Huh. That's new. I didn't know you could only use so many quotes in a post.

*Add relevant discussion here*

Why is the line drawn where it is then? Because surely if the government in Canada (or whatever country you live in, but I think Canada) took more of your money in taxes they could save even more people's lives.

I don't know about Canada but if I am reading the income tax wiki right it looks like our income taxes are actually of a similar level.

Meaning the US and the UK? I should think that a lot of that is because, well, becuase our government pisses away it's money on all kinds of stupid shit.

If I had to choose, I'd much rather the United States implement a universal health care system than spend five hundred billion dollars a year on the military. But I'd rather they not do either. Let people keep as much of their money as possible, and then let them take care of themselves.

This is vastly different from what we have now. Especially recently, lots of jobs don't offer heath insurance, or have so many limitations and red tape that it isn't worth it. I think that only people who work, have worked but were injured, or worked but retired should get it because they are the ones who will be paying for it through higher taxes. If you don't fall into any of those three categories, and are old enough to work, then why the fuck don't they have a job? I don't have a problem with paying increased taxes for heathcare (depending on how increased the taxes are) but I do have a problem with people being able to unfairly leech off my hard work.

I guess this is the difference between our countries though, I don't necessarily believe healthcare is a right. The right to life referenced in the Declaration of Independence refers to the gov't not being able to just kill you (unless proper proceedings take place) in my opinion, not that everyone should have free health care.

Everyone having free healthcare regardless of what they contribute works for your country, but America is different from a lot of other countries. Not only is our population a lot higher and demographics different, but America as a whole is much less healthy meaning that it will be exponentially more expensive than any other countries UHC, not to mention that we have more irresponsible people and a population that is extremely opposed to any tax cuts to begin with, especially when they help people who don't contribute.

But as I said, one thing that makes me mad about this argument is the lack of information and studies about how much this would cost and how effective it would be with a country like the U.S.

But if your country implemented a basic health care system wouldn't your nation's health improve?

I would like to see an independent body do some research into this for the USA. Not to mention how your taxes are spent. That is rather disturbing that you actually pay a similar amount yet what do you get for it? In one of my email groups they talked about the lists teachers sent home of what their schools needed. I saw a list filled with basic items. Class aids, books for the library etc. This I was told was pretty normal. I would be pretty pissed off with that if I lived over there. Though the immediate kneejerk response always seems to be that it will cost more tax therefore NO. And this major fear that healthcare is somehow wasted on the undeserving. Can you really waste healthcare if it is being used by those that need it? How can that be a waste?

Perhaps it should be started by degrees if americans went for it. Pre and post natal care for a start. Wouldn't that appeal to everyone? Children getting a healthier start in life learn better, grow better and are a future investment. And perhaps the abortion rate would go down which would appeal to all those pro-life nutters.

I wouldn't pick the word waste to describe it, because waste would imply that they were just like, flushing that money down the toilet. I would call it theft, because all it is is "Well some people can't afford to pay to go to the doctor. So I, the government, am going to take your money, taxpayers, and give it to them. Because that's the way society should work. If you can't take care of yourself, we'll force everyone else to take care of you."

It's exactly the same as a person being unable to afford something and the government buying it for them, except in this case, it's healthcare, and because some people think we ought to take care of everyone (well, everyone within their country), they force everyone to do it.

Obviously if you've never seen them they don't exist. I know people driving around in Mercedes off of this "meager paycheck" they get from the feds. Charities exist for the homeless. Again, not wanting to feds to control health care, and argument no one here has responded to no matter how many times I bring it up, does not equate to "LOL FUCK T3H HOMELESS!!!



So obviously if they can't afford it you should just coerce other people into paying it for you, becuase I am, stripping the rights of others is democracy in action. Maybe if taxes weren't so high people would donate more to charity, although American's donate more than anyone else in the world.



Personally I think what food gets served in hospitals is a better idea for campaign issues. Uh huh, the American dream is dead, there is no middle class, and is there is no way to rise up in the world. Arnold, he came here as a millionare and with an already established career in politics. Bill Gates, why, he was born the richest man in the world. Some guys didn't come up with the concept of youtube and profit billions last year.



America has the best health care in the world, and just becuase not all the poor get treated doesn't make it 37 in the world, and France being number 1 at anything is pretty laughable.

What rebutal?



I mean or they could just stop spending that money on the miliatary and start spending it on teaching us arabic and living in dhimmi status



No

Breast cancer is fatal to 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain and New Zealand, both socialized-medicine havens, breast cancer kills 46 percent of women it strikes.

Prostate cancer proves fatal to 19 percent of its American sufferers. In single-payer Canada, the National Center for Policy Analysis reports, this ailment kills 25 percent of such men and eradicates 57 percent of their British counterparts.

After major surgery, a 2003 British study found, 2.5 percent of American patients died in hospital versus nearly 10 percent of similar Britons. Seriously ill U.S. hospital patients die at one-seventh the pace of those in the U.K.

“In usual circumstances, people over age 75 should not be accepted” for treatment of end-state renal failure, according to New Zealand’s official guidelines. Unfortunately, for older Kiwis, government controls kidney dialysis.

http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2006/09/stati...d-medicine.html

...Actually, I live in America. Liberals DO exist here, you know. Also, not really. The amount of money you take in taxes only matters up to a certain point. Once a reasonable amount is being taken, it's all about how it's used that matters. America has a shitty education budget as compared to other countries, yes, but surely education could be improved if the government spent the budget on the right things instead of, as was the case at my high school, just making the building bigger without adding anything that will actually improve the quality of education. The same could be said for healthcare.



But why SHOULDN'T we take care of everyone? Do you realize how barbaric the notion is that you should only receive the modern medicine that's been invented to help treat horrible diseases and extend the average life expectency of a human being by several decades if the person happens to possess enough money? Health care should be a basic human right, like food or water.



First off, you're the one that used the "I've never seen it, so it must not exist" logic first with your brilliant assessment of how people not being treated if they don't have insurance must not happen because you've never met anyoen it's happened to.

