CDZ Nationalized Healthcare

[anotherlife]

How can a non communist country impose a wage freeze? A government can't tell private business exactly how much to pay workers. In Europe, they are now trying to do wage freezes with moving tax brackets, but that too is just an approximate wage freeze, not exactly a freeze.

we have a federal republic like Venezuela. Thank Goodness FDR was a left winger.

What do you mean? Venezuela is a former oil export banana republic that froze its price of gas for the past 40 years. So, are you advocating a central government control of everybody's bank account, and from there to calculate how much debt to assign onto each citizen per year? The evil of FDR and all the socialists is not gone.

Venezuela is a federal republic, like the US. Management should make all the difference.

I begin to think that you want that government to manage your life because you don't plan to work for what you have. Once you learn how much effort work requires of you every day, then you will think twice before handing over your hard earned assets to a government, especially a government greedy in socialism.

Lousy management is only good for margin calls.

You can't tell the management what to do. The inner party is never open for applicants / aspirants.

 

[TomFitz]

And after you finish with the OP's issues, maybe you can explain how our current health system (the number of doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc) could possibly handle all the new people accessing free healthcare. I assume you realize that every nationalized HC system in the world today has access problems where people have to wait for months to get certain treatments. You know, like our VA system is today.

First of all, there is no such thing as free healthcare. It gets paid for everywhere. In most civilized countries, taxes pay for the system.

And the wait time argument that conservatives like to flaunt is a shibboleth. It's the kind of argument that people who don't have much interaction with the American health care industry make. Of the ones who do, they don't notice that it often takes a month or six weeks to see specialists, and months sometimes to set up surgeries. And since the systems are different in different countries, asserting that all of them have long wait times is little more than a generalization.

And our VA system only serves a very small percentage of the American public, and it does not have the constituency that a national health care system would.

I always wonder at conservatives who buy death panel myths and cite incidental stories from right wing blogs about whether the National Health covered one procedure or another, and then turn right around and take the fact that their insurance companies do exactly the same thing with no public accountability whatsoever.

Americans take skhy high prices, wait times, and arbitrary control of their health care choices by insurance companies for granted.

People from outside the US are appalled at the high cost, wildly variable quality of service, and lack of accountability in American health care.

American conservatives defend all of these things.

 

[TomFitz]

Is not feasible. Would proponents please explain:

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

Thank you

Health care was already nationalized under Clinton and more so under Obama. Trump is powerless to roll it back.

No. There is no "clean debate" on healthcare. The entire subject is incredibly sick, morbid, abominable, putrid, and disgusting.

I hate that hospital smell. The disinfectant never quite covers up the noxious smell of disease and hospital-acquired infections.

That isn't remotely true.

The Clinton Administration did not nationalize American health care. That is ridiculously false.

 

[danielpalos]

The worst thing about nationalized healthcare is what has happened in countries that have it - bureaucrats and politicians taking away the ability of physicians to provide the best care for their patients. Lengthy delays or outright unavailability of necessary procedures.

I think what most people are going for is a system where everyone pays for health insurance, not pure socialism.

And this is where you're kidding yourself. Forcing everyone to buy insurance from state-approved vendors is no better than socializing it outright - arguably it's much worse. It employs government coercion in the service of private profits.

A capitalistic healthcare system doesn't work because most Americans and really most doctors and nurses won't demand payment by yourself or your insurance before treating you. So we end up with this blended system that we've had since hospitals became worth going to.

If we actually practiced free market principles with health care, what we'd end up with is a voluntary system where people decide for themselves how to pay for their health care. They'd decide which insurance companies and hospitals they want to do business with, and which they want to avoid. They might even decide there are better ways to finance health care than insurance.

The problem with the existing system isn't that it needs more regulation and oversight. The problem is that there's already too much. Too many fingers in the pie. Too many interest groups vying for control over your health care.

