Does America need nationalized health care?

[bezdomni]

It would be nice.

[wtfm8lol]

i'd rather have as little of my money stolen from me as possible and i'd like to be able to decide who treats me.

[Red October]

universal healthcare should be a priority

[colonelguppy]

we should treat the problems, not the symptons. the more money we throw at healthcare, the more expensive it will be. instead, we should try to make it as affordable as possible instead of just subsidizing it for people.

for example, deregulate the FDA and loosen paten laws around drugs to increase competition and thus lower prices. also, insurance could be made more affordable with tort reform, as well as limiting frivilous lawsuits.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:56 pm
What does everyone think?
No, it is a terrible idea.

If government is going to provide health care, it should be the state governments. That way there are 50 policy laboratories out there coming up with the best ways to provide it. If the federal government provides it, there is monopoly, and that's bad. It is very, very hard to make changes to federal policy, so if the system sucks we're stuck with it forever. On the other hand if the system sucks in my state, I can move to another state.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:04 am
we should treat the problems, not the symptons. the more money we throw at healthcare, the more expensive it will be. instead, we should try to make it as affordable as possible instead of just subsidizing it for people.
The US government actually spends more money on healthcare per capita than any of the Western countries that have nationalized healthcare.

A healthcare market is one of the most inefficient and arbitrary markets you can possibly have, due to such things as highly imperfect information, oligopolistic tendencies, etc. Simply put, the consumer has no way to evaluate the relative quality of two products being offered on this market (if you go to two doctors and they give you two different treatments, there's no way for you to tell which is better), so consumer choice depends almost entirely on hearsay and (mis)information from advertising. Also, because it takes so much training to become a doctor, the health market has a tendency to develop guild-like structures that limit competition, put up barriers to entry and do all sorts of other things to screw up the perfect market model.

[Jazzratt]

Yes it does and it needs one more efficiently run than the British system - this means doing away with private healthcare and all that bollocks for starters.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:40 am
Yes it does and it needs one more efficiently run than the British system - this means doing away with private healthcare and all that bollocks for starters.
Go whack and then post how you'd run it "more efficiently".

I'm sure swearing will be an integral part of the plan?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 13, 2007 02:38 am

A healthcare market is one of the most inefficient and arbitrary markets you can possibly have,
We don't really have a free market system in this country, our insurance is mostly supplied by our employers.

And, our government is very heavily involved in what little of the "market" there actually is.

Explain if you would how a government-run monopoly would ensure "perfect information", given that government policymakers won't even have perfect information as they develop and implement the policy.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 12, 2007 09:38 pm--> (Edric O @ April 12, 2007 09:38 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 04:04 am
we should treat the problems, not the symptons. the more money we throw at healthcare, the more expensive it will be. instead, we should try to make it as affordable as possible instead of just subsidizing it for people.
The US government actually spends more money on healthcare per capita than any of the Western countries that have nationalized healthcare.

A healthcare market is one of the most inefficient and arbitrary markets you can possibly have, due to such things as highly imperfect information, oligopolistic tendencies, etc. Simply put, the consumer has no way to evaluate the relative quality of two products being offered on this market (if you go to two doctors and they give you two different treatments, there's no way for you to tell which is better), so consumer choice depends almost entirely on hearsay and (mis)information from advertising. Also, because it takes so much training to become a doctor, the health market has a tendency to develop guild-like structures that limit competition, put up barriers to entry and do all sorts of other things to screw up the perfect market model. [/b]
exactly.... which is why we need to deregulate and make the health care market more competitive in the ways i described.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

exactly.... which is why we need to deregulate and make the health care market more competitive in the ways i described.

So the people will have to choose between groceries and medical care and the companies will have to choose between marketing or doctors?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:39 am


exactly.... which is why we need to deregulate and make the health care market more competitive in the ways i described.

So the people will have to choose between groceries and medical care and the companies will have to choose between marketing or doctors?
no, because healthcare will be cheaper...

[Capcomm]

i think it should be like Canada , lol thats all i know

[colonelguppy]

so we should have to wait in line for anything more than basic treatments and medications?

[Demogorgon]

I should point out that the US spends more per capita on healthcare than every country with state run healthcare, and has a lower standard of the same than most western countries with it. Kind of makes the idea that private healthcare is cheaper and more efficient look untenable, doesn't it?

You really have to be completely caught up in capitalist dogma to think private healthcare is a better way to provide it.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by patton+April 13, 2007 02:56 pm--> (patton @ April 13, 2007 02:56 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 02:40 am
Yes it does and it needs one more efficiently run than the British system - this means doing away with private healthcare and all that bollocks for starters.
I have for you guys who live in England do you have to pay anything for any treatments? [/b]
Not for medical treatment. Though we have to pay a charge for our prescriptions. (£6.80 in Scotland). Dental care we do have to payfro though the NHS subsidises it, and if you are a pensioner or under eighteen or on low income you don't have to pay either (same with prescriptions). Some [people find it difficult to find an NHS dentist though. Opticians though aren't much good any more as far as the NHS goes.

But anyway for all consultations with the Doctor, surgery, general medical treatment and just about anything else I didn't mention, all of that is free.

Edit: I think Wales has abolished the prescription charges

[Publius]

Yes, we do need a national health care system. Market systems don't work well for health care.