Secondly, bullshit you know people driving around in Mercedes from a welfare check. The average welfare check in the United States is $350.00 a month. My parents make more than that in a week even after taxes and we're far from having a Mercedez. If you know people on welfare that have a Mercedez, it's either the most used, shitty Mercedez known to man or they're selling drugs on the side.

I know there are charities for the homeless. I've done a lot of work for them. They basically equate to "here's some soup so you can live another day without a house. You can sleep here, but at 8 AM you have to go back outside to your homeless life."



We also have among the most homeless in developed countries and 37 million people living below the poverty line. Doesn't seem to be helping much, does it? I doubt a 5% tax cut would help much more.



You know why you hear about those people? It's the same reason you hear about how JK Rowling started writing Harry Potter on napkins in a resteraunt...because it's incredibly rare. 90% of America's wealth is controled by 10% of the population, and that number has been steadily increasing for years now. The other 90% of America's population is either somewhere in the middle class (upper-middle, middle-middle or lower-middle) or below the poverty line. Doesn't exactly sound like the American dream to me, what about you?



I...I don't know what else I can do to show you exactly how wrong you are. If I can't use facts and statistics to back up my points and get you to concede a point to me, I honestly don't know what more I can do. I'll try using your logic to get you to see the error you're making here and rebut your statement with a simple "Nuh-uh."



The one you still have yet to reply to.



...These two are so outlandish that they're not even worth my effort to try to argue.



Those stats are so obviously cherry-picked. If I cared enough to cherry-pick my own stats I could show you just as many examples of how healthcare in UHC countries is much better than it is here, but instead I'll leave you with this:

Please, for the love of whatever deity you may or may not believe in, research both sides of the issue before you post next time. Not only will it make you able to argue your points better, it will make it more challenging for people to rebut them and give you more ammo to use against those rebuttals than your current "nuh-uh" strategy.

Before we start thinking about a national healthcare system for all, we should figure out how the hell we're going to pay for our national healthcare system for the elderly, because it's going to be a much larger tax burden than social security when the boomers hit their actuarial medical need peaks. Without reforms we may end up with 40% of our wages stripped even before income taxes.

Anyway, national healthcare would be a lot cheaper to provide if standards were relaxed on the medical credentials required to provide basic health services, so that someone could be a doctor and help the 99% of people who don't need advanced medical care, without having to go through the same eight to fifteen year, six figure debt as those going into more specialized fields. Unfortunately, the medical profession would not like to see its artificial scarcity of doctors reduced, and as a result, health care in the US is always going to be quite expensive. It's a problem with no easy solution.

Sorry, thought you were Canadian, guess I was thinking of someone else. I didn't mean to come across like, I don't know, "you fucking socialist foreigners need to quit telling my country what to do" or anything.

And I don't see how you could seriously believe that a government that was spending it's money on helping people would not be able to help more people by taking more money from the people who have a surplus of money once their basic needs are met. Yes, it's important how they spend it, but if they're spending it well, then surely having more would let them do more good, right?



So you think that society should be set up such that a person can just decide not to work and have all of their needs provided for them. The government should provide people with food if they don't want to pay for it.

I don't know how else to respond to this than like, that's fucking insane. The only basic human rights people deserve are the right to be secure in their property and their person. If you want food, if you want water, if you want a house, cable television, someone to come cut your lawn, someone to fix your car or someone to fix your broken nose, do it yourself or find someone else to do it.

Obviously, many people work full time, and cannot afford to get adequate medical help. What are we supposed to say? "Fuck off, you're not worth enough to be taken care of when you're injured or sick".

I'll bet that a person who is injured/sick that goes untreated is more likely to stop working than someone who is given health care.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A96E958260

Moore also presents a few examples in his film, if you care that much.

We should say the exact same thing you'd say to someone who wants to buy anything else but doesn't have any money.

This is different. What if someone has a contagious disease, but is refused treatment? That eventually puts us all at risk.

Also, how do feel about children having access to health care? What about students? I know college students who are uninsured. What are they supposed to do? Drop out of school and hope they make enough money to not be ignored when they get sick? Medical care shouldn't be treated like some item at your nearest retailer. It disgusts me that saving lives is such a heartless business in America.

No, wrong! Anyone with a disease that puts others at risk is treated immediately, no matter what! Catch TB, or SARS and just try not get treated.

And medical care SHOULD be treated like something at your nearest retailer. If not there is no competition to make things at a higher quality. Prices I agree are outrageous, but subsidizing it through the federal government is not the answer.

Why?

No shit liberals exist here, have you ever turned on the TV, listened to a rock star when he's not singing or gone to school, in a school system where if your not a registered democrat they won't hire you. Look at how good the education system in here used to be before the Government got involved. The Government does not make anything better, no matter what kind of good intentions you have going into it, it makes things worse. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That is what happens when you give the government money though, they spend it on making your school bigger, instead of your education. You are giving the perfect argument against yourself here. Either that, or they spend millions ot bus people around just to "diversify" schools because the system is so racist as to believe that a black majority in a school in incapable of learning or succeeding on it's own.

I'm just gonna quote this one

"A "right" is the ability and autonomy to perform a sovereign action. In a free society founded on the ideal of liberty, an individual has an absolute ability to perform such an action - so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another individual. Health care is not speech: In order for you to exercise a theoretical "right" to health care, you must infringe on someone else's rights. If you have a "right" to health care, then it means you must also have the right to coerce doctors into treating you, to coerce drug companies into producing medicine and to coerce other citizens into footing your medical bill. This is Orwellian. "Freedom" for you cannot result in slavery for others. Thus the concept of a "right" to health care is an oxymoron: It involves taking away the rights of other individuals."





