the ever increasing bills.

It's time for those who have supported our private system to acknowledge that it isn't working and we need to fix it. There is absolutely nothing that will stop the continuing rise in costs under the current system; absolutely nothing. We already pay double what most other countries pay for healthcare. At current rates, that will soon become triple. We will lose any edge we have when it comes to being competetive with business in those other countries. Worst of all, in the end, it will collapse our healtcare system, and the system will end up being worse than those in countries where they have nationalized healthcare.
 
It sounds like you're not talking about a health insurance system but about the government directly managing the delivery of healthcare, and if that's the case, the idea is DOA on both sides of the aisle.

Whether it is DOA or not is beside the point. To abandon what is best for what is politically expediant is to abandon the country to perpetual mediocrity. That being said, I do not believe any such plan would be DOA. With an attitude like that we would still be living under the Articles of Confederation.

What exactly are you claiming is superior and what exactly are you claiming is mediocre?

You made the assumption, one I disagree with, that I am somehow for the government completey running a national healthcare system. As I have stated I am for a plan that provides the best service for the least amount of cost and is easily and cheaply managed. I believe this to be a single payer insurance program with either a non-profit NGO running it or the government itself running it. I am however open to be convinced otherwise. That being said, I believe that for anyone to abandon what is best for what is politically expedient is damning this country to mediocrity. You stated that any national healthcare plan in which the government would run or partially run would be DOA on both sides of the aisle in Congress. I say that if that if that is the best plan and not to support it because we don't think that it is politcally feasible to pass is damning this country. We must be able to unveil our eyes from the political dogma that blinds us to what is best for our country. To do less is a diservice that will eventually lead us to our demise as a society.
 
Last edited:
DiamonDave said:
A road is not your PERSONAL responsibility... Neither is the guiding of an airliner thru airspace.... Those are parts of INFRASTRUCTURE and done not just for the collective benefit of society, but to expand the power of the country

Whether you go get a colonoscopy, or a VD test, is on YOUR personal responsibility... it is YOUR body, not society's body... it is YOUR health, not society's health

Nobody is refused access to a public road or sidewalk or other things on PUBLIC land.. your BODY and your PERSONAL status is NOT FUCKING PUBLIC DOMAIN....

Again... you want specific care and coverage FOR YOUR SELF... YOU FUCKING PAY FOR It

Ignorant socialist ignorance

So if someone disagrees with you they're ignorant? Thats a good debate point!?

Just like a road, an effective police force and air safety measures; a effective healthcare system IS an infrastructure item. The ability of a society to ensure the health and viability of their citizens is DIRECTLY related to whether a society thrives or fails. As far as being socialism...pfft. A national healthcare system aids in capital markets it doesn't detract from it.

Has nothing to do with whether you agree with more or not... you are flat out ignorant in terms of understand thing the roles of government in a free society...

PUBLIC health is a PUBLIC concern... CDC and other things... your PERSONAL CARE is not... IS YOUR BODY PUBLIC DOMAIN?

Society would produce more and 'thrive' more with forced servitude too.... you want that for the 'public good' as well?

Pure and unadulterated ignorance
 
:doubt: A difference of opinion is not a defeated argument, Mr. Developmentally Challenged.

Is your body public domain?
It depends. The government is obligated to protect it from foreign invaders...but otherwise, pretty much not.

So not being public domain makes it private... and the care, upkeep, and personal choices on what you do to are are then inherently PRIVATE concerns... not public.... and the responsibility for such things are a PRIVATE responsibility and not a PUBLIC one
 
Let's ask RGS. Should government employees, including the military, including the retired military, have the same shitty health care as everyone else?

Look you dumb ass BITCH. I earned my retirement benefits. As did EVERY retired military member out there. What you want is free shit you did not earn , that you did not do anything to get. You want rewards just for existing. Sorry idiot, the world does not work that way.

Tell ya what RETARD when you start claiming EVERY retirement plan out there is welfare and a social program and whining about benefits others EARNED, maybe someone besides the lunatics will listen to your pathetic little whines.
 