The people who need it can't get it, and the people who can get it don't need it, in an idealized market.

[More Fire for the People]

'America' isn't a single unit. There's the underclasses and the ruling class, and fuck the rich they already have quality health care. The workers, the students, & the lumpenproletariat need to work togethor to start a movement for free, quality health care for the underclasses. No paying for prescriptions, treatments, checkups, & all other forms of health care — ever.

[RNK]

A few years back my mother developed a brain tumour of some sort that partially paralyzed her. Within a few years she had had dozens of MRIs, cat scans, x-rays, etc -- which, in America, probably would've cost her tens of thousands of dollars or so, as at the time she didn't have a good job that could've provided her insurance. What did she pay here in Canada? $0.

Private healthcare is only beneficial for the upper class. For everyone else, it can literally cost an arm and a leg.

Yeah, bad pun.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 13, 2007 03:06 pm
'America' isn't a single unit. There's the underclasses and the ruling class, and fuck the rich they already have quality health care. The workers, the students, & the lumpenproletariat need to work togethor to start a movement for free, quality health care for the underclasses. No paying for prescriptions, treatments, checkups, & all other forms of health care — ever.
I think you're looking at things incorrectly, the problem is that the rich have access to higher quality healthcare through private healthcare. If the ruling class had to use the same healthcare service as those below them then they would have a much greater interest in running it efficiently.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 13, 2007 10:13 am--> (Jazzratt @ April 13, 2007 10:13 am)
Hopscotch [email protected] 13, 2007 03:06 pm
'America' isn't a single unit. There's the underclasses and the ruling class, and fuck the rich they already have quality health care. The workers, the students, & the lumpenproletariat need to work togethor to start a movement for free, quality health care for the underclasses. No paying for prescriptions, treatments, checkups, & all other forms of health care — ever.
I think you're looking at things incorrectly, the problem is that the rich have access to higher quality healthcare through private healthcare. If the ruling class had to use the same healthcare service as those below them then they would have a much greater interest in running it efficiently. [/b]
We could do that, or we could threaten to strike and riot whenever we feel like it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+April 13, 2007 04:51 pm--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ April 13, 2007 04:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]April 13, 2007 10:13 am

Hopscotch [email protected] 13, 2007 03:06 pm
'America' isn't a single unit. There's the underclasses and the ruling class, and fuck the rich they already have quality health care. The workers, the students, & the lumpenproletariat need to work togethor to start a movement for free, quality health care for the underclasses. No paying for prescriptions, treatments, checkups, & all other forms of health care — ever.
I think you're looking at things incorrectly, the problem is that the rich have access to higher quality healthcare through private healthcare. If the ruling class had to use the same healthcare service as those below them then they would have a much greater interest in running it efficiently.
We could do that, or we could threaten to strike and riot whenever we feel like it. [/b]
No shit. But that's like saying America doesn't need national healthcare it needs a revolution to bring about a stateless classless society, it's true but not immediately useful.

[Publius]

i'd rather have as little of my money stolen from me as possible and i'd like to be able to decide who treats me.

So you support nationalized health care. Great.

[Tungsten]

The people who need it can't get it, and the people who can get it don't need it, in an idealized market.
I thought my idea about the NHS being for low-income earners only, with those above a certain income having to pay for their own, was a good one.

But seriously, you don't want to have to rely on nationalised healthcare if you can afford the alternative. Especially not if ours is anything to go by.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:40 pm

The people who need it can't get it, and the people who can get it don't need it, in an idealized market.
I thought my idea about the NHS being for low-income earners only, with those above a certain income having to pay for their own, was a good one.

But seriously, you don't want to have to rely on nationalised healthcare if you can afford the alternative. Especially not if ours is anything to go by.
Except that the World Health Organisation considers Britain's healthcare system to be vastly superior than America's. Hmm...

[Tungsten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:22 pm



Except that the World Health Organisation considers Britain's healthcare system to be vastly superior than America's. Hmm...
Perhaps the world health organisation would have been better comparing British private healthcare with what you're likely to get from the NHS. I've seen both and there's no contest.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Tungsten+April 14, 2007 10:36 am--> (Tungsten @ April 14, 2007 10:36 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 08:22 pm



Except that the World Health Organisation considers Britain's healthcare system to be vastly superior than America's. Hmm...
Perhaps the world health organisation would have been better comparing British private healthcare with what you're likely to get from the NHS. I've seen both and there's no contest. [/b]
Britain's private health care is a smaller sector of healthcare designed for those who can afford it and is neither intended or capable of dealing with large numbers of people. It would be abysmal if it were trying to deal with anything other than the well off who can afford it.

At any rate all the doctors I know claim that the standard of care you get is either the same as or worse than that which you would get on the NHS, you just get seen faster (less people using it, of course you will be) and get a icer bed when you are in hospital.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:55 am
I should point out that the US spends more per capita on healthcare than every country with state run healthcare, and has a lower standard of the same than most western countries with it. Kind of makes the idea that private healthcare is cheaper and more efficient look untenable, doesn't it?

You really have to be completely caught up in capitalist dogma to think private healthcare is a better way to provide it.
Your simplistic statement is not entirely accurate.