Which brings up my next point, and argument no one will touch. We are going to put in charge of our health eh very same government that brought us the War on Drugs. How successful has that been? The War on Poverty? Social Secutiry won't go bankrupt on it's current course within our lifetimes, will it? FEMA, wow, they really fixed shit right up with Katrina, didn't they? Oh wait, Bush caused Katrina




Instead of "here's some soup" i'd much rather say "hey, here's half my paycheck, i'm only a struggling college student going to school full time while being heavily involved at 3 organizations on campus and work 2 jobs to pay for books, gas and car insurance (and tuition as well since I'm white) but hey, you refuse to work, so you need this more than i do." Taking someone else's money is a "need" while keeping your own is "greed". Also, yet again, how does not wanting to government to take over = fuck the homeless? The entire argument I've gotten thus far is "whomg you hate homeless people!"



Rare =/= non-existent. What about all those coming from utter poverty to find a humble, middle class life in America? Does that count as the dream being dead as wll?



Well then, go and do it. Show me that we don't not have the best facilities and doctors in the world. Don't show me something saying our system is worse than France's becuase we don't give coverage to everyone.
The one you still have yet to reply to.



Bravo



Well than, please do cherry-pick your own stats. Disprove that breast cancer isn't twice as fatal in the UK. You could also disprove that there is not a shortage of doctors in places like England, because, surprise surprise, the best and brightest either take up another career or move to a freer country. I just read the shortage of dentists in the UK is projected to more than double in the next few years. I'm sure you also show that a disproportionate amount of advancement in medicine and the life saving treatment you mentioned come from the US. You could also show how the Phamacuitcal companies who give ludicrous amounts of money to the government would have it's ear and be able to shove it's products down your throat, but rather the people would be in control. Go ahead, prove your point

What we should say is "don't worry, we'll coerce the rest of society into footing the bill for you"

Where is the competition with the insurance industry to make them stop giving such shitty health care? I'm glad that you agree that prices are outrageous, but if the government is not a good solution, then what is? Forcing them to lower costs? Having everyone boycott insurance, and get fucked when something happens?

UHC is the ONLY solution we have that would work better than the current system. Other countries have already proven that it's better, so why are we too stubborn to follow their example?



Because developed nations should make it their business to reduce unneccessary death of their citizens.

That's exactly what taxes are, once given your biased connotations. We are coerced to paying for public schools we do not attend, and roads that we may not use. Why do we have them in place? For the well-being of society, which would include keeping people alive, right? If it's not the governments job to protect lives, then we should stop having police, too, and just hire our own private bodyguards.

Also, how do feel about children having access to health care? What about students? I know college students who are uninsured. What are they supposed to do? Drop out of school and hope they make enough money to not be ignored when they get sick?

Why have Threadhead, Paraphen, and Polander avoided this part of my post?

Well to start with that children not having health inusrance I propose you start donating 70% of your pay to help insurance them. Or you could just remember the numerous children's charities out there, who unlike the government, operate in a sane matter and if they do not perform their job well go under. Then of course, the government could become much less involved than they are now in healthcare, paying some like 50% of the bills, and let the free market drive down costs and help allow more people to be insured, but hey, why would they do anything like that? But hey, government invention like allowing with people with medicre to just do whatever the hell they want and not try to be prudent with their money, or their regulations simply to restrict the number of doctors, have nothing to do with the probelm today, do they?

Once again, not wanting to see the feds destory healthcare does not mean I hate the homeless, the young, or sunshine and candy...which is esentially the only argument i've gotten received thus far

The students should, of course, just take money from other people to make sure they can make it through, and of course, not utilize any of the services including basic health insurance covered in their tuition.

It is the government's job to protect lives and property with things like a police force, it is not their job to take over health care and destroy it.

Why has everyone avoided my point about how handing it over the government, the same government that has brought us the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, FEMA, Medicare and a Social Security system that will fail in our lifetime unless drasitcally altered, is a good idea?

I could find it easier to take your comments seriously if you stopped with the shock thing of '50%!' '70%!' It has been shown in other countries that their income tax levels are of a similar level to America's even with a healthcare system.

And if you can't trust your government what is the point of it? Should people be making an effort to change it? It is there FOR your nation not to spite it.

There should be more than life and property protected by the government. The government should also take some responsibility for the quality of life too. If everyone over there paid half as much taxes as we do here then I would get this thing about a non involved government. But you pay already. I frankly think you should be demanding a better return on it. Healthcare doesn't seem like a silly idea to me. Better that than the weapons I keep being told it is really being spent on.

Health care is not a guaranteed right, the government should not be responsible for it. I agree about taxes being too high, but to say that since they are high now we should just get health care anyways isn't really a good argument.

And the US only spends about 3.5% of its GDP on defense.

Incorrect. And do you have to refer to UHC as "feds destroy[ing] healthcare"? Just by doing that, you lose a lot of credibility. There are a lot of arguments for UHC, and being against it doesn't mean you hate those that can't take care of themselves. It means that you're too obtuse to realize that it's not a perfect world, and not everyone can be middle-middle class or higher.

It's also about getting assraped on prices and receiving a shitty product as opposed, to...western Europe. It's like paying the same price for a big mac here as you would for filet Mignon in the UK.



The basic health insurance you speak of varies greatly between universities. In Arizona, it sure as hell isn't covered within the tuition. Failed.



Luckily, no one has the goal of destroying health care. As for the comparison, the government has responisibility to protect you from crime, fire, and natural disasters for the sake of saving your life, but when it comes to being protected from diseases (amongst other things, obviously), then it's YOUR problem, and if you can't afford the outrageous costs, then you SHOULD be denied care to save your life.



It would be handed to the government because private companies have already fucked it up, without a doubt. We pay the most, while getting the least. Employers are trying their best to not cover premiums. People are being denied care and dying. Dying! This isn't about politics, this is about saving lives.

And it's very frustrating to use reason with you, Polander. In your eyes, taxes are taxes, until it's taxes for something you don't agree with. Then it's "OMG taking money from other people!". It's not universal health care, it has to be "the federal destruction of health care!"

Maybe if you could come to terms with reality, instead of twisting words, you wouldn't sound like such a dumbfuck.