So, I loved Obamacare, it was evil. If some freeloader didn't pay for insurance because they were counting on kindhearted Americans to bail them out and treat them if they needed hospitalization, no insurance, we're taking part of your tax return! It was evil. I loved it.

Not sure what you're going for here.

Could some math and regulations be fixed sure. Was it Constitutional? Man, maybe-ish. That law got out of control. I know with all the customers forced to buy insurance we needed some regulations on the insurance companies. I could have lived with a ten page bill reading "cover pre-existings, here come a bunch of formerly un-insured custoemrs" with a plan to fix problems as they arrived. And yeah, I think it needs to be national.

Why? Why do we need Dr. Trump running our health care?

Thanks for thelong detailed reply. I'm on the cell now so...

Capitalism running healthcare ends up with no one wanting to pay for Spot or Fighto's treatment

Do you think we can have a capitalistic system as long as folks aren't getting thrown intonthe streets to die like in the time of Jesus?

What if, Persons could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Who would be worse off.

 

[Toronado3800]

The worst thing about nationalized healthcare is what has happened in countries that have it - bureaucrats and politicians taking away the ability of physicians to provide the best care for their patients. Lengthy delays or outright unavailability of necessary procedures.

I think what most people are going for is a system where everyone pays for health insurance, not pure socialism.

And this is where you're kidding yourself. Forcing everyone to buy insurance from state-approved vendors is no better than socializing it outright - arguably it's much worse. It employs government coercion in the service of private profits.

A capitalistic healthcare system doesn't work because most Americans and really most doctors and nurses won't demand payment by yourself or your insurance before treating you. So we end up with this blended system that we've had since hospitals became worth going to.

If we actually practiced free market principles with health care, what we'd end up with is a voluntary system where people decide for themselves how to pay for their health care. They'd decide which insurance companies and hospitals they want to do business with, and which they want to avoid. They might even decide there are better ways to finance health care than insurance.

The problem with the existing system isn't that it needs more regulation and oversight. The problem is that there's already too much. Too many fingers in the pie. Too many interest groups vying for control over your health care.

So, I loved Obamacare, it was evil. If some freeloader didn't pay for insurance because they were counting on kindhearted Americans to bail them out and treat them if they needed hospitalization, no insurance, we're taking part of your tax return! It was evil. I loved it.

Not sure what you're going for here.

Could some math and regulations be fixed sure. Was it Constitutional? Man, maybe-ish. That law got out of control. I know with all the customers forced to buy insurance we needed some regulations on the insurance companies. I could have lived with a ten page bill reading "cover pre-existings, here come a bunch of formerly un-insured custoemrs" with a plan to fix problems as they arrived. And yeah, I think it needs to be national.

Why? Why do we need Dr. Trump running our health care?

Thanks for thelong detailed reply. I'm on the cell now so...

Capitalism running healthcare ends up with no one wanting to pay for Spot or Fighto's treatment

Do you think we can have a capitalistic system as long as folks aren't getting thrown intonthe streets to die like in the time of Jesus?

What if, Persons could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Who would be worse off.

I might be missing a bit of the analogy.

If I'm following right, PERSONALLY, I'd give a time of unemployment then have an extended version called the 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps. You'd be out plucking invasive honeysuckle and hopefully something more productive that would keep you in the habit of working for your unemployment.

But I hear I got no votes last election.

 

[task0778]

And after you finish with the OP's issues, maybe you can explain how our current health system (the number of doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc) could possibly handle all the new people accessing free healthcare. I assume you realize that every nationalized HC system in the world today has access problems where people have to wait for months to get certain treatments. You know, like our VA system is today.

First of all, there is no such thing as free healthcare. It gets paid for everywhere. In most civilized countries, taxes pay for the system.

And the wait time argument that conservatives like to flaunt is a shibboleth. It's the kind of argument that people who don't have much interaction with the American health care industry make. Of the ones who do, they don't notice that it often takes a month or six weeks to see specialists, and months sometimes to set up surgeries. And since the systems are different in different countries, asserting that all of them have long wait times is little more than a generalization.