I think they should have health care, and I think the retired military personnel should have as well. I also think we should all have it...the military healthcare system is one of those government programs that work and there is no reason to exclude the rest of America from it.


There are PLENTY of reasons

1) The rest of America is not fucking employed by the military as soldiers...
2) More security in the military requires a separate system of care and emergency treatment
3) You are personally responsible for your own care. You want it, pay for it or agree to work a job that subsidizes it in your benefits... if not.. too bad, too sad
and the list goes on

You want it.. .fucking enlist
I've no desire to take any benefits away from the military. You're reasons make no sense to me. All Americans by virtue of being Americans should have the same access to good health care. I looked around a bit and it seems military personnel get breaks on all kinds of insurance, life, health, car, homeowner...too funny. You know the REST of us pay for this, too, there's nothing in the constitution that elevates one group above the rest.

Wait? You mean I have benefits I know nothing about? Go ahead you dumb shit provide evidence that retired military get special Government rates for Car insurance, for Home Insurance or any of the other bullshit claims you imply.
 
IF the universal single payer health care insurance scheme is to work

THEN

The HC establishment is either going to continue raising the cost of health care to capture every additional cent that is put into the system;


OR...

The government is going to IMPOSE a maximum payment for fee system on HC pricing.

Does our government have the gravitas to actually tell the HC providers that the they're being thrown off the gravytrain they're been riding for the last fourty years?

And if it DOES tell the average MD (just as one example) that their Annual salaries are NOT GOING TO BE TEN TIMES WHAT THEY AVERAGE FAMILY MAKES...

What will happen?

Will the skilled providers of HC migrate to some other land?

Possibly...but what land will continue to pay these people so much money as they currently make here?

They cannot ALL migrate to LIBERTOPIA.

If we REALLY wanted to crash the salaries of the medical workers, all we're really have to do is allow emmigration of CUBA's MDs since Cuba has trained thousands and thousands of doctors and medical workers in the last 50 years.

I STILL THINK that single payer, if that's all they do, will actually increase the cost of HC from the current 18% to some percewntage of the GDP that's even higher.

They have got to increase the amount of HC available BEFORE they can expect the prices of it to come down.
 
Is your body public domain?
It depends. The government is obligated to protect it from foreign invaders...but otherwise, pretty much not.

So not being public domain makes it private... and the care, upkeep, and personal choices on what you do to are are then inherently PRIVATE concerns... not public.... and the responsibility for such things are a PRIVATE responsibility and not a PUBLIC one
That's debatable since many things the government condones causes people to become ill, i.e. pollution, unsafe roadways, unsafe cars...etc. However, I'm not saying anyone is entitled to health care. I'm saying that having groups that are receiving it...the military, the retired military, and politicians...is creating a class of people that is above everyone else.
 
It depends. The government is obligated to protect it from foreign invaders...but otherwise, pretty much not.

So not being public domain makes it private... and the care, upkeep, and personal choices on what you do to are are then inherently PRIVATE concerns... not public.... and the responsibility for such things are a PRIVATE responsibility and not a PUBLIC one
That's debatable since many things the government condones causes people to become ill, i.e. pollution, unsafe roadways, unsafe cars...etc. However, I'm not saying anyone is entitled to health care. I'm saying that having groups that are receiving it...the military, the retired military, and politicians...is creating a class of people that is above everyone else.

The government CONDONES pollution, unsafe roadways, etc?? HORSESHIT.. .government is continually IMPROVING those PUBLIC works

No... having groups that receive it as a BENEFIT for SERVICE and EMPLOYMENT is not creating another class.. you have been shown this time and time and time again.. but keep coming back to this falsity
 
Let's ask RGS. Should government employees, including the military, including the retired military, have the same shitty health care as everyone else?

Look you dumb ass BITCH. I earned my retirement benefits. As did EVERY retired military member out there. What you want is free shit you did not earn , that you did not do anything to get. You want rewards just for existing. Sorry idiot, the world does not work that way.

Tell ya what RETARD when you start claiming EVERY retirement plan out there is welfare and a social program and whining about benefits others EARNED, maybe someone besides the lunatics will listen to your pathetic little whines.

