Universal Health Care

[t_samford]

What do you think about it? Personally i think it will take away the incentive to make more money because the government will be paying the doctors bills and the government will not pay much. Why? Because its the government for Christs sake. There will be no reason to pay more to go through college to be a doctor because whats the point in spending more time and money to be a doctor if a school teacher is making just as much?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I posted this in another thread before, I guess the point bears repeating, since a lot of people share your fears of the well-being of doctors:

[Where are the hordes of doctors, patients, and people demanding the end of "socialized medicine"? Where are these people? Where are all the Japanese, Britons, French, Spaniards, Japanese, Australians, Czechs, Danes doctors, patients, and people BEGGING for their government to destroy this demonic communist medicine? I just don't understand where they are. Where are they hiding? Where are the big campaigns against this unspeakable evil? Why is it that not even the most conservative parties can even dream of putting "abolishing communist health care" on their platform? It is because they fear the evil Icelandic, Swedish, or Norwegian KGB thought police? Is the New Zealand SS putting all these hordes of malcontents in jail?

Where are they??

I mean, I understand. You have a model in your head. It tells you that with "socialized medicine" doctors become dirt poor, there's no quality, and everyone is friggin' PISSED. The reasoning may be very good and logical. But where's the evidence? Where are the millions of destitute doctors storming the streets of Ottawa and Vienna for freedom and fair wages?

And that's to say nothing about the myriad of other ridiculous charges against "communistic medicine". Let's make these two VERY clear:

1) Research & Development: Nationalized health care systems have absolutely NOTHING to do with medical research. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. Some of the largest, most successful, and most PRIVATE medical R&D firms are in countries with nationalized health systems. These firms, many in Europe and Asia, are NOT PUBLIC. If anything, governments everywhere, including in the US, subsidize these private firms through the infrastructure provided by the networks of university and state research grants. But this has absolutely nothing to do with national health care, other than the national health agencies buy their products. So zip it.

2) Foreigners coming over for treatment: This has also very little to do with national health plans. In Costa Rica, about 10% of the the tourism we receive (we're talking 10% of some 2,000,000 people a year who come visit, so thousand and thousands of people) are Americans, Canadians and other developed country citizens who come specifically for some kinds of medical treatment, because it's cheaper and it's done well. Does that mean that our health system is superior to the Canadian health care system? Absolutely not. Just because a relative handful of rich foreigners choose to come for SOME specific treatment (plastic surgery, dental work, etc.) does not in any way speak of any of the merits of the National HEALTH SYSTEM. These things are set apart, and cannot measure the ability of the system in confronting the efficient managing to provide the services required by the population of the country at large. The idea that a handful of people go to a country for a specific treatment means that "oh, our health SYSTEM is just great" doesn't make any sense. Sure, the quality of the service of that particular kind might be high, but that doesn't really mean anything in regards to the health SYSTEM.

---

Now, the way I see it, there are countries in which there is no health system and people want it (usually dirt-poor countries, like Nicaragua, most of sub-Saharan Africa, etc), and there's countries with national health systems (basically every developed country and some middle-income ones) and nobody wants to get rid of it. The problem in America is that there is a bizarre hybrid, and a huge majority WANT a national health system. So no matter what, the current state of affairs has to change. Nobody wants it. So the government has to tear it down, and either 1) follow the ~30%+ who want a true free health-care market (i.e. no health system) or 2) follow the ~60%+ who want a national health system. What are the possibilities?

It appears that in option number (1) what we have are, again, lovely models and hope that the free market solution "works". I guess everyone has their own definition of "works" though. I'm sure it would at least provide a good big chunk of the population with very good care. Like any commodity, those who can afford it buy it. Those who don't, don't. Personally, I don't think this is a good model for health care, cuz I believe health care is a basic human right (and most Americans agree with me on this), but I understand many people here don't, and that's fine. What option (2) has to offer is that there's tangible evidence that it "works", based on the evidence of pretty much every other developed country. But again, it "works" under the belief that health care is a basic human right and one of the only legitimate roles of the state.

So that's that.

EDIT: I ask please, if anyone bothers to respond, I'm really looking for someone to shed light on the first point: Where are the hordes who want to abolish their national health care? That's what I'm really confused about. A lot of people here talk as though it's some sort of huge unknown. Something new and scary, which has never been tried before in the history of man kind. That's not true. There's dozens of examples to choose from. If indeed national health care fucks the doctors, fucks the quality, and fucks the national budget: where's the heat? I really wanna know.]

 

[Amanda]

What do you think about it? Personally i think it will take away the incentive to make more money because the government will be paying the doctors bills and the government will not pay much. Why? Because its the government for Christs sake. There will be no reason to pay more to go through college to be a doctor because whats the point in spending more time and money to be a doctor if a school teacher is making just as much?