It is true that we do pay more than every other country. We with insurance pay more because we get the best care right away. We are willing to pay more in the U.S. to receive care right away than we would be to wait for weeks or months for specialists or surgery as we'd have to do in Canada or Europe. In fact that waiting is the reason government-provided services are not as effective or well-liked as private sector-provided services.

Now, the problem with our system is that it costs more to get the best quickly, so those who cannot afford it can't pay. And that creates a spiral, because insurance requires a pool to spread risk. When people drop out, the pool gets smaller and the price per member goes up, and so on.

Now, the reason our health statistics are worse than the rest of the world is our lifestyle, not our medical care. We eat more, we eat worse, and we're lazier. We drive everywhere while the rest of the world walks to the bus or the train station. That kind of lifestyle, of course, requires us to use more medical care which helps speed the spiral described above.

What this county really needs to do is de-couple health insurance from employment. Employers face 5-15% increases annually in our health insurance costs, which means our raises are smaller, which is why our wealth inequality is so bad.

The problem with completely privatizing health insurance is, as I mentioned above, it requires a large risk pool to share the high costs we would be willing to pay to keep our timely health care vs. your waiting for rationed, socialized medicine. So what would likely happen is that a few large health insurers would dominate the market. But that might work, so long as there is a government program to help those who cannot afford insurance on their own.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:42 am

Your simplistic statement is not entirely accurate.


It is true that we do pay more than every other country. We with insurance pay more because we get the best care right away. We are willing to pay more in the U.S. to receive care right away than we would be to wait for weeks or months for specialists or surgery as we'd have to do in Canada or Europe. In fact that waiting is the reason government-provided services are not as effective or well-liked as private sector-provided services.

Now, the problem with our system is that it costs more to get the best quickly, so those who cannot afford it can't pay. And that creates a spiral, because insurance requires a pool to spread risk. When people drop out, the pool gets smaller and the price per member goes up, and so on.

Now, the reason our health statistics are worse than the rest of the world is our lifestyle, not our medical care. We eat more, we eat worse, and we're lazier. We drive everywhere while the rest of the world walks to the bus or the train station. That kind of lifestyle, of course, requires us to use more medical care which helps speed the spiral described above.

What this county really needs to do is de-couple health insurance from employment. Employers face 5-15% increases annually in our health insurance costs, which means our raises are smaller, which is why our wealth inequality is so bad.

The problem with completely privatizing health insurance is, as I mentioned above, it requires a large risk pool to share the high costs we would be willing to pay to keep our timely health care vs. your waiting for rationed, socialized medicine. So what would likely happen is that a few large health insurers would dominate the market. But that might work, so long as there is a government program to help those who cannot afford insurance on their own.
This argument's problem is that it does not bear relation to the facts. First of all, if America shows up badly because of poor lifestyle, then surely Scotland must have an abysmal showing? Incredible levels of alcoholism, no exercise, heavy smoking and a diet that makes Big Mac and Fries look like a healthy option. We have the least healthy lifestyle in Europe but quite a margin and are worse than America too in lots of ways and even catching up on obesity, the category where you were once unassailable.

Yet we rank as having better healthcare.

We also have better waiting times for treatment. I can generally see the Doctor the same day I make an appointment, you can't manage that in America.

Now of course you could turn around and say that well Scotland might have an unusually good healthcare system (and it is THE highest priority of government here) but others do not do so wel, but again as I say many other countries with state healthcare rank above America in terms of quality of care and again all are paying a lower amount of GDP on our health system (and believe me, none of us Europeans are health freeks).

Now of course, suppose I don't like this rather good NHS, I still have the option of private healthcare, there is a full private healthcare industry in this country, but most people don't bother with it, nor do they tend to bother with it in other countries with state run healthcare (apart from the very rich) which seems to disprove your assertion that such systems are better liked. As I understand it, the quality of care I get might even be lower if I were to use private healthcare. I would have the solace of lyin in a more expensive bed though.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:04 am
This argument's problem is that it does not bear relation to the facts. First of all, if America shows up badly because of poor lifestyle, then surely Scotland must have an abysmal showing? Incredible levels of alcoholism, no exercise, heavy smoking and a diet that makes Big Mac and Fries look like a healthy option. We have the least healthy lifestyle in Europe but quite a margin and are worse than America too in lots of ways and even catching up on obesity, the category where you were once unassailable.

Yet we rank as having better healthcare.


You may be partially right, as this recent Rand Corp study (http://www.rand.org/news/press.06/05.02.html) suggests - our poor lifestyle explains less than half the difference. Though I have seen other studies that indicate we Americans eat worse food - and remember ours is often processed to death - and live worse than most people.

Other reviews of the literature indicate that nobody really knows what causes your health to be "better" when similar groups are analyzed. It could very well be an attitude difference - we Americans won't go to the doctor unless we're sick, for instance.



We also have better waiting times for treatment. I can generally see the Doctor the same day I make an appointment, you can't manage that in America.

We have that here for primary care, I don't remember ever having to wait more than 1-2 days for an appointment.


Now of course, suppose I don't like this rather good NHS, I still have the option of private healthcare, there is a full private healthcare industry in this country, but most people don't bother with it, nor do they tend to bother with it in other countries with state run healthcare (apart from the very rich) which seems to disprove your assertion that such systems are better liked. As I understand it, the quality of care I get might even be lower if I were to use private healthcare. I would have the solace of lyin in a more expensive bed though.

