CDZ Nationalized Healthcare

[Crepitus]

You republicans need to stop saying "free healthcare". We all know it's not gonna be free. We will all share the costs.

OP stated Nationalized. Can you read?

Lotsa RWNJs said "free" in this post regardless of the OP.

Read the thread.

And? I said nationalized

What, you wanna cookie or something?

 

[danielpalos]

The medicaid system is already quite good. This seems to be a good example of need based safety nets that works, like food stamps. It seems reasonable to only use taxpayer money on need based safety nets. Again, what is the rational for creating giant systems that eliminate choice, competition, and effectiveness?

why not solve simple poverty through unemployment compensation. means testing can be reserved for those for whom solving for a simple poverty or money, may not be enough.

thus, most people should have an income and could simply pay market rates for insurance.

 

[dblack]

Why force health insurance on everyone but not food stamps?

Correct. Why force one and not the other? My question to you.

In a way its semantics.

We all pay taxes to support the food stamp program. Only a few, hopefully, qualify to use it at any time but its there for us all.

We all also, in my opinion have had socialized medicine since hospitals were worth going to, so we are just forcing everyone to pay for health insurance. Why? The majority of us are gonna either need to pay huge medical bills eventually or hope we die in our sleep. At any one time hopefully just a few of us need our health insurance but oh boy, when we do....

Hopefully my logic is clear on both.

So are you advocating for system that helps those when things go catastrophically wrong, or for the giant system that manages every ailment of every person? Does something currently kick in for cases like cancer?

That's the bait and switch at the core of the "health care reform" movement. They make a lot of noise about how poor people can't afford health care. And that's a real thing. Something we should all care, and do something, about.

But once they get you on board, it becomes clear that what they really want is centralized, national control of your health care. Of you.

I'd say capitalism is equally cold in regards to healthcare. I remember a day about 15 years ago when I took my cat to the vet she seemed tired and out of breath. They decided to keep her over night to do this or that. Some nurse called overnight to say they'd spent about $700 on whatever and asked me if I wanted or could afford for them to continue.

I buried that cat down by the lake w/o spending another $.

With a purely capitalistic system and no socialism in healthcare that day would come when my bad brother in law's doctor would call me and out would come by shovel again.

That day comes for every single one of us. Regardless of whether health care is nationalized or not.

 

[DustyInfinity]

The medicaid system is already quite good. This seems to be a good example of need based safety nets that works, like food stamps. It seems reasonable to only use taxpayer money on need based safety nets. Again, what is the rational for creating giant systems that eliminate choice, competition, and effectiveness?

why not solve simple poverty through unemployment compensation. means testing can be reserved for those for whom solving for a simple poverty or money, may not be enough.

thus, most people should have an income and could simply pay market rates for insurance.

The medicaid system is already quite good. This seems to be a good example of need based safety nets that works, like food stamps. It seems reasonable to only use taxpayer money on need based safety nets. Again, what is the rational for creating giant systems that eliminate choice, competition, and effectiveness?

why not solve simple poverty through unemployment compensation. means testing can be reserved for those for whom solving for a simple poverty or money, may not be enough.

thus, most people should have an income and could simply pay market rates for insurance.

I've heard you mention this many times. I don't see any possible way you can solve poverty by giving people who don't have jobs money. This sounds like a very, very, very bad idea. People would simply quit working, and that would be a disaster. I don't want to derail the thread, if possible could you send me a private message? Is that possible?

 

[DustyInfinity]

Doesn't it seem like common sense that 'safety nets' should be for people who need help? By lumping everyone into these plans, it harms people who can take care of themselves. Why not allow competition, and people the choice to pick the best plan they can get? Is that not common sense?

 

[DustyInfinity]

Again why foodstamps for only the needy and Healthcare for everyone? You’re doubletalking and avoiding the question.

Why force health insurance on everyone but not food stamps?

Correct. Why force one and not the other? My question to you.

In a way its semantics.

We all pay taxes to support the food stamp program. Only a few, hopefully, qualify to use it at any time but its there for us all.