Also, charity does not and will not ever work, no matter how innately good you think everyone is. Honestly, you sound like pages ripped out of 'Libertarianism in One Lesson'... taxes are theft! Mandatory coercion! Charity as the ideal replacement for government nannystating funded by robbery under threat of jailtime!

Thank you. Said everything I wanted to.



Though I agree with your post...I thought you WERE a libertarian, Bolt?

Anyway, I actually saw Sicko today...very depressing, but it's not like other Michael Moore films where he loses all credibility in order to make it look like he's sticking it to the man. (ie asking Senators to sign their children up for the military in Fahrenheit 9/11) He did it once when he went to Guantanamo Bay, but it wasn't the predominant theme of the film. It was more of "here are some human faces to associate with the horror stories you always hear about people who don't have the right insurance, here are some people that work in the insurance agency to tell you methods they use to stay profitable, here are other countries for comparison, and here are the facts that you can take as you will." Very informative, but very, VERY depressing.

Some valid points he brought up:

America is the only developed nation to not have UHC, and is also the only nation in the western hemisphere without it.

In England, they pay doctors based on how many lives they save, how many of their patients they convince to stop smoking, etc. In America, they pay HMOs based on how many people they can legally deny insurance.

America's government pays for free books from the library, free public schooling, many social programs, and a government-run Postal Service that constantly stays cheaper than their competitors, and we're not "OMG DROWNING IN TAXES!" How would universal health care push us over the edge?

America provides universal healthcare to prisoners at Guatanamo Bay, most of whom are associated with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but not its own citizens.

Nations with UHC pay, on average, little more in tax money than we do, their doctors make just about the same amount as ours, and their citizens generally have a longer life expectancy.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat? No, they don't pay them by the life. Unless I am really missing something over here. As far as I know it is just payscales according to level and experience.

[quote name='Dei' date='Jul 17 2007, 08:50 PM' post='87373']
I could find it easier to take your comments seriously if you stopped with the shock thing of '50%!' '70%!' It has been shown in other countries that their income tax levels are of a similar level to America's even with a healthcare system.

And if you can't trust your government what is the point of it? Should people be making an effort to change it? It is there FOR your nation not to spite it.

There should be more than life and property protected by the government. The government should also take some responsibility for the quality of life too. If everyone over there paid half as much taxes as we do here then I would get this thing about a non involved government. But you pay already. I frankly think you should be demanding a better return on it. Healthcare doesn't seem like a silly idea to me. Better that than the weapons I keep being told it is really being spent on.
[/quote]

You can trust your government, to an extent. The Government tends to fuck things up, and will most likely fuck things up with national health care they way they did with things like medicare and social security. It's not about hating the Government, it's about not wanting to them to control your life, and guess it what, it works.

[quote]Incorrect. And do you have to refer to UHC as "feds destroy[ing] healthcare"? Just by doing that, you lose a lot of credibility. There are a lot of arguments for UHC, and being against it doesn't mean you hate those that can't take care of themselves. It means that you're too obtuse to realize that it's not a perfect world, and not everyone can be middle-middle class or higher.

It's also about getting assraped on prices and receiving a shitty product as opposed, to...western Europe. It's like paying the same price for a big mac here as you would for filet Mignon in the UK.[/quote]

It is the feds destoriyng health care, and just because it supposedly works in England, Canada or Europe, where if you have money and need an important surgery you're forced to leave the country, does not mean it will work here. Impling that we are a Western European nation, and not acknowledging the Government fucked about almost everything it touched, makes you loose credibility. There has to be another way, that doesn't involved the feds making it worse than it already is.

Pray do tell me, do you really think a big mac here costs as much as a filet mignon there?

[quote]he basic health insurance you speak of varies greatly between universities. In Arizona, it sure as hell isn't covered within the tuition. Failed. [/quote]

Which makes it a State Issue, not a national one. Failed.

[quote]Luckily, no one has the goal of destroying health care. As for the comparison, the government has responisibility to protect you from crime, fire, and natural disasters for the sake of saving your life, but when it comes to being protected from diseases (amongst other things, obviously), then it's YOUR problem, and if you can't afford the outrageous costs, then you SHOULD be denied care to save your life. [/quote]

The Governement totally doesn't pay for any vaccinations, and will not treat anyone in emergency situations.
Natiural Disastors is a great example, I mean, they did a stand up job in New Orleans, didn't they? I mean people weren't stranded on their roof's for days till they dropped fucking dead, right?

[quote]It would be handed to the government because private companies have already fucked it up, without a doubt. We pay the most, while getting the least. Employers are trying their best to not cover premiums. People are being denied care and dying. Dying! This isn't about politics, this is about saving lives.[/quote]

How would putting the Government in charge of it make it not politics? The Government brought this situation to what it is, and currently pays for for 50% of all health care, bringing it to what is it today. I'm sure you'll save a lot of lives by socializing medicine though, when you have to wait over a year for important surgery. Then you start to wonder why in Canada there is one heart surgery facility for every 2.3 million people, and one for every 300,000 in the US. It has nothing to do with us having more doctors here, does it, because I mean, doctors would come here to make a profit, but that would make them evil right? We should just choke their pay so they hopefully don't flee the nation? I'm sure doctor and facilities shortages save live though.

[quote]And it's very frustrating to use reason with you, Polander. In your eyes, taxes are taxes, until it's taxes for something you don't agree with. Then it's "OMG taking money from other people!". It's not universal health care, it has to be "the federal destruction of health care!"

Maybe if you could come to terms with reality, instead of twisting words, you wouldn't sound like such a dumbfuck.[/quote]

Taxes suck, they are necessary, but they suck. But, that a look at realistic estimates of how much costs would increase if we did something retarded like take away the free market and put in socialist control. However, like I have said before, I love how your argument revolves around name calling and personal insults rather than the subject at hand.