My apologies for my provincialism, I meant that being made to wait for service would not be well liked here in the U.S. We want the best and we want it now, we're not as willing to wait as those in Canada and Europe appear to be. We also distrust government a lot more than do you folks.

I concede of course that the socialized system works better and is cheaper overall. I think we're headed for that here, though I'd rather it were run by states instead of the feds.

[pusher robot]

I can generally see the Doctor the same day I make an appointment, you can't manage that in America.

Baloney. I don't even have to make an appointment. I go to a walk-in clinic and see a doctor within 30 minutes. Only if I want to see a specialist do I have to schedule an appointment.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 06:21 pm

I can generally see the Doctor the same day I make an appointment, you can't manage that in America.

Baloney. I don't even have to make an appointment. I go to a walk-in clinic and see a doctor within 30 minutes. Only if I want to see a specialist do I have to schedule an appointment.
Yeah, because you can fucking afford it, bourgeois prick.

The whole system of private healthcare is fucking backwards because the impoverished are at greater risk of disease and are therefore liable to have to pay more. Whilst rich ****s like you can swan about in walk-in clinics complaining that you have a crick in your fucking neck from looking down on the working classes.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 16, 2007 07:41 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 16, 2007 07:41 pm)
pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 06:21 pm

I can generally see the Doctor the same day I make an appointment, you can't manage that in America.

Baloney. I don't even have to make an appointment. I go to a walk-in clinic and see a doctor within 30 minutes. Only if I want to see a specialist do I have to schedule an appointment.
Yeah, because you can fucking afford it, bourgeois prick.

The whole system of private healthcare is fucking backwards because the impoverished are at greater risk of disease and are therefore liable to have to pay more. Whilst rich ****s like you can swan about in walk-in clinics complaining that you have a crick in your fucking neck from looking down on the working classes. [/b]
You argument fails from the fact that I am not rich by any commonly-used definition, unless having health insurance ipso facto makes one rich, nor am I an owner of capital. I can use a walk-in clinic because my HMO, responding to the market reality that primary care is cheaper than emergency care, provides one and encourages people to use it.

[inquisitive_socialist]

actually clinics have little or nothing to do with private medicine. clinics provide walk in care to those who walk in.also, clinics represent a vital part of medical care for those who can't afford a primary care provider. if you have no insurance and no doctor, you can still walk into a clinic. maybe, instead of flaming someone down without thought, people should read and think and evaluate a statement, then make their own based on the conclusions they came to. clinic provided medical care has little to nothing to do with privatized medicine. clinics offer medical care, generally, to the poor and truly needy. which is why they recieve little financial support from the federal or state government.

[Tungsten]

Yeah, because you can fucking afford it, bourgeois prick.
Basic private health insurance can be bought for as little as £10 a month, so I guess the people who "can fucking afford it" are more numerous than you care to admit.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:25 pm

Yeah, because you can fucking afford it, bourgeois prick.
Basic private health insurance can be bought for as little as £10 a month, so I guess the people who "can fucking afford it" are more numerous than you care to admit.
Or Jazzratt is really fucking poor.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 17, 2007 03:07 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 17, 2007 03:07 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 02:25 pm

Yeah, because you can fucking afford it, bourgeois prick.
Basic private health insurance can be bought for as little as £10 a month, so I guess the people who "can fucking afford it" are more numerous than you care to admit.
Or Jazzratt is really fucking poor. [/b]
What the hell is it with you and ridiculous personal attacks?

Basic care is not my primary issue with private healthcare. Having to, basically, pay for the "privilege" of breathing is my problem with it. When your surgery, time in hospital and everything is costing money then you're buggered if you have to go in for long-term treatment.

Thank fuck for Nationalised Health. With it I am alive and my family are not paying off the two years I had to spend in hospital when I was young.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 17, 2007 03:17 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 17, 2007 03:17 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:07 pm

[email protected] 17, 2007 02:25 pm

Yeah, because you can fucking afford it, bourgeois prick.
Basic private health insurance can be bought for as little as £10 a month, so I guess the people who "can fucking afford it" are more numerous than you care to admit.
Or Jazzratt is really fucking poor.
What the hell is it with you and ridiculous personal attacks?

Basic care is not my primary issue with private healthcare. Having to, basically, pay for the "privilege" of breathing is my problem with it. When your surgery, time in hospital and everything is costing money then you're buggered if you have to go in for long-term treatment.

Thank fuck for Nationalised Health. With it I am alive and my family are not paying off the two years I had to spend in hospital when I was young. [/b]
I don't necessarily disagree with you in principle, however surely you understand that regardless of what system you create, that health care is not "free". It requires resources and labor that could have been used on something else, you understand.

[pusher robot]

What the hell is it with you and ridiculous personal attacks?

That's rich, considering you even quoted the part where you harshly castigated me for having the temerity to go to an HMO-provided walk-in clinic.

[Tungsten]

Thank fuck for Nationalised Health. With it I am aliveWe should be thankful for that?

and my family are not paying off the two years I had to spend in hospital when I was young.Too true; some other sucker is. How truly selfish.