We all also, in my opinion have had socialized medicine since hospitals were worth going to, so we are just forcing everyone to pay for health insurance. Why? The majority of us are gonna either need to pay huge medical bills eventually or hope we die in our sleep. At any one time hopefully just a few of us need our health insurance but oh boy, when we do....

Hopefully my logic is clear on both.

So are you advocating for system that helps those when things go catastrophically wrong, or for the giant system that manages every ailment of every person? Does something currently kick in for cases like cancer?

That's the bait and switch at the core of the "health care reform" movement. They make a lot of noise about how poor people can't afford health care. And that's a real thing. Something we should all care, and do something, about.

But once they get you on board, it becomes clear that what they really want is centralized, national control of your health care. Of you.

It does seem to be about power and control, social engineering. Telling people what is and isn't allowed about large portions of their lives. It doesn't make sense to control people when you could allow people to seek beneficial options.

 

[dblack]

Doesn't it seem like common sense that 'safety nets' should be for people who need help? By lumping everyone into these plans, it harms people who can take care of themselves. Why not allow competition, and people the choice to pick the best plan they can get? Is that not common sense?

Yes. It's hard to take the "compassion" argument seriously. We could help out the poor much easier by just expanding existing safety nets. They want control.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

But you think these same christian folks would not care if someone starved? I don't follow.

We're going in circles. The same christian folks make food stamps available to the
needy.

Again why foodstamps for only the needy and Healthcare for everyone? You’re doubletalking and avoiding the question.

Why force health insurance on everyone but not food stamps?

Correct. Why force one and not the other? My question to you.

need based programs. preventive medicine can help lower costs.

No no. Nationalized healthcare is ALL free medicine. So if all medicine should be free for everyone why not food?

 

[danielpalos]

We're going in circles. The same christian folks make food stamps available to the
needy.

Again why foodstamps for only the needy and Healthcare for everyone? You’re doubletalking and avoiding the question.

Why force health insurance on everyone but not food stamps?

Correct. Why force one and not the other? My question to you.

need based programs. preventive medicine can help lower costs.

No no. Nationalized healthcare is ALL free medicine. So if all medicine should be free for everyone why not food?

by solving for simple poverty via unemployment compensation; Persons can participate in our existing markets.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Again why foodstamps for only the needy and Healthcare for everyone? You’re doubletalking and avoiding the question.

Why force health insurance on everyone but not food stamps?

Correct. Why force one and not the other? My question to you.

need based programs. preventive medicine can help lower costs.

No no. Nationalized healthcare is ALL free medicine. So if all medicine should be free for everyone why not food?

by solving for simple poverty via unemployment compensation; Persons can participate in our existing markets.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[danielpalos]

Why force health insurance on everyone but not food stamps?

Correct. Why force one and not the other? My question to you.

need based programs. preventive medicine can help lower costs.

No no. Nationalized healthcare is ALL free medicine. So if all medicine should be free for everyone why not food?

by solving for simple poverty via unemployment compensation; Persons can participate in our existing markets.

You didn't answer the question.

everybody could be issued foodstamps. but, we allege to subscribe to Capitalism. Capital must circulate under capitalism.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Correct. Why force one and not the other? My question to you.

need based programs. preventive medicine can help lower costs.

No no. Nationalized healthcare is ALL free medicine. So if all medicine should be free for everyone why not food?

by solving for simple poverty via unemployment compensation; Persons can participate in our existing markets.

You didn't answer the question.

everybody could be issued foodstamps. but, we allege to subscribe to Capitalism. Capital must circulate under capitalism.

So then if we must pay for food unless we are desparate why should everyone get healthcare?

 

[danielpalos]

need based programs. preventive medicine can help lower costs.

No no. Nationalized healthcare is ALL free medicine. So if all medicine should be free for everyone why not food?

by solving for simple poverty via unemployment compensation; Persons can participate in our existing markets.

You didn't answer the question.

everybody could be issued foodstamps. but, we allege to subscribe to Capitalism. Capital must circulate under capitalism.

So then if we must pay for food unless we are desparate why should everyone get healthcare?

i am advocating solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. I propose the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Persons should be able to participate in existing markets, in a market friendly manner.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No no. Nationalized healthcare is ALL free medicine. So if all medicine should be free for everyone why not food?

by solving for simple poverty via unemployment compensation; Persons can participate in our existing markets.

