On so-called socialised medicine

[Diuretic]

Why? Why should it be available to all and why should the taxpayer pay for it?

Ideology is indeed the crux of the matter!

That was me being ideological in my response to RWA's ideological statement.

It should be available for all because we say it should be. Not a beautifully logical answer for you but a truthful one. I am making broad statements here because you can always find an individual who will disagree but, generally speaking, we accept that we have to pay a bit more tax to ensure that other people - as well as ourselves - get proper care if they can't afford it. In that sense we are our brother's keeper.

It is deeply embedded in our social values.

 

[CSM]

If it's not much different then why not copy it - go that little bit further to give everyone taxpayer-funded health care at no cost to them as a consumer?

As for the fiscal burden. We're planning now. It's only sensible to do so. We know that there's a greying population that will need more care and we have to fund it. We're not abandoning it, we're preparing for contingencies. But we can do that - we're a small population - this is a core social value.

You keep saying "no cost" but there is indeed a cost. Compare populations between your country and the US then add 12 million or so "undocumented aliens/workers". The tax burden on the taxpayer is substantially different as well between the two countries.

 

[CSM]

That was me being ideological in my response to RWA's ideological statement.

It should be available for all because we say it should be. Not a beautifully logical answer for you but a truthful one. I am making broad statements here because you can always find an individual who will disagree but, generally speaking, we accept that we have to pay a bit more tax to ensure that other people - as well as ourselves - get proper care if they can't afford it. In that sense we are our brother's keeper.

It is deeply embedded in our social values.

Don't get me wrong. The system you describe seems to work for you. You are also an island nation and therefore have some greater degree of control on who partakes of your largess. The mindset of our two cultures is somewhat different as well though I would be hard pressed to describe an "American" mindset any more.

 

[Diuretic]

You keep saying "no cost" but there is indeed a cost. Compare populations between your country and the US then add 12 million or so "undocumented aliens/workers". The tax burden on the taxpayer is substantially different as well between the two countries.

No direct price then.

I wasn't of a mind to make comparisons. The US is an incredibly complex society, far more complex than ours. I'm not presuming to tell Americans how to run anything in their own country. The system works for us with a small population, that's all I was saying.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And how do the poor pay for it? We're not talking comparison shopping for a car.

Medical care should be available to all who need it at no cost to them. It should be paid for by taxpayers.

This is exactly what I meant by ideology. That statement is pure ideology completely disconnected from reality.

"How will the poor pay for it?" is a brainless argument. We don't ask this about food, because the free market has driven food prices to an optimum level. One can eat VERY cheaply if one wishes. When people are in dire straits we either cut them checks or otherwise change their behavior, we don't start a government farm to grow their bananas. We TRUST the food industry to fulfill this need. ANd since it's competitive. Prices are lowered.

Create government monopoly healthcare and none of these benefits will work in our favor. We be stuck with the gluts and shortages indicative of ill conceived planned economies.

 

[Diuretic]

Don't get me wrong. The system you describe seems to work for you. You are also an island nation and therefore have some greater degree of control on who partakes of your largess. The mindset of our two cultures is somewhat different as well though I would be hard pressed to describe an "American" mindset any more.

Quite right. Big country, pretty empty, small population - in things like telecommunications and transport we bear the higher direct cost/price of services and it hurts. Our telecommunications system is okay but crappy when compared to countries like South Korea (our broadband speeds would make a South Korean wet himself laughing). And yes, it is much easier for us to control illegal immigration, we're a long way from everyone else but we have problems there but nothing approaching America's.
And our social values differ because of our origins. And that's not to say one set of social values is superior - just different.

 

[dilloduck]

We pay tax. We know that. Our tax burden isn't as high as some European countries and it isn't as low as it is in the States. But there's only 20 million of us, we know we have to shell out. Our social values are such that when a tax cut is announced (we've just had tax cuts announced in our federal budget) many people will publicly state that it is far better to have socially funded things like health care, education, law and order etc than a small tax cut. It's a social value.

I can see where in a country of 20 million that socialised medicine may be a little more reasonable. You also have immigration laws that have reasonably kept out 20 million illegal aliens who don't pay taxes.