You'd make a good member of the bourgeoise.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:28 pm

Thank fuck for Nationalised Health. With it I am aliveWe should be thankful for that?
You, personally, probably shouldn't.



and my family are not paying off the two years I had to spend in hospital when I was young.Too true; some other sucker is. How truly selfish.
Most people can pay taxes and not be in debt. It's usually corporate con-artists that put people in debt.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:37 pm
It's usually corporate con-artists that put people in debt.
Aside from health care needs, I cannot think of a single purchase made by individuals that might put them into debt that was made against their will.

Can you?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 18, 2007 03:17 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 18, 2007 03:17 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 02:37 pm
It's usually corporate con-artists that put people in debt.
Aside from health care needs, I cannot think of a single purchase made by individuals that might put them into debt that was made against their will.

Can you? [/b]
Hence "con-artist" you embarrassingly useless gobshite. A con artist convinces their mark that their confidence trick is in that person's genuine interest and can therefore steal someone's money with that person willingly giving it over.

If you say "socialism is a con trick" or some other stereotypical bollocks I'll know exactly how seriously I should have been taking you all this time.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 18, 2007 05:38 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 18, 2007 05:38 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:17 pm

[email protected] 18, 2007 02:37 pm
It's usually corporate con-artists that put people in debt.
Aside from health care needs, I cannot think of a single purchase made by individuals that might put them into debt that was made against their will.

Can you?
Hence "con-artist" you embarrassingly useless gobshite. A con artist convinces their mark that their confidence trick is in that person's genuine interest and can therefore steal someone's money with that person willingly giving it over.

If you say "socialism is a con trick" or some other stereotypical bollocks I'll know exactly how seriously I should have been taking you all this time. [/b]
How were people conned?

They really didn't want or need the thing they bought?

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:40 pm


i'd rather have as little of my money stolen from me as possible and i'd like to be able to decide who treats me.

So you support nationalized health care. Great.
i support whatever gets me the best health care at the lowest price and which works the quickest. if that's nationalized health care, thats fine by me.

[RNK]

Why is your money so important, though?

[wtfm8lol]

because i like being able to spend it on other things, if it is at all possible.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:42 pm
There are over 43 million Americans without any health insurance at all and that is not counting people like my mother with crap insurance.
well not everyone wants or needs health insurance, but it certainly doesn't help that our court laws push the price of insurance up.

[whoknows]

I'm a health care worker in the usa and as I have written before on another thread, America is the land of the free and the home of the brave because if you are sick and can't afford the out of control health insurance then you have to be brave because you are free to go out in to the street and die.

I would like to get the stock market out of the healthcare industry. When the means of production are held by the stock market the only purpose of production is stock price. As it is now medicine in the USA is a means of jacking up stock price.

The frist (and most easy) change that I would like to see is the production of vaccines done by the state. There isn't all that much proffit in vaccines and that would not be missed by the finaciers.

The goal should be the expansion of the Medicare systom to cover brith to death and inculde part C. Parts A and B already exist and cover out patient exams and proceedures and hospitalizations. Part C would clover prescription drugs. And the co-playments would be reduced according to the ablity of the patient to pay. Right now while medicare is a life saver, it's playments are not 100% of charges that should also be corrected. Funding could come from all the premimums that employers and employs now pay. There would be another benifit as, now patients with good insurance coverage are overcharged and the excess is back doored to subisdise the uninsured, who's emerangcy care is mandated by law.

Then nationalized the damn drug companies outright. They're nothing but crooks.
And for you readers in the Europe. Watch out for proposed changes which would allow drug advertising on TV. There is no need for it, it's dangerous and it may be coming at you because it makes money.

[Tungsten]

Then nationalized the damn drug companies outright. They're nothing but crooks.
Won't that then make the nationalisers crooks? Nationalisation, after all, usually involves state siezure of property.

And for you readers in the Europe. Watch out for proposed changes which would allow drug advertising on TV. There is no need for it, it's dangerous and it may be coming at you because it makes money.
How is adverising drugs dangerous? Because its used for making money? All adverising must be dangerous then. So much for freedom of speech.

[Dr Mindbender]

Every country should have nationalised health care. Take the Cuban model, for example.

[socialistfuture]

Let Cuba run america's healthcare :P

[whoknows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:40 pm
[How is adverising drugs dangerous?
Adversiting prescription drugs to the public is done to create an artifical demand for those drugs, which may not be nessary for the patients health. But people seeing the advert.s are hoped to start asking their doctors for them and we all know (or I hope we do) how drug resistant bacteria became so common.
Drug companies patent trade name drugs and then reap huge profits from them until the patent runs out and anyone can start making the genaric form of the drug. Drug companies waste huge amounts of money, (which could be used on more productive research) tweeking the structure of their trade name drugs so when the patient runs out, hey presto! here's a 'new drug" being touted as much better than the old for a big price and it's realy no better. But then it is advertised and demand is created.
And take sleep aids. Most over the counter antihistamines should make anyone drousy enought to fall asleep. But there is an adverstising campain on in the US to make persons think they NEED a durg to have normal sleep. Then they go to some week kneed doc. and get it. You never see them advertise furosemide, a very old very vaulable drug used in the treatment of heart failure but it cost so little to make that some companies just stopped making it.