You didn't answer the question.

everybody could be issued foodstamps. but, we allege to subscribe to Capitalism. Capital must circulate under capitalism.

So then if we must pay for food unless we are desparate why should everyone get healthcare?

i am advocating solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. I propose the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Persons should be able to participate in existing markets, in a market friendly manner.

Off topic. Many people want nationalized healthcare. I ask why those same people don't want nationalized food for all. Both are necessary to survive.

 

[danielpalos]

by solving for simple poverty via unemployment compensation; Persons can participate in our existing markets.

You didn't answer the question.

everybody could be issued foodstamps. but, we allege to subscribe to Capitalism. Capital must circulate under capitalism.

So then if we must pay for food unless we are desparate why should everyone get healthcare?

i am advocating solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. I propose the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Persons should be able to participate in existing markets, in a market friendly manner.

Off topic. Many people want nationalized healthcare. I ask why those same people don't want nationalized food for all. Both are necessary to survive.

natural rights matter. emergency service is the most expensive option.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You didn't answer the question.

everybody could be issued foodstamps. but, we allege to subscribe to Capitalism. Capital must circulate under capitalism.

So then if we must pay for food unless we are desparate why should everyone get healthcare?

i am advocating solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. I propose the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Persons should be able to participate in existing markets, in a market friendly manner.

Off topic. Many people want nationalized healthcare. I ask why those same people don't want nationalized food for all. Both are necessary to survive.

natural rights matter. emergency service is the most expensive option.

And? Is food not a natural right?

 

[danielpalos]

everybody could be issued foodstamps. but, we allege to subscribe to Capitalism. Capital must circulate under capitalism.

So then if we must pay for food unless we are desparate why should everyone get healthcare?

i am advocating solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. I propose the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Persons should be able to participate in existing markets, in a market friendly manner.

Off topic. Many people want nationalized healthcare. I ask why those same people don't want nationalized food for all. Both are necessary to survive.

natural rights matter. emergency service is the most expensive option.

And? Is food not a natural right?

yes, it is. especially in our first world economy; even Artists should not have to starve.

 

[anotherlife]

So then if we must pay for food unless we are desparate why should everyone get healthcare?

i am advocating solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. I propose the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Persons should be able to participate in existing markets, in a market friendly manner.

Off topic. Many people want nationalized healthcare. I ask why those same people don't want nationalized food for all. Both are necessary to survive.

natural rights matter. emergency service is the most expensive option.

And? Is food not a natural right?

yes, it is. especially in our first world economy; even Artists should not have to starve.

If you convert anything into a right, then you do nothing but just shake it down on successful people. A form of robbery. This is why anything national, especially healthcare is unethical.

 

[anotherlife]

No no. Nationalized healthcare is ALL free medicine. So if all medicine should be free for everyone why not food?

by solving for simple poverty via unemployment compensation; Persons can participate in our existing markets.

You didn't answer the question.

everybody could be issued foodstamps. but, we allege to subscribe to Capitalism. Capital must circulate under capitalism.

So then if we must pay for food unless we are desparate why should everyone get healthcare?

i am advocating solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. I propose the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Persons should be able to participate in existing markets, in a market friendly manner.

The Malthusian law prohibits a solution to poverty. As soon as you provide something to the poor, the number of the poor rises to compensate for it. Even before you consider what a waste that is of monies of successful people.

 

[longknife]

Is not feasible. Would proponents please explain:

1. Why it is necessary
2. How would we pay for it

Thank you

I think it would be a total disaster. I read news from the UK and Canada every day and have constantly found nothing but negative comments and reports about their health care systems.

Our current system is hog-tied with onerous rules and regulations and insurance companies that have done nothing but raised the costs of health care.

Try this; go to your local doctor and ask what it would cost if you paid cash for an office visit? Compare that to what is charged for that same visit to the insurance.

There is one solution that is already in place. If those attending medical school are receiving government-provided tuition, include a clause that, upon graduation, they will serve a two-year period in general medicine in areas where medical care is limited. After that, they can go and do anything they want.