Retired GI Joes go on Government Welfare. They are, for the most part, semi-literate uneducated people who have been "kept" by the government for most of their lives. How can we as a society expect people like this to look after themselves when they are no longer usefull cannon-fodder ?

The GI Joes like to think of themselves as being on "pension" but in fact they are taking welfare payments just like the single mothers in the ghettos.
 
Let's ask RGS. Should government employees, including the military, including the retired military, have the same shitty health care as everyone else?

Look you dumb ass BITCH. I earned my retirement benefits. As did EVERY retired military member out there. What you want is free shit you did not earn , that you did not do anything to get. You want rewards just for existing. Sorry idiot, the world does not work that way.

Tell ya what RETARD when you start claiming EVERY retirement plan out there is welfare and a social program and whining about benefits others EARNED, maybe someone besides the lunatics will listen to your pathetic little whines.


Retired GI Joes go on Government Welfare. They are, for the most part, semi-literate uneducated people who have been "kept" by the government for most of their lives. How can we as a society expect people like this to look after themselves when they are no longer usefull cannon-fodder ?

The GI Joes like to think of themselves as being on "pension" but in fact they are taking welfare payments just like the single mothers in the ghettos.

You really are here to inflame the passions of people, aren't you?

Is your life so devoid of human contact that you seek ersatz drama from the players here, or are you merely yanking the retire military contingent's chains out of some viseral dislike of military generally?

Military pensions are generous, when compared to the pensions of civilians who did similar tasks, I'll admit that.

But their pensions aren't TOO GENEROUS, so much as other people's retirement plans are too niggardly.

Instead of demanding that they too get screwed, it might be advisable to aim at getting the rest of us some similar benefits, I think.
 
Yes, all government officials/employees should be subject to the same crap healthcare programs and regulations they plan on enforcing on us. But because government employees aren't subject to it, it's easy for them to push to nationalize healthcare.

These people get a lifetime of the best healthcare packages around. I'd like to see Edward Kennedy be told he is old and has a terminal disease so it is not cost effective to provide treatment. Eddie, just go home and deal with your fate.


:lol::lol:


I never thought I'd see the day when a wingnut admitted that government financed healthcare is "the best around". Ted Kennedy has the same healthcare plan, that a Border Patrol agent has.

If its "the best around", I say we make government employee healthcare care available to everyone, which is one element of Obama's healthcare plan. If it was available to you, and it was "the best around", why wouldn't you opt into it?
 
EDITEC,

I have never demanded "that they too get screwed". I am simply stating what I believe to be fact and that is that a Government Pension be it Military or otherwise is no different than government welfare. A rose is a rose, and welfare is welfare.
 
Last edited:
Let's ask RGS. Should government employees, including the military, including the retired military, have the same shitty health care as everyone else?

Look you dumb ass BITCH. I earned my retirement benefits. As did EVERY retired military member out there. What you want is free shit you did not earn , that you did not do anything to get. You want rewards just for existing. Sorry idiot, the world does not work that way.

Tell ya what RETARD when you start claiming EVERY retirement plan out there is welfare and a social program and whining about benefits others EARNED, maybe someone besides the lunatics will listen to your pathetic little whines.

UAW auto workeres who worked their asses off on the assembly line earned their retirement benefits too. But I've never, not one single time, seen you rush to their defense when all your wingnut buddies say that UAW should cut benefits for the sake of cost efficiency and economic growth.

If UAW should take pension cuts, wouldn't it be principled and consistent for you to support cuts for yourself? Or, are you of the belief that everyone else should sacrifice, except for you?


Personally, I think retired ex-military and retired UAW workers earned what they got and deserve a comfortable retirement. If this country can pay CEOs 20 million dollars a year, and pays for a trillion dollar iraq war, then UAW and vets should be afforded what they earned.

I wonder if I'll ever see you rush to the defense of UAW workers and their benefits? Or, I wonder if you'll continue to defend your benefits, but demand cuts for everyone else who earned them?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top