As for nationalization, remove the profit motive and the crooks look else where, as Willie Sutton said when asked why he robed bank, ". . . that's were the money is."
The money is now in the stock market and that's where the crooks roost.

[whoknows]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 30, 2007 12:22 am
Every country should have nationalised health care. Take the Cuban model, for example.
or France.
And doesn't the repubic of ireland have a good systom too? Or is my information on ireland out of date?

[whoknows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:20 pm

surely you understand that regardless of what system you create, that health care is not "free". It requires resources and labor that could have been used on something else, you understand.
Like puting a man on the moon? That was paid for.
Or how about spending a billion a week on a failed oil raid?
Resorces are there they need to be directed to the most benitificial use.

[Anarchovampire]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:56 pm
What does everyone think?
Absolutely, all human being are entitled to life, and the betterment of their own lives.


And doesn't the repubic of ireland have a good systom too? Or is my information on ireland out of date?
If I remember correctly, Ireland has been ranked amongst the top ten best places to live in the range of quality of life, political freedom etc. I definitally love their voting system.

[red team]

Then nationalized the damn drug companies outright. They're nothing but crooks.
Won't that then make the nationalisers crooks? Nationalisation, after all, usually involves state siezure of property.

Only when it's legally enshrined then they are not crooks. Afterall, massive monopolies came about from conquest and maintained through exploitation. Empires throughout history down to the present are created and maintained in this way. The state simply provides the security guards for these "crooks" to do their business.

Besides, if Libertarians are true to their ideology of non-initiation of force they're simply hypocrites for many situations where those who gain an advantage in parting with their legal holdings never initiated force in the process of doing it. Cunning, stealth and trickery could just as well be used to part money from a wealthy Capitalist, but I'm willing to wager my life savings over the very likely outcome of the red-faced Capitalist screaming to have the burglar or scam artist beaten up and thrown in jail even though force was never initiated in the removal of their wealth. Trickery and stealth, yes, but not force. But, Libertarians being the hypocrites that they are would not have it any other way.



And for you readers in the Europe. Watch out for proposed changes which would allow drug advertising on TV. There is no need for it, it's dangerous and it may be coming at you because it makes money.
How is adverising drugs dangerous? Because its used for making money? All adverising must be dangerous then. So much for freedom of speech.

If you actually live in the real world then you would realize that profit making companies are first and foremost obligated to their shareholders which means that benefit to the public is only a hindrance to their profit making if they are to sue the company over false claims and harm caused by their products.

That means in the crude financial calculations of profit over losses the effects of death or injury causing "side-effects" for some customers of any of their products are just a cost of doing business if it works or if the side-effects are non-obvious, but accumulative for the rest of the customers.

Example, nicotine as found in all cigarettes itself is a drug and also a known cancer causing carcinogen. Is it going to kill you if you take the first hit of nicotine? Not likley. The affects of toxic chemicals are accumulative, so if the customers come after the company there always plausable deniability over a dangerous product actually causing injury or death.

So much for truth in advertising

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:49 am
i'd rather have as little of my money stolen from me as possible and i'd like to be able to decide who treats me.
You fucking selfish git, you are an absolute ****. Does it not bother you that while you can afford to pay for your health care, a little old man, or a small girl of a working-class background, or even a tramp on the streets, cannot pay for the operation that might save their lives? Simply because you favour privatisation. Let's hope you end up bankrupt, and are unable to pay for an operation to save your life. You are the biggest twat of all the people on the OI forum, that's including pusher robot and capitalist lawyer.

[Publius]

How is adverising drugs dangerous? Because its used for making money? All adverising must be dangerous then. So much for freedom of speech.

Because drugs are dangerous if used improperly and the only people who know how to properly use and administer complex chemicals are trained professionals.

Advertising health-affecting drugs the same way you advertise soap is a ridiculous notion. It doesn't one matter one bit which soap you buy, in the grand scheme. Soap is soap. But if you "ask your doctor" for some drug that you self-diagnose of a TV ad, and he's a stupid enough to listen to you, what have you just accomplished? Can you not see the danger in this practice? With drugs that give 'symptoms' like "feeling tired"? Well, shit, I feel tired during the day sometimes, I guess I Lunesta to help me go to sleep! Except that I could very easily get addicted to Lunesta, which would fuck me up nicely in regard to sleep patterns.

Health decisions should be made by health professionals. This whole idea of 'consumer democracy', that people should be free to buy whatever they want is fallacious, because people don't know what they want, they know what they're told, and since they don't go to medical school, they're told to buy drugs and damn the consequences. Bad idea.

Freedom of speech, in this case, means freedom to convince people to hurt themselves, and that shouldn't be allowed.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Sick people don't want choice. They want to get better.

[fashbasher 5000]

I live in Canada and would like to respond to the issue of long wait times.
I don't know much about the situation in other provinces, but Alberta has had a conservative government since the early 20th century. Our last premier, Ralph Klein, was intent on dismantling our public health system to make private health care more appealing. This included demolishing existing hospitals and reducing funding for health care.
Now, it seems to have worked: if it weren't for the the federal government, we would have at least a P3 system if not full free market health care.
Our new premier is a spineless idiot. We can only hope that the next one will actually have the balls to do something about the shameful state of our health system.