[quote]Also, charity does not and will not ever work, no matter how innately good you think everyone is. Honestly, you sound like pages ripped out of 'Libertarianism in One Lesson'... taxes are theft! Mandatory coercion! Charity as the ideal replacement for government nannystating funded by robbery under threat of jailtime![/quote]

Yup, charities never saved any lives, anywhere. They are structured to actually make sure something gets done with their money either, unlike some other health care providers. We should all just stop giving, if we even ever gave in the first place...

[quote]America is the only developed nation to not have UHC, and is also the only nation in the western hemisphere without it.[/quote]

You say this like it's a bad thing. But obviously, just becuase everyone else is doing means it's the right thing to do. I mean, Cuba doesn't have the highest suicide rate in Latin America becuase of how shitty life is, and the Cuban system isn't so bankrupt that patients don't have to bring their own sheets and stuff to the hosptial, right?

[quote]In England, they pay doctors based on how many lives they save, how many of their patients they convince to stop smoking, etc. In America, they pay HMOs based on how many people they can legally deny insurance.[/quote]

Consdering how many people UHC kills, this could explain so no one wants to be a doctor in England these days and why there is such a shortage.


[quote]
America's government pays for free books from the library, free public schooling, many social programs, and a government-run Postal Service that constantly stays cheaper than their competitors, and we're not "OMG DROWNING IN TAXES!" How would universal health care push us over the edge?[/quote]

Are you trying to compare the cost of the postal service to the cost of running national health care?

In NJ we are drowning in taxes to the point where nearly all of the good payiing jobs left, we have the highest property taxes in the nation, supposedly to pay for our schools, which are still stagnant and lacking, the public ones at least. Our great Governer though has had many innovative plans over theyears however, like shutting down the Lottery and the Casino's for weeks when he would get his new budet raising taxes passed. I mean, it's totally not like the Casino's and Lottery's were only put into place to help pay for education.

[quote]
America provides universal healthcare to prisoners at Guatanamo Bay, most of whom are associated with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but not its own citizens.[/quote]

Walter Reed is the best example of socialized medicine in the continetnal US. I mean, it's great to look at that and see how buearocracy actually handles things

[quote]
Nations with UHC pay, on average, little more in tax money than we do, their doctors make just about the same amount as ours, and their citizens generally have a longer life expectancy.[/quote]

Thats probably the most stupidest statement I've ever heard. Please do, provide sources that our taxes are the same and that our doctors make the same.

Are you daft? They wouldn't work as a replacement for taxes. If you didn't understand that, then obviously you cannot read and this thread is over.

Not that it isn't already over through your brilliant execution of availability heuristics, anthropic biases, irrational escalations and selective perception. The speech sounds the same no matter how you word it, and believe me it isn't getting any better.

In summation:

1) Government cannot be trusted
2) If we don't pay for others' healthcare through taxes, we will voluntarily do it through charity... seriously
3) The market will take care of everything, never mind these things called 'market failures' and 'externalities' which every modern economist agrees justify government intervention
4) 'Libertarianism in One Lesson' says that the government's only role is to protect capital (human and non-human), so it must be true
5) I know the true meaning of the constitution
6) Private healthcare doesn't exist in countries with a national healthcare system, that's why it takes everyone years to get surgery no matter what
7) Everyone can get healthcare, whatever that means--probably something like it's possible that a person in need of healthcare who couldn't afford it at the moment might possibly pick up an authorized blank check addressed to the nearest hospital, so what's the big deal?
8) Charity covers everyone in need--no I don't contribute to it, what's the big deal? Others will. They're like taxes you don't have to pay!
9) The government can't properly run social security, which has something to do with my argument, never mind that most modern economists say social security is one of the bigger successes in US history, solely based on its efficiency and not their own morals
10) US healthcare is #1, statistics be damned!
11) Anyone can succeed in America, land of the free, and those who don't aren't working hard enough, socioeconomic discrepancies and cognitive biases which make 'equal opportunity' as laughable as 'all men are created equal' aside.
12) Taxes are criminal, they take away the right to hoard
13) They're also slavery, because David Bergland said so
14) Cutting taxes would increase the amount contributed to charity by a tangible amount, economic studies disproving the theory of 'government crowd-out' of private savings aside.
15) USA USA USA

Is that about right? I tried not to make it personal, so I cut out a few things like

16) I was lucky enough to win the conception lottery and end up in a well-off household in a first-world nation, so why should I care about others?
17) I'm fucking retarded and wouldn't last a second in 80% of the world's shoes, if I had to switch
18) Jesus am I dumb.

Personally I think the list works better without them, but it was a tough decision either way. Hard to make heads or tails of it for a while.

Argh will you lot stop saying bloody England when you are actually talking about the United Kingdom?

haha. That's a bad habit in the USA. We count Scotland separately.

I know I know. Best way I can explain it though, is that is the sort of faux pas like if I kept calling all of you Oregonians or something. Totally grates. (Are they called Oregonians? I have no idea if you use your states in such a manner. Or what you call each. Ooh I remember one - Texans!)

There is an NHS wing or whatever you want to call it for each country but we are all under the same system.

I don't know what it is for Oregon, but there's a name for people from most if not all states. Generally it's either State Name-ite, or State Name-an, e.g. Wisconsinite, South Dakotan, but there are some exceptions, like New Yorker, or FIP.

or guido, if you live in new jersey

Or "Hoosier" from Indiana and "Buckeye" from Ohio. Oh, and "redneck" from West Virginia. (Kidding.)



I dunno...it might have been a doctor from England in another European nation...he visited like every country in Europe to look at their healthcare, it was kind of hard to keep up with. All I remember is that there was a doctor with an English accent talking about the bonuses he receives for the health of his patients, and saying that basically the better doctor you are the more you get paid.

Even if it's a partial or, hell, even total falsification, though, the fact that HMOs here get bonuses for denying people medical insurance is still ludicrous in and of itself.

Also, thank you Bolt for once again saying basically what I was going to in regards to Polander. However, let me make one slight alteration.

"Providing you with healthcare" =\= "controlling your life." Unless, of course, you omitted "by saving it" from your sentence accidentally.