 

[Diuretic]

"How will the poor pay for it?" is a brainless argument. We don't ask this about food, because the free market has driven food prices to an optimum level. One can eat VERY cheaply if one wishes. When people are in dire straits we either cut them checks or otherwise change their behavior, we don't start a government farm to grow their bananas. We TRUST the food industry to fulfill this need. ANd since it's competitive. Prices are lowered.

Create government monopoly healthcare and none of these benefits will work in our favor. We be stuck with the gluts and shortages indicative of ill conceived planned economies.

We're lucky then. We got what suited us and it works for us.

 

[Diuretic]

I can see where in a country of 20 million that socialised medicine may be a little more reasonable. You also have immigration laws that have reasonably kept out 20 million illegal aliens who don't pay taxes.

We're a manageable population size but as I indicated, small population, big country has problems of its own. And we haven't solved them.

Yes, our illegal alien issue is a nuisance rather than a major problem.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We're lucky then. We got what suited us and it works for us.

Our health care is STILL too bureacratized. Our employers who have given us a plan in exchange for much of our freedom of choice. Oh yeah, we get about five packets on "new hire" day but it's just a choice between one megacorp with mysterious nazi ties or another. Know what I'm saying vern?

Then these employers makes who knows what kind of deals with other huge megacorps with mysterious nazi ties.

 

[Diuretic]

I have to admit to not understanding how the system works in the States in detail. It seems to me to be byzantine.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I have to admit to not understanding how the system works in the States in detail. It seems to me to be byzantine.

yes. Byzantine to say the least.

 

[Said1]

Good question. May I use a personal example. I had causae to see my GP once, I knew what it was. He confirmed me (I had to pay his the balance of his fee and the money that the Medicare care scheme paid, then about $20 difference)., I had to see a surgeon. The surgeon had a look and told me what I knew. He then asked me if I had private insurance. I said what's the diff? He said I get to go into a hospital of my choice, as soon as he can fit me in and he does the operation. If I went as a so-called "public" patient then I would have to wait several months (it wasn't life-threatening or it would have been done immediately) but he would do it at a specific hospital. I had insurance so it was done that week. I didn't see a bill. Between Medicare and my private health insurance I didn't pay a dollar.

To sum up:

A. Non-life threatening, a patient without insurance will have to wait, then go to a hospital they are told to go to but the surgeon they consulted will do the op. Cost zero.

B. Life-threatening, a patient without insurance will get immediate attention at the nearest hospital, will get surgery or whatever they need. Cost zero.

Private patient in A - gets surgery quicker, hospital of choice (get frills like cable tv if you want it), same deal with the surgeon though.

Private patient in B - no difference. Get treatment, no cost, it's an emergency.

You can get dental treatment for zero if you are willing to be a public patient at a hospital and wait. If you have insurance you go to your dentist and get it fixed.

It's a little more complex than that but in very broad terms that's how it works.

We're more like your patient A, all around - better here, worse there. Location, location, location. I think we may wind up with some more private options, although recent increases in spending say other wise for the time being.

No public dental though, c'ept Queerbec, where everything is subsidized.

 

[Bonnie]

Thanks for responding.

1. I can't argue with a personal conviction so I won't try.
2. You will be doing this any time you pay tax (so will I of course)
3. A programme like this really isn't redistribution of wealth, it's using tax payers money for a social programme (but see 1).

Okay now, should someone be denied health treatment because they have no money to pay for it? These questions are for everyone so feel free to hop in, don't let one person do all the work.
And may I say I just don't want to butt ideologies on this if possible, I am interested in the different responses.

No one here in this country is denied health treatment, including illegal immigrants. So essentially we already have socialised medicine. Don't know what more we can do??
Government programs as you call them, or redistrubtion of wealth has taken in over 4 trillion dollars over the last 20 to 30 years and social problems, the poor and government waste has increased 10 times. Little hard to squeeze more blood out of that rock??