And our VA system only serves a very small percentage of the American public, and it does not have the constituency that a national health care system would.

I always wonder at conservatives who buy death panel myths and cite incidental stories from right wing blogs about whether the National Health covered one procedure or another, and then turn right around and take the fact that their insurance companies do exactly the same thing with no public accountability whatsoever.

Americans take skhy high prices, wait times, and arbitrary control of their health care choices by insurance companies for granted.

People from outside the US are appalled at the high cost, wildly variable quality of service, and lack of accountability in American health care.

American conservatives defend all of these things.

And American liberals ignore all of these things. Or lie about them. Does anyone think there has EVER been accountability in US health care? I don't.

When several studies tell you that nationalized HC is going cost $32 Trillion MORE over the next 10 years, that cannot or should not be ignored or minimized. There is a reason why blue states such as Vermont, Maryland, Colorado, and California have turned down or walked away from single payer in their states. And why would anyone think that the US Gov't could run a nationalized HC system for 320 million people when they can't even run the VA system?

The numbers of providers and facilities is not going to magically increase if/when the US ever goes to a nationalized HC system. Yes, there are waits now but it's sure as hell going to get a whole lot worse when everybody becomes eligible for HC. And it's not just the uninsured either, it's also the people that do have HCI but can't afford to use it cuz the co-pays and deductibles are so high.

No argument that the HC system before the ACA came along sucked, and Obamacare didn't improve things any - HC in this country still sucks if you ain't rich. Yeah, we got fewer people who are uninsured, mostly at taxpayer expense, but there's more people who couldn't afford to use the HCI they have unless it gets subsidized. But that ain't the question, which is whether nationalized HC would be any better. From what I've read, it wouldn't; outcomes wouldn't improve but the costs would still go up.

And there's one other thing; if/when we ever go to a nationalized HC system, innovations in drugs and medical procedures and protocols will go right out the window, and so will the numbers of people entering medical school. Where's the R&D money going to come from to find and test new treatments? When the system is only paying providers as much as 30-40% less for their services, how many young people are going to look for another profession?

 

[danielpalos]

The worst thing about nationalized healthcare is what has happened in countries that have it - bureaucrats and politicians taking away the ability of physicians to provide the best care for their patients. Lengthy delays or outright unavailability of necessary procedures.

I think what most people are going for is a system where everyone pays for health insurance, not pure socialism.

And this is where you're kidding yourself. Forcing everyone to buy insurance from state-approved vendors is no better than socializing it outright - arguably it's much worse. It employs government coercion in the service of private profits.

A capitalistic healthcare system doesn't work because most Americans and really most doctors and nurses won't demand payment by yourself or your insurance before treating you. So we end up with this blended system that we've had since hospitals became worth going to.

If we actually practiced free market principles with health care, what we'd end up with is a voluntary system where people decide for themselves how to pay for their health care. They'd decide which insurance companies and hospitals they want to do business with, and which they want to avoid. They might even decide there are better ways to finance health care than insurance.

The problem with the existing system isn't that it needs more regulation and oversight. The problem is that there's already too much. Too many fingers in the pie. Too many interest groups vying for control over your health care.

So, I loved Obamacare, it was evil. If some freeloader didn't pay for insurance because they were counting on kindhearted Americans to bail them out and treat them if they needed hospitalization, no insurance, we're taking part of your tax return! It was evil. I loved it.

Not sure what you're going for here.

Could some math and regulations be fixed sure. Was it Constitutional? Man, maybe-ish. That law got out of control. I know with all the customers forced to buy insurance we needed some regulations on the insurance companies. I could have lived with a ten page bill reading "cover pre-existings, here come a bunch of formerly un-insured custoemrs" with a plan to fix problems as they arrived. And yeah, I think it needs to be national.

Why? Why do we need Dr. Trump running our health care?