A few issues with this paragraph:

1. Most nations with UHC also have places that provide privatized health care. It's like community hospitals vs private hospitals here, only it works on every level. There is never a need to leave the country for healthcare, unlike here.

2. Our government hasn't really fucked up all that much, economically speaking. Yes, there are people that abuse our social programs, but that's going to happen no matter what. Dismantling them would only hurt the people who ARE working and need the extra boost. Overall, however, we are economically a very strong nation that has issues just like every other nation does. One weak spot is healthcare, and a step towards fixing that would be making it accessible for everyone.

3. Using "loose," as in "the opposite of tight" when "lose" is the word that fits also makes you lose credibility, along with the laundry list of things Bolt pointed out. This is very minor as compared to the first two...it's just an observation.



I'm not sure if you got the metaphor. In fact, I can't tell if you're taking the metaphor literally or not.



I'm really failing to see what Katrina has to do with healthcare. FEMA wouldn't be in control of our medicine.



Ah, the wait time argument. The biggest and, in my humble opinion, only valid argument against universal health care. The fact is, while it sounds bad, the long wait times that are (SOMETIMES) experienced in UHC countries don't really have a big effect on the health of the patient. There are cases of people dying while waiting for surgery, yes, but there are also cases of that here PLUS cases of people dying because their insurance wouldn't cover the procedure in the first place. Despite these allegations of outrageous wait times, UHC countries still manage to have populations with longer life expectancies than the United States. Couple that with the fact that with most procedures, the wait time isn't anywhere near a year and with all minor procedures it's only a few minutes more than the wait here in America, and the argument begins to lose ground, to say the least.

Also, just to back it up with statistics even though I know they're meaningless to you, go here. Find the United States. Look at the staistics for "life expectancy at birth (years.)" Now, find other first-world countries that have UHC and compare those statistics. I have to say "first world" because I know if I don't, you'll pick an underdeveloped country and come back triumphantly explaining that people in America live longer on average than people in Cuba.



Nobody is suggesting doing away with the free market, just taking medicine out of its hands. However, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the majority of countries with the highest standards of living are in fact either Democratic Socialist or Welfare Capitalist nations, with the Democratic Socialist ones claiming more.



Again, nobody is trying to say that charities aren't a good thing, simply that they don't work as well as you seem to think they do.



See? What did I tell you? Without a first-world specification, you go immediately to Cuba. Cuba's bankruptcy and low quality of life isn't because of UHC, it's in spite of it. Cuba is shitty because the country is poor and has a piss-poor economic system in place. That, and the closest country to them that they could do business with to make themselves richer has a trade embargo against them.



On the contrary, my aunt is a nurse and is constantly depressed because of...bum-ba-da-DUM, how many people she and her practice can't treat because they're uninsured or underinsured. She actually wishes she lived in the United Kingdom (there you go, Dei,) so that she could actually treat all of her patients that need help.



Yes. Consider it for a moment and it's not as silly as it seems.

The USPS employs thousands of workers who make very competitive wages, is not closed on holidays, and has to buy things like mail trucks, buildings, uniforms for their workers, fuel and maintenance for the trucks, etc. etc. etc. And there's not just one center for this, they're ALL OVER THE PLACE in the United States. AND they have to compete with private companies like FedEx and UPS. Yet somehow we're not paying taxes out of our ass to cover all these costs, and the price to use the United States Postal Service is actually much, much cheaper than to use any of their privatized competitors.

Add some variations, and the same is true for public schools (except for the "competitive wages for their teachers" part) and libraries. Somehow, we have all kinds of services like this that are all over the place in our country, and we're not being bled dry by taxes.



New Jersey =\= the United States as a whole.



That scandal wasn't about socialized medicine, it was about flat-out neglect by doctors.

I'm done arguing with you, Polander. Not because you've bested me in debate, but because no matter what I bring up and no matter what sources or statistics I use, and no matter how many times I refute your statements, you rehash the same arguments over and over. Frankly, I'm sick of refuting the same statements post after post without you conceding a single point. If anyone wants to argue INTELLIGENTLY your side of the issue, like Paraphen was doing before you budged in, I'll gladly continue a debate with them, but I'm done with you.

Ok, maybe I'm being misunderstood here, i'm not saying private charity alone can fix the problem, it's just one point i'm making, that while they don't have the necessary funds, they use the funds in the right way, unlike the government. The free market has never accomplished anything good either, and the US totally does not produce a disproportionate amount of life saving drugs and medicines and advamcnets compared to the rest of the world. Again, the only argument I'm getting is personal attacks here, including "hey I'm going to omit these but add them to my list anyways to be funny lolololololol you hate fun times and poor people by not supporting this"

What statistics? Show me statistics that show the US doesn't have the best facilities and best doctors in the entire world. Also, you could start showing me those statistics that disprove the socialized medicine kills more than our own form that I've been asking for for days, or you could show me doctors in the UK make the same as doctors here, all claims I've heard.

Yes, Social Security, created with the intent that nearly no one live to receive it at the time, is a great idea. It is totally not on course to go bankrupt with in our lifetimes, despite what you may hear. Also, being a government program, is has nothing to do with any things the else government may decide to do, everyone know whats. FEMA is another Government that runs so well as to not be compared to anything else the government has done or intends to do. The moral crusades of the government, like the one against poverty that made poverty worse, should not be compared to anything else the government might plan on doing. I'm sure the best way to counter this though is to say I hate humanity and crack on my poor grammar usage which I could frankly give a fuck about when I'm talking on a video game forum. Then again, governmental assistance has always helped, I mean, it's not like health care was cheaper and more accessible before intervention in the 60's

The Government never contributed to any market failures either, and no matter what Bernaki or Greenspan or anyone else may tell you, they did not cause the great depression.