 

[007]

Gentlemanly? Me? :halo: :firing:

I was really focused on practicalities. There's a reason for it. On one of my extended visits to the States I was in Monterey, CA. and got chatting with a young Australian fellow outside a restaurant. I think he heard our accents and came over to check the footy scores (this was pre-"internet for all"). He was working in Monterey and having a great time but told me he had to go home Australia because - this is without exaggeration - he couldn't afford health insurance and he was worried the longer he was there the bigger chance he was taking. He was a young bloke, looked healthy, but he was worried about it.

Anyway - I put this question up to get some ideas and opinions and to share my own - not to arm wrestle (can do that elsewhere and it's good fun) but to try and find out why many Americans get upset about what some call "socialised" medicine. I think Pale Rider here has even equated it with communism. Now if I bounce someone for believing that it goes nowhere. We can go twenty rounds but it ends up in a stalemate. I really wanted to know the deeper "why" and to see if my own ideas were out of whack. That's the first answer.

On butting ideologies. In my country we've had what an American might call socialised medicine since 1972. I remember when it came in. Everything was going to be free. And it was, for a while. That same government also gave people free university education. Free. Not grants. Free. We had that government for three short years. Unfortunately for them they were trapped by the oil shock and by stagflation which was going around the world. Anyway three years and they were out. We then had a conservative government. Now that government began to try to dismantle our Medicare system. But they realised it was a good thing and left it alone. Every government since 1975, progressive or conservative, has left the system alone. So perhaps some things are above ideology.
And that's why I wanted to avoid pure ideological discussion. I wanted to discuss the realities, not philosophical positions. That's why I chose my question(s) carefully.

Yes I do equate it with communism. Socialist = Communist. Even if it was funded with tax payers money, you're still taking money out of my pocket to pay for someone else. Or vise versa, and that sir, pure and simple, is commumism. Take from ME, and give it to someone ELSE.

So please, tell Me, how this ISN'T commumism. We can arm wrestle later.

 

[1549]

Yes I do equate it with communism. Socialist = Communist. Even if it was funded with tax payers money, you're still taking money out of my pocket to pay for someone else. Or vise versa, and that sir, pure and simple, is commumism. Take from ME, and give it to someone ELSE.

So please, tell Me, how this ISN'T commumism. We can arm wrestle later.

There is a difference between communism and socialism. Marx beleived socialism to be the phase of reorginization in society between capitalism and communism. A sort of means to a communist and eventually anarchist end.

However, I think most would see modern socialism as a "communism light" or "capitalism plus". Communism is one of those things that should be left for societies stranded on desert islands. In a very large community it is not practical. Modern democratic-socialism retains self-achievement and capitalism, but does not shat on the lower classes as laissez-faire capitalism tends to do.

 

[Said1]

Modern democratic-socialism retains self-achievement and capitalism, but does not shat on the lower classes as laissez-faire capitalism tends to do.

Sure it does, elitism knows no bounds.

When you have the biggest advocate for socialized medicine, in a socialist democracy paying for services ELSEWHERE, there's a problem. :talk2:

 

[Bonnie]

However, I think most would see modern socialism as a "communism light" or "capitalism plus". Communism is one of those things that should be left for societies stranded on desert islands. In a very large community it is not practical. Modern democratic-socialism retains self-achievement and capitalism, but does not shat on the lower classes as laissez-faire capitalism tends to do

If socialism works so well, then explain to me why it is failing in France, Britain, Germany, and South America? What socialism does do is create a permanent dependent class within society, it takes away all incentive to excel and be self sufficient. Sociaist societies fall behind in the global market because eventually you have too many in the wagon and not enough people able to pull the wagon.

 

[Said1]

If socialism works so well, then explain to me why it is failing in France, Britain, Germany, and South America? What socialism does do is create a permanent dependent class within society, it takes away all incentive to excel and be self sufficient. Sociaist societies fall behind in the global market because eventually you have too many in the wagon and not enough people able to pull the wagon.

The idea is that a government is supposed to remove protections as needed. Hasn't been the case though - or at least in areas that are big cash hogs.

 

[Bonnie]

The idea is that a government is supposed to remove protections as needed. Hasn't been the case though - or at least in areas that are big cash hogs.

True all of these "social programs" that were supposed to be a temporary safety net for a small minority of truly needy people, has become a permanent entitlement to a very large number of otherwise able bodied people.
And we know why..Votes