Thanks for thelong detailed reply. I'm on the cell now so...

Capitalism running healthcare ends up with no one wanting to pay for Spot or Fighto's treatment

Do you think we can have a capitalistic system as long as folks aren't getting thrown intonthe streets to die like in the time of Jesus?

What if, Persons could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Who would be worse off.

I might be missing a bit of the analogy.

If I'm following right, PERSONALLY, I'd give a time of unemployment then have an extended version called the 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps. You'd be out plucking invasive honeysuckle and hopefully something more productive that would keep you in the habit of working for your unemployment.

But I hear I got no votes last election.

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment States. What you are advocating is using capitalism to Punish rather than encourage market participation.

 

[Toronado3800]

I think what most people are going for is a system where everyone pays for health insurance, not pure socialism.

And this is where you're kidding yourself. Forcing everyone to buy insurance from state-approved vendors is no better than socializing it outright - arguably it's much worse. It employs government coercion in the service of private profits.

A capitalistic healthcare system doesn't work because most Americans and really most doctors and nurses won't demand payment by yourself or your insurance before treating you. So we end up with this blended system that we've had since hospitals became worth going to.

If we actually practiced free market principles with health care, what we'd end up with is a voluntary system where people decide for themselves how to pay for their health care. They'd decide which insurance companies and hospitals they want to do business with, and which they want to avoid. They might even decide there are better ways to finance health care than insurance.

The problem with the existing system isn't that it needs more regulation and oversight. The problem is that there's already too much. Too many fingers in the pie. Too many interest groups vying for control over your health care.

So, I loved Obamacare, it was evil. If some freeloader didn't pay for insurance because they were counting on kindhearted Americans to bail them out and treat them if they needed hospitalization, no insurance, we're taking part of your tax return! It was evil. I loved it.

Not sure what you're going for here.

Could some math and regulations be fixed sure. Was it Constitutional? Man, maybe-ish. That law got out of control. I know with all the customers forced to buy insurance we needed some regulations on the insurance companies. I could have lived with a ten page bill reading "cover pre-existings, here come a bunch of formerly un-insured custoemrs" with a plan to fix problems as they arrived. And yeah, I think it needs to be national.

Why? Why do we need Dr. Trump running our health care?

Thanks for thelong detailed reply. I'm on the cell now so...

Capitalism running healthcare ends up with no one wanting to pay for Spot or Fighto's treatment

Do you think we can have a capitalistic system as long as folks aren't getting thrown intonthe streets to die like in the time of Jesus?

What if, Persons could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Who would be worse off.

I might be missing a bit of the analogy.

If I'm following right, PERSONALLY, I'd give a time of unemployment then have an extended version called the 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps. You'd be out plucking invasive honeysuckle and hopefully something more productive that would keep you in the habit of working for your unemployment.

But I hear I got no votes last election.

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment States. What you are advocating is using capitalism to Punish rather than encourage market participation.

For healthcare I am encouraging using capitalism to punish not having insurance with the tax refund loss?

 

[danielpalos]

And this is where you're kidding yourself. Forcing everyone to buy insurance from state-approved vendors is no better than socializing it outright - arguably it's much worse. It employs government coercion in the service of private profits.

If we actually practiced free market principles with health care, what we'd end up with is a voluntary system where people decide for themselves how to pay for their health care. They'd decide which insurance companies and hospitals they want to do business with, and which they want to avoid. They might even decide there are better ways to finance health care than insurance.

The problem with the existing system isn't that it needs more regulation and oversight. The problem is that there's already too much. Too many fingers in the pie. Too many interest groups vying for control over your health care.


Not sure what you're going for here.

Why? Why do we need Dr. Trump running our health care?

Thanks for thelong detailed reply. I'm on the cell now so...

Capitalism running healthcare ends up with no one wanting to pay for Spot or Fighto's treatment

Do you think we can have a capitalistic system as long as folks aren't getting thrown intonthe streets to die like in the time of Jesus?