I think it would be a good thing because everyone deserves health care. I don't think people only get into medicine to make money. In fact, if I thought that was why my doctor was there I would get a different doctor.

 

[Red Dawn]

What do you think about it? Personally i think it will take away the incentive to make more money because the government will be paying the doctors bills and the government will not pay much. Why? Because its the government for Christs sake. There will be no reason to pay more to go through college to be a doctor because whats the point in spending more time and money to be a doctor if a school teacher is making just as much?

Link me up credible proof that a doctor would make as much as a school teacher.

 

[DiamondDave]

I think it would be a good thing because everyone deserves health care. I don't think people only get into medicine to make money. In fact, if I thought that was why my doctor was there I would get a different doctor.

Well. if you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs.. if you think that they NEED this to be supplied and taken care of by the government, many other things would "need" to be provided by a socialist government system as well... leading to more government control of daily aspects of everyone's lives...

The key is that while we all have needs of various levels... it is not the responsibility of anyone but you to provide for your personal needs.... health care is not a physiological need... those are basically the 4 basic needs of food, shelter, water and clothing... period... and the government does not exist to provide those to every last person either

There are many motivations for those who choose a career of doctor, just as there are many motivations of persons who choose any other career.. some would be to serve people more.. some would indeed be for money... some for fame.. some for a feeling of self worth.. some for the challenge... the list goes on and on and on

 

[Gord]

EDIT: I ask please, if anyone bothers to respond, I'm really looking for someone to shed light on the first point: Where are the hordes who want to abolish their national health care? That's what I'm really confused about. A lot of people here talk as though it's some sort of huge unknown. Something new and scary, which has never been tried before in the history of man kind. That's not true. There's dozens of examples to choose from. If indeed national health care fucks the doctors, fucks the quality, and fucks the national budget: where's the heat? I really wanna know.]

The "hordes" of doctors in Canada elected a privatization proponent as the head of the Canadian Medical Association and he is actively campaigning for it on doctors behalf.

(So much for that argument...)

 

[Amanda]

The key is that while we all have needs of various levels... it is not the responsibility of anyone but you to provide for your personal needs....

In a vacuum I would agree with you. However, since the government we be around to demand what I owe them I think I should get something in return. As a citizen I think we should be guaranteed many things and healthcare is one of them. Release me into the wild and let me be free of government interference and I will take care of everything myself or make pacts with others to help each other. But that's not the reality we're dealing with. Government takes our money and agrees to provide certain services like police or road maintenance. I think the health of the citizens is more important than the health of the roads. But that's just me.

 

[Andrew2382]

Please show me where in the constitution it says every american deserves government provided healthcare.

Healthcare is a responsibility not a right.

 

[DiamondDave]

In a vacuum I would agree with you. However, since the government we be around to demand what I owe them I think I should get something in return. As a citizen I think we should be guaranteed many things and healthcare is one of them. Release me into the wild and let me be free of government interference and I will take care of everything myself or make pacts with others to help each other. But that's not the reality we're dealing with. Government takes our money and agrees to provide certain services like police or road maintenance. I think the health of the citizens is more important than the health of the roads. But that's just me.

And that is where you are wrong....

Nobody owes you squat....

Now the government has over-reached it's boundaries for a while now... our taxes should be used for law enforcement, the workings of inner government to create laws and the courts system, military and the national defense, basic infrastructure, etc.... it is not the job of the government to take over your personal responsibilities for you... the government is there to ensure you have the freedoms to provide for yourself, choose what you want for your health care, etc...

Your health is very important to you... your health is not very important to me or anyone else not related to you... your health is not important to the country as a whole.. an infrastructure for the populace as a whole is, national defense is, law enforcement and legal standards are

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...


Not taking care of every responsibility in your life, taking away your personal liberty to have control over your personal well being, and infringing on everyone else's pursuit of happiness and earnings to provide for your personal health

 

[Amanda]

And that is where you are wrong....

Nobody owes you squat....

Whatever. Already rebutted this so this is dead.

 

[xsited1]

Universal Healthcare is great for people who want the government to take a more active roll in their lives. I find the idea repulsive. We already pay the government way too much and get little in return. Imagine how much more we'll have to pay with universal healthcare added.

 

[DiamondDave]

Whatever. Already rebutted this so this is dead.

Oh... here we go again...

You have not "rebutted" anything of the sort...

Try understanding what taxes are intended for... and how government's quest for power has warped their control by expanding into areas that were never intended for government control....

Because you pay taxes like everyone else is supposed to... does not mean that you get PERSONAL benefit from it... and your health is a benefit to you.... the country and your neighborhood go on if you drop dead from a heart attack from an all twinkie and McD's fries diet and no health insurance to pay for your quintuple bypass

The government exists to serve the country as a whole... not for individual needs of every individual within the country... there IS a huge difference between the 2

 

[Amanda]

Oh... here we go again...