[MarcX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:49 am
i'd rather have as little of my money stolen from me as possible and i'd like to be able to decide who treats me.
what if you get cancer and your insurance denies your care lol.

the problem with profit seaking companys in the case of care is that they loose money treating. its as simple as that

In some other socialized healthcare system countrys they spend money to keep you healthy so they dont have to spend money later

unlike the usa where they dont help you before because it cost money and wont help you later because it cost money.

[CornetJoyce]

This stuff about the "cost" of socialized medicine is inane. American healthcare as of 2006 costs 14.% of gross domestic product while the average for the other member nations in the OECD is 7.8%. far from saving money through pain and suffering, Americans pay an 82% premium for it.


Okay, so you're affluent and healthy and you can afford the best insurance. You can afford the best restaurants. But what untreated diseases does the kitchen help have? Does your nanny have good health care? Tuberculosis was extinct in america until the shelters overflowed so that you could save money, and tuberculosis reappeared... in a NY shelter. All the people who make your swinish life so pleasant are vulnerable, but maybe they're just carriers, eh?

[wtfm8lol]

You fucking selfish git, you are an absolute ****. Does it not bother you that while you can afford to pay for your health care, a little old man, or a small girl of a working-class background, or even a tramp on the streets, cannot pay for the operation that might save their lives? Simply because you favour privatisation. Let's hope you end up bankrupt, and are unable to pay for an operation to save your life. You are the biggest twat of all the people on the OI forum, that's including pusher robot and capitalist lawyer.

it does bother me, if you really care to know. i simply disagree with your idea that the problem is best solved by piling more money into the government. they've demonstrated consistently that they're incapable of running anything as efficiently as private firms can when unrestricted. it makes more sense to me to allow people to pick which firms they think are doing the best job, rather than forcing everyone to pay into one big firm which doesn't really care how efficient or effective it is. i strongly favor charitable donations over legalized thievery in aiding the disadvantaged, because charitable donations enforce compassion rather than resentment towards the ones on the receiving end and because they allow the best health providers to succeed, as few people will voluntarily donate to one that will give the recipients poor service or that will unwisely spend the money.


So fuck those 43 million Americans who dont have insurance because you dont want to pay more taxes?? mad.gif

when did i say that? i'd simply like more control over what happens to my money.


what if you get cancer and your insurance denies your care lol.

lol do you think i would pay an insurer that would refuse to pay for my care?


the problem with profit seaking companys in the case of care is that they loose money treating. its as simple as that

that's completely untrue. they lose money immediately, but if they get a reputation for providing excellent service they gain far, far more money than they gave up in the first place.


unlike the usa where they dont help you before because it cost money and wont help you later because it cost money.

if your insurer acts like this, i suggest that you switch to another insurer. i also suggest that you read your policy this time.

[luxemburg89]

it does bother me, if you really care to know. i simply disagree with your idea that the problem is best solved by piling more money into the government. they've demonstrated consistently that they're incapable of running anything as efficiently as private firms can when unrestricted. it makes more sense to me to allow people to pick which firms they think are doing the best job, rather than forcing everyone to pay into one big firm which doesn't really care how efficient or effective it is. i strongly favor charitable donations over legalized thievery in aiding the disadvantaged, because charitable donations enforce compassion rather than resentment towards the ones on the receiving end and because they allow the best health providers to succeed, as few people will voluntarily donate to one that will give the recipients poor service or that will unwisely spend the money.


You're that stupid to think that there is enough money coming in from philanthropists to fund healthcare for everyone? Remember we are talking about those at the 'bottom of society'. They do not have the money to pay for healthcare at all, and there is not enough money coming in from charities to fund all of them. You are concerning yourself with your own selfish society, that has money, now imagine one without. You arrogant Capitalists always concern yourself with your own country, we're talking about the bigger, more important, picture of the world. People in Africa don't need charity, that's a pathetic idea, they need a revolution of the world order to have any chance of surviving. I cannot believe anyone, though you make it blindingly obvious, would believe that the poor should be forced to survive on the crumbs from your table and the scraps that you throw them.

[MarcX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:40 pm

Then nationalized the damn drug companies outright. They're nothing but crooks.
Won't that then make the nationalisers crooks? Nationalisation, after all, usually involves state siezure of property.

And for you readers in the Europe. Watch out for proposed changes which would allow drug advertising on TV. There is no need for it, it's dangerous and it may be coming at you because it makes money.
How is adverising drugs dangerous? Because its used for making money? All adverising must be dangerous then. So much for freedom of speech.
Well before they recently re- legalized advertising drugs in the USA it was illegal because it makes some people ask for certain drugs for there problems when the ideal way to receive drugs to tell your doctor problems and he gives you medicine instead of havening advertising giving you a bias to buy one drug over one you haven't heard of

[MarcX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:57 pm



what if you get cancer and your insurance denies your care lol.

lol do you think i would pay an insurer that would refuse to pay for my care?
I think once your care becomes an issue they will look for a way not to treat you.