What if, Persons could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Who would be worse off.

I might be missing a bit of the analogy.

If I'm following right, PERSONALLY, I'd give a time of unemployment then have an extended version called the 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps. You'd be out plucking invasive honeysuckle and hopefully something more productive that would keep you in the habit of working for your unemployment.

But I hear I got no votes last election.

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment States. What you are advocating is using capitalism to Punish rather than encourage market participation.

For healthcare I am encouraging using capitalism to punish not having insurance with the tax refund loss?

I am not sure I understand your use of economics.

By solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; markets must be more efficient simply Because more people we be circulating money.

 

[Toronado3800]

Thanks for thelong detailed reply. I'm on the cell now so...

Capitalism running healthcare ends up with no one wanting to pay for Spot or Fighto's treatment

Do you think we can have a capitalistic system as long as folks aren't getting thrown intonthe streets to die like in the time of Jesus?

What if, Persons could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Who would be worse off.

I might be missing a bit of the analogy.

If I'm following right, PERSONALLY, I'd give a time of unemployment then have an extended version called the 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps. You'd be out plucking invasive honeysuckle and hopefully something more productive that would keep you in the habit of working for your unemployment.

But I hear I got no votes last election.

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment States. What you are advocating is using capitalism to Punish rather than encourage market participation.

For healthcare I am encouraging using capitalism to punish not having insurance with the tax refund loss?

I am not sure I understand your use of economics.

By solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; markets must be more efficient simply Because more people we be circulating money.

I don't even know if I'm solving poverty. I'm just keeping folks used to working and giving them money for doing SOMETHING which helps America. ppl turn to all kinds of underhanded ways of feeding themselves otherwise.

 

[danielpalos]

What if, Persons could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Who would be worse off.

I might be missing a bit of the analogy.

If I'm following right, PERSONALLY, I'd give a time of unemployment then have an extended version called the 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps. You'd be out plucking invasive honeysuckle and hopefully something more productive that would keep you in the habit of working for your unemployment.

But I hear I got no votes last election.

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment States. What you are advocating is using capitalism to Punish rather than encourage market participation.

For healthcare I am encouraging using capitalism to punish not having insurance with the tax refund loss?

I am not sure I understand your use of economics.

By solving simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; markets must be more efficient simply Because more people we be circulating money.

I don't even know if I'm solving poverty. I'm just keeping folks used to working and giving them money for doing SOMETHING which helps America. ppl turn to all kinds of underhanded ways of feeding themselves otherwise.

equal protection of the law, works.

 

[justinacolmena]

Is not feasible. Would proponents please explain:

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

Thank you

Health care was already nationalized under Clinton and more so under Obama. Trump is powerless to roll it back.

No. There is no "clean debate" on healthcare. The entire subject is incredibly sick, morbid, abominable, putrid, and disgusting.

I hate that hospital smell. The disinfectant never quite covers up the noxious smell of disease and hospital-acquired infections.

That isn't remotely true.

The Clinton Administration did not nationalize American health care. That is ridiculously false.

This is the news.
Health Care Fraud News — FBI
The mainstream media refuse to report it. True or false? The particulars are for the jury to decide. The doctors have been indicted. They were untouchable under the Clinton and Obama administrations, and Bush Jr. barely scratched the surface. Now the bonfire is roaring, and we're piling more wood on. The doctors are going to hell.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Is not feasible. Would proponents please explain:

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

Thank you

" is not feasible"

of course it is. LOTS of countries (including countries considered to be the happiest" have universal health care. That PROVES it can be done.

"why is it necessary"

I wouldn't use the word NECESSARY. But because medical expenses are so high and medications so expensive lots of people get little to no treatment for what ails them. I wouldn't want a MANDATORY national health system that denied your right to your own health insurance or to seek your own doctors. One that DEMANDED YOUR ATTENTION!. Just some Government funded health clinic that provides treatment to the unwashed.