You have not "rebutted" anything of the sort...

No, not here we go again. I'm not going again. I stated my position, it stands. Done. Rebutted. Adios!

If you want to go on saying I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, go ahead, knock yourself out, I won't be replying to any of it. So if you're going to "go again" you'll be doing it without me.

 

[DiamondDave]

No, not here we go again. I'm not going again. I stated my position, it stands. Done. Rebutted. Adios!

If you want to go on saying I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, go ahead, knock yourself out, I won't be replying to any of it. So if you're going to "go again" you'll be doing it without me.

Stating a position is not rebutting anything.... especially when there is no factual basis behind it....

You were asked to support your position of where you get that the government or anyone else owes you to take care of personal responsibilities and well being....

Perhaps you should learn what a rebuttal is...



Main Entry:
re·but Listen to the pronunciation of rebut
Pronunciation:
\ri-ˈbət\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
re·but·ted; re·but·ting
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French reboter, from re- + boter to butt — more at butt
Date:
14th century

transitive verb
1: to drive or beat back : repel
2 a: to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or countervailing proof b: to expose the falsity of :
refuteintransitive verb: to make or furnish an answer or counter proof

And a little knowledge of the constitution helps as well

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[rayboyusmc]

Healthcare is a responsibility not a right.

Not when we have a system the makes this healthcare unreachable by many Americans who are working more than one job.

Our system sucks. It is the most expensive per person and yet is not anywhere near the top in quality. The lobbyist for the Managed Care companies have been very successful in making folks think that this is socialized medicine and will drive out quality and incentive. Total bullshit.

Medicare and Medicaid have worked. Universal Healthcare would be similar to those programs.

The doctors are not hired by the goverment and they won't go broke.

I worked in the healthcare system for 14 years. It's broken all to shit.

 

[DiamondDave]

Not when we have a system the makes this healthcare unreachable by many Americans who are working more than one job.

Our system sucks. It is the most expensive per person and yet is not anywhere near the top in quality. The lobbyist for the Managed Care companies have been very successful in making folks think that this is socialized medicine and will drive out quality and incentive. Total bullshit.

Medicare and Medicaid have worked. Universal Healthcare would be similar to those programs.

The doctors are not hired by the goverment and they won't go broke.

I worked in the healthcare system for 14 years. It's broken all to shit.

Do laws surrounding availability of healthcare need to be looked at? Possibly... Regulation of it? Possibly

That still does not make it something that is owed to anybody by anyone else, or by the government

And your myth that we are NOT the top in quality is utter horse shit... We ARE the top in quality... your little WHO ranking is not taking that into account whatsoever...

 

[Andrew2382]

Not when we have a system the makes this healthcare unreachable by many Americans who are working more than one job.

Our system sucks. It is the most expensive per person and yet is not anywhere near the top in quality. The lobbyist for the Managed Care companies have been very successful in making folks think that this is socialized medicine and will drive out quality and incentive. Total bullshit.

Medicare and Medicaid have worked. Universal Healthcare would be similar to those programs.

The doctors are not hired by the goverment and they won't go broke.

I worked in the healthcare system for 14 years. It's broken all to shit.

You're an idiot.

MEdicare and Medicaid work? Are you out of your fucking mind? THEY ARE GOING BROKE.

Thank god you don't work in healthcare anymore.

Our quality of care is top fucking notch if you have the adequate coverage...whyd o you think that fat fuck Kennedy didn't go to Venezuela, Canada or Cuba to go get treated for his tumor...he got treated here and got seen by the best doctors in the world. If there was universal health he would probably be dead right now.

Who the fuck is healthcare unreachable for? Yeah, you hear the number 40 million people in this country without insurance, yet over 60% of that number is illegal aliens.

Perhaps healthcare in this country is so expensive because everyone is so god damn sue happy and people don't take care of themselves and stuff their face with mcdonalds everyday and are 200 pounds over weight.

I agree goverment needs to help make healthcare more attainable, but they should do it in the way to make it more lucrative for employers to offer it to their employees...not doing it themselves.


I can not fucking believe people actually want the government to run their hospitals and doctors. It is mind boggling

 

[pfife]

MEdicare and Medicaid work? Are you out of your fucking mind? THEY ARE GOING BROKE.

Why are they going broke?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, not here we go again. I'm not going again. I stated my position, it stands. Done. Rebutted. Adios!

If you want to go on saying I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, go ahead, knock yourself out, I won't be replying to any of it. So if you're going to "go again" you'll be doing it without me.

So I guess Amanda's not going to post anymore, since she just told us that her statement is the last word on the subject, she won't be deigning to recognize anyone who DARES to disagree with her revealed wisdom from on high - "I like universal healthcare, therefore it's right, because my opinion constitutes proof".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why are they going broke?

Because there's no such thing as a government program that's cost-effective, that's why.