Because giving the government control of your health wouldn't give them control of your life, unless you never get sick, are Chuck Norris, or could only die from getting your head chopped off like Highlander I suppose



I'm sure after paying the ridiculous tax rate affording prviate care is pretty easy to pull off, is it not? When is there a need to leave the country for health care here (assuming here is the US), from what I understand these people only give stuff to their own citizens, unlike us with our 12 million pus. I guess a good reason to go is you were a 400lb fat fucking slob who wanted to go visit Fidel they both hate America just about as much as one another



Less Government control would make it more accesable for everyone



LOL you use bad grammar on a video game website on the internets.



No but I do know that taxes make a glass of wine in Norway cost $16 , or a gallon of gas $9, but hey, we pay the same amount of taxes as they do....right?



No, but it would be brought to you by the same fucking geniuses. Walter Reed is the best example we had of what happens when the government runs health care, but no one here will touch that with a 10 foot pole.



The shortages aren't so bad. I mean, the UK and Canada aren't facing sever doctor shortages...the UK infact has more dentists today than it ever had before. Canadian doctors in 2003 never told people to seek cancer treatment in the US cause of how shitty their system is, and the UK totally does no refuse treatment to people based on age for certain things. In Russia people over 70 aren't refused any kind of health care...no...that's just a myth.


http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story...2098276,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ncancer111.xml
http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story...2076707,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6634837.stm

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=24508 - Obese People and Smokers banned from hospital treatment...but hey....the Government wouldn't have any extra fucking control over your life, would they?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jht...6/26/nold25.xml - 5,000 Elderly a year being killed in UK for not having access to needed beds

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/05/28/...rss#skip300x250
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11

Costs don't go up either, http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePr...984475-sun.html

http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=245732005

Whatever, it's one am and no one here is going to listen to anything anywas, or admit anyone has a differing view than them, I'm sure I'll come back tommorow to find a list of persoanl insults

I find it humorous that people are slinging metaphors left and right, but it seems like everyone misses the point of said metaphors...but they still keep getting used.

I'll give my opinion on the issue: I believe healthcare should be a right for all people. However, I do not think the American government is in a place where it can correctly manage such a system. Given the numerous things that political figures in the American government have managed to corrupt, especially in relation to profits and other financial measures, I don't trust the government to handle such a responsibility well. With time, and clean(er) politicians on both sides of the issue, I do believe a proper system can be put in place. In addition, I don't believe many of the American people have the responsibility to deal with such a system, especially concerning the legal ramifications...as we too have managed to corrupt things financially.

Ultra short: It'd be nice, but a lot of things would have to change, and I don't know how to do it.

You don't know anything about economics. Social Security is not going bankrupt within our lifetimes... the entitlement distributions it gives out are not only inflation-adjusted but also cost-of-living adjusted on a fixed fee schedule... the statistics that every conservative nut busts one over, the ones which state that social security cannot continue to pay out its drafted distributions, fail to reflect that in 2032, Social Security will 'only' be able to pay out some 70% of adjusted benefits, which is still MORE than eligible seniors earn today in real terms. All that will happen is that Social Security will become less of a retiree's total income, which is what free-market pioneers want ANYWAY, right?

Why is 'the Government' referring to the entirety of the US government from 1776 on, anyway? I don't see how every administration could possibly be so similar as to lump them all together. If you wanted to compare across eras, why not point out that tax cuts have always led to recessions and depressions? Many government problems are actually caused by failures on the parts of private contractors commissioned to do the job... and things like the war on drugs are just bad ideas, not badly run... they aren't failing because of government incompetence, but because they were just incompetent things to do in the first place... unlike FEMA, which was working perfectly well before bush, and Social Security, which has already been proved to be working almost flawlessly... and would the market have provided for things like a man on the moon?

The great depression seems to have been caused by the government's lack of confidence in banks, its 'laissez-faire' stance if you will, and seems to have been reversed by a plethora of government spending, the likes of which America had never seen before.

And it seems that government nonintervention only destroys the economy even more in times of stagflation, the likes of which we have today.

Do you know what a market failure is? It's when the FREE MARKET fails to provide the social optimum. By definition, it cannot be caused by governments, only fixed by them.

I'm more conservative than most, thanks in no small part to my neoclassical economic instruction, but what you repeat over and over again is completely unsupported by both academia and reality. Yes, socialist countries have poorer economies than America, but it is in spite of their healthcare system, not in any way because of it. Their problem is a welfare system which reduces any incentives to work in the lower range of market wages (which I might add, America doesn't have much of a problem with since Clinton), not any sense of healthcare entitlement.

The dollar is falling in nominal terms compared to other countries with a national healthcare system, which would seem to imply that our economy is doing worse than theirs in spite of our lack of healthcare funding, but I'm not going to bring it up. Do you know why? It's because CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION, and while my statistic seems to show that a national healthcare system is not a very large economic burden, it is no more relevant to the discussion than all of your cherry-picked statistics. So why don't we just throw all of them out? No one likes to read googled sources anyway.

So let's get to the point. What, exactly is your big grudge against medical spending and it seems, most other government spending (not to mention taxes)? America does innovate more and create more new medicines than other countries, but that's a research and development issue, relevant to our patent system (which by the way impedes the free market) and our secondary education, not our healthcare. Is it that Michael Moore supports it? I know, I know, he bugs me too, but even flies can find honey sometimes... Is it just that you believe in equal opportunity and wish to see it uninhibited by transfer payments? I know it must be hard to come to terms with the fact that who you are in life is largely a function of luck, but what are you going to do? At least we're having this discussion via computers stationed in America rather than Zaire, right?

My view on this whole deal is that whether or not we should have a NHS, people are mostly inclined to support a cause if the majority of their peers are as well... charities fail because of the free-rider problem, unless you could somehow get on a scoreboard for contributing... and it's not like taxes for a certain cause are automatically vested in random corrupt officials' pockets... you just happen to be paying for someone's job as well as someone's welfare, which is sort of like double charity, isn't it? Most of these things are a matter of public record, so if the government really was as corrupt as libertarians like to claim, it would be pretty simple to expose them...