"How would we pay for it"

I belonged to a town clinic in Maine 10 years ago and I paid $35 per visit. I thought that was fair and reasonable. I went twice a year for check-ups and only paid $70. If a small town in Maine can do that then surely it IS feasible. NOT free but affordable.

a GoFundMe page? Think about it. Liberals would donate, you wouldn't donate, then YOU get FREE health care paid for by LIBERALS! Isn't THAT delicious? Does THAT make it more tempting?

 

[task0778]

Is not feasible. Would proponents please explain:

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

Thank you

" is not feasible"

of course it is. LOTS of countries (including countries considered to be the happiest" have universal health care. That PROVES it can be done.

"why is it necessary"

I wouldn't use the word NECESSARY. But because medical expenses are so high and medications so expensive lots of people get little to no treatment for what ails them. I wouldn't want a MANDATORY national health system that denied your right to your own health insurance or to seek your own doctors. One that DEMANDED YOUR ATTENTION!. Just some Government funded health clinic that provides treatment to the unwashed.

"How would we pay for it"

I belonged to a town clinic in Maine 10 years ago and I paid $35 per visit. I thought that was fair and reasonable. I went twice a year for check-ups and only paid $70. If a small town in Maine can do that then surely it IS feasible. NOT free but affordable.

a GoFundMe page? Think about it. Liberals would donate, you wouldn't donate, then YOU get FREE health care paid for by LIBERALS! Isn't THAT delicious? Does THAT make it more tempting?

Are you aware that the state of CALIFORNIA looked at UHC and found out it would DOUBLE their state budget? The costs are that much. Vermont had UHC for awhile and had to kill the program because it was too effing expensive. And voters in the states of Colorado and Maryland turned down the UHC proposal for a reason. Read my lips: IT'S NOT FEASIBLE, otherwise many of the blue states would be doing it.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Why don' t we have single payer auto purchases to? Imagine the benefits to society if once every 10 years the USG bought every Adult American a brand new car. American made only, of course..

Now to REALLY maximize the benefit to society we would have to split things up so that 10% of American adults got a new car every 10 years So you the USG is buying new cars for someone every year, rather than buying new cars for everyone on that 10th year.

I mean a new car is a right..........

 

[P F Tinmore]

Is not feasible. Would proponents please explain:

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

Thank you

 

[danielpalos]

Why don' t we have single payer auto purchases to? Imagine the benefits to society if once every 10 years the USG bought every Adult American a brand new car. American made only, of course..

Now to REALLY maximize the benefit to society we would have to split things up so that 10% of American adults got a new car every 10 years So you the USG is buying new cars for someone every year, rather than buying new cars for everyone on that 10th year.

I mean a new car is a right..........

we can't seem to get rid of "free wars on crime, drugs, and terror".

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Is not feasible. Would proponents please explain:

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

Thank you

I don't need links. I need peoples opinions. Thank you.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Why don' t we have single payer auto purchases to? Imagine the benefits to society if once every 10 years the USG bought every Adult American a brand new car. American made only, of course..

Now to REALLY maximize the benefit to society we would have to split things up so that 10% of American adults got a new car every 10 years So you the USG is buying new cars for someone every year, rather than buying new cars for everyone on that 10th year.

I mean a new car is a right..........

we can't seem to get rid of "free wars on crime, drugs, and terror".

What?

 

[danielpalos]

Why don' t we have single payer auto purchases to? Imagine the benefits to society if once every 10 years the USG bought every Adult American a brand new car. American made only, of course..

Now to REALLY maximize the benefit to society we would have to split things up so that 10% of American adults got a new car every 10 years So you the USG is buying new cars for someone every year, rather than buying new cars for everyone on that 10th year.

I mean a new car is a right..........

we can't seem to get rid of "free wars on crime, drugs, and terror".

What?

there is no Right to free and alleged, wars on crime, drugs, or terror. nothing but, Discretionary Spending.