Keep this in mind, though.. the people who need healthcare the most have the most demonstrated need for healthcare, and thus are charged the highest insurance premiums... those people are generally not very well-off, a large part of which being because a healthy lifestyle is pretty expensive, all things considered... and in a free market, private insurance companies can't profit by paying out, but only by denying coverage... When Blue Cross had competition from private insurance companies who took their healthiest clients by charging lower premiums, Blue Cross ended up with less healthy patients, and so had to pay out a larger proportion of its income, which caused it to have to raise premiums and deny coverage... a market system for health insurance actually raises prices, instead of lowering them... there is an intrinsic confict of interest between for-profit insurers and patient care...

The way insurance works is that when you pay into a plan, you're pooling resources with everyone else under that provider, some of whom will use those resources and some who will not. The exact same thing would happen with a government-run program, but on a non-profit basis with costs thusly kept to a minimum. The result is the same, but cheaper.

Insurance works by redistributing risk, where the insurer assuming risk charges a premium based on the probablility of having to pay out, much like bank loans charge rates based on the likelihood of default. But in the case of personal health, 'defaulting' is a little different from failing to pay a loan. We have control over our ability to pay interest, but our personal health is not always in our field of control....

By redistributing the risk premiums themselves across the tax-paying populace (which is what a national healthcare system would do), workers would pay more in taxes but make a higher salary at the same time, as companies would no longer have to provide healthcare benefits, which are equitably charged in the first place...

And the thing is, the government wouldn't be gleaning profits from acting as the insurer for its citizens. Private health insurance overhead hovers around 20% (that is, money skimmed off the top as profits, plus administrative costs), with Medicare overhead a whopping 3%. Now, it may just be me, but I would take 97% efficiency over 80% efficiency any day... plus the potential administrative savings might actually be enough to cover all of the uninsured without increasing spending...

Does a government insurance system mean 'paying for other people's healthcare?'

Paying into a health insurance plan is the same as paying a tax to avoid point of entry fees, as the small possibility that you will pay into health insurance/nhs taxes your entire life without needing healthcare is essentially equal in both systems.

'Why should I pay for other people's healthcare?" is not a valid critique of the UHC system as opposed to the private system, because the same mechanic is at work in the private system: You pay for other's healthcare, even if you never need it yourself.

The question then becomes, "Are there any situations in which equity should take precedence over the rights of the individual?" to which I would say yes, in cases in which equity is necessary in order for an individual to carry out his or her individual rights... in which case national healthcare is much the same as say, national defense (except even more prudent as universal preventive healthcare reduces the negative externality of you catching someone else's infection), and I don't see many people suggesting that we should all fend for ourselves in times of war... can you imagine the upper class being more suited to survive because they were able to purchase more protection from foreign invaders? Now what if the foreign invaders were really, really small? haha...

^^^

tl,dr. Kidding, I actually read it. Very well thought out, but I'll bet Polander will still consider it a personal attack.

I forgot to add this to my previous post,, so Polander, I'll leave you with a simple question:

We already pay for the welfare-abusers to get free healthcare through Medicade...why shouldn't the people that work get it too?

its medicaid it isnt a sports drink

and medicaid mostly benefits children and the elderly and is completely voluntary for each state to participate in. i dont really see the comparison between a possible NHS and medicaid is.

Only being able to pay 70% of something is a problem. I mean, common sense would tell someone that a system designed originally to have 10 people paying for 1 person that will soon be a rate of what, less than 3 to 1, is in some kind of trouble, but hey, I'm sure we just raise taxes to cover everything right, raising whatever billions of dollars won't put much of a strain on the working American.



I agree tax, tax cuts have never, ever led to anything positive. And Great Economic Booms were never followed with recessions or depressions, because of course, the market is not cyclical in nature. This is a very peculiar way of looking at something, I mean everything that was born dies eventually, right? Why mention the middle? Step One: Steal Underwear, Step 3: Profit. Yes, things like wars on drugs are bad ideas, but guess what, I'm sure we'll continue to get many more gems just like them. Some Government problems are cause by incompetence of private contractors, because of course they aren't perfect. However, the bad ones are eventually weeded out through the system. Because, private companies are designed so that the best suited and most efficient survive and thrive, but hey, blank checks from the government never impeeds on their productivity.

And yes, I also agree, George Bush is at fault for New Orleans and FEMA, I mean, one of my friend's even claims to have seen the hurricane machine he used to create Katrina. New Orleans responded fine to problem though, ll those stories you hear of people shooting at ambulances, or of northerners getting turned back by law enforcement in Southern States en route to help are just that, stories. The racist, completely incompetent mayor just did tons to help, including his infamous speech about a chocolate city which didn't even make the news up here.

The Government is capable of good things, they are not entirely evil, but entrusting your health to them is a foolish idea at best. It was great that we put a man on the moon, and we should strive to do it again. However, I think this is the shittiest example one could come up with considering how many times I've heard lately about companies striving to make jets that can bring the people into outer space (and probably soon, the moon).



Well Ben Bernanke has even come out and claimed that the government caused the great depression, but I have the utmost faith that you are more knowledgeable on the subject than the chairman of the federal reserve. Also, modern research tends to show how the New Deal actually made the Great Depression worse, I mean, doubling taxes made it easier for people to gets jobs, and destroying millions of pounds of food just to increase their prices did wonders for the starving poor.



I know what a market failure is, and I also know it's about as real as the Eastern Bunny.



Our Economy vs. their economy is irrelevant like you said, but I agree it's great to say things are irrelevant after using them as a point. The dollar loosing value to the euro totally justifies people waiting over a year for surgeries while the best and brightest go and practice somewhere else or take up a new career.

Also, any story that goes against one's view that may or may not have been found on google (my last few links weren't) should be thrown out.

Unfortunately I'm a little limited on time and I'll have to resume my argument in a few days, but I'd like to thank you for managing to ignore personal insuslts in that post, or at least, from what I've read so far, and the poster below you, I'd like to point out that things like saying "Jesus [Is Polander] Dumb" are, really in ways at all insults directed at one's person.