Hmo medical reviewers get more moneybased on there rate of denials

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:56 pm

it does bother me, if you really care to know. i simply disagree with your idea that the problem is best solved by piling more money into the government. they've demonstrated consistently that they're incapable of running anything as efficiently as private firms can when unrestricted. it makes more sense to me to allow people to pick which firms they think are doing the best job, rather than forcing everyone to pay into one big firm which doesn't really care how efficient or effective it is. i strongly favor charitable donations over legalized thievery in aiding the disadvantaged, because charitable donations enforce compassion rather than resentment towards the ones on the receiving end and because they allow the best health providers to succeed, as few people will voluntarily donate to one that will give the recipients poor service or that will unwisely spend the money.


You're that stupid to think that there is enough money coming in from philanthropists to fund healthcare for everyone? Remember we are talking about those at the 'bottom of society'. They do not have the money to pay for healthcare at all, and there is not enough money coming in from charities to fund all of them. You are concerning yourself with your own selfish society, that has money, now imagine one without. You arrogant Capitalists always concern yourself with your own country, we're talking about the bigger, more important, picture of the world. People in Africa don't need charity, that's a pathetic idea, they need a revolution of the world order to have any chance of surviving.
absolutely not; there is not nearly enough money going into charities currently, but this is mostly due to high tax rates which leave the majority of people without much money to donate to the less fortunate and because currently most people rely on the government to help the poorer members of society. the problem with relying on the government to do this is that it is not transparent and it distances the source of the money from the recipient of the money, so the source can't see where the money goes and doesn't interact with the recipients and so doesn't care too much about them.


I cannot believe anyone, though you make it blindingly obvious, would believe that the poor should be forced to survive on the crumbs from your table and the scraps that you throw them.

typical leftist sloganeering. please leave this out next time.


Freedom of speech, in this case, means freedom to convince people to hurt themselves, and that shouldn't be allowed.

Why? if someone wants to sell me some medication that i think will help me and i am willing to accept the risk of not having a doctor tell me it's ok for me, how is that any of your business? when did i hire your newly-enlightened self to protect me from myself?

[The New Left]

A lot of of the stuff posted here is so stupid. I mean, all the stuff the US government feeds people is so dumbed down so they can make more money. Everything you know about the health care systems either from the government or from the latest Michael Moore doc. is overdone. I seen "Sicko" the other day, the way they glorified the health care system in Canada (where I live) was a shadowy reflection of of we have. Doctors get paid less here, taxes are higher here, wait times are not only "20 minutes long" they can be from 5 minutes to 2 hours. Buts its not bad, its still decent. And so what if you can't choose who treats you, honestly, if you need help and are in lost of pain, do you really care who treats you? Hell, In America, people are afraid of socializing the health care system because they were fed through the cold war that it could lead to communism (ha). If anything more should be done to socialize the health care systems of the world. Generic drugs are what should be produced by the state for people and around the world. Fire departments were private once, and would only come to your home if you paid for a sing on your house. If Fire departments are now employed by the state, why are ambulances owned by private entities who charge money for the needing? If you are dying on the street and need help, should they have to check with your wallet? Its stupid to have to see the government cut taxes, only to have more taken away in the long run. But hey, thats just my 2 cents.

[wtfm8lol]

And so what if you can't choose who treats you, honestly, if you need help and are in lost of pain, do you really care who treats you?

yes, i do really care who treats me, as all doctors are not the same.


Hell, In America, people are afraid of socializing the health care system because they were fed through the cold war that it could lead to communism (ha).

Very few people are actually worried about a communist revolution in the US.


Generic drugs are what should be produced by the state for people and around the world.

What if I am a very healthy person and don't often need drugs? Why should I be forced to pay for someone else's drugs?

[The New Left]

Very few people are actually worried about a communist revolution in the US.

Well, I said, people were fed that its evil, I wasnt taking about a revolution, I was talking about how the presidents, and senators say that socializing medicine and health care will bring restlessness among the people (or at least thats what I get out of it)


What if I am a very healthy person and don't often need drugs? Why should I be forced to pay for someone else's drugs?

Because now your just being selfish and close minded. Odds are you will get sick, and sometime in your life you may need a hospital. If you go into a hospital with a broken arm, a bad cut, have a heart attack, or even have a fever, it will cost you nothing up front. America is truly the home of the strong if they think they can handle a one hundred thousand dollar operation with no insurance and you will may need pain killers and whatnot. If you need a puffer to keep breathing you would get it. However, if someone couldn't breathe and were right infront of you, would you not help them? People have the right to live, weather they can afford it or not.

And I hate to do it, but I have to quote Micheal Moore:Unpaid medical in the united states is now the number one cause of bankruptcy.

Never heard of that in a country with a universal health plan.

[wtfm8lol]

Because now your just being selfish and close minded.

that has absolutely nothing to do with it. i don't like being forced by the government to do anything. i would have no problem donating money to a health care service for the less fortunate, but i would have a very big problem with the government threatening me with incarceration if i didn't surrender some of my income to them for their own health care service. and indeed, i do have a big problem with the government taking money out of my paycheck for medicare (and a lesser extent medicaid) because i have no control over how that money is spent.


Odds are you will get sick, and sometime in your life you may need a hospital.

right, but what if i tend to get sick much less than i'm paying into the system for? i dont have a choice over how much coverage i get, so if i get more than i need, i'm wasting my money.


If you go into a hospital with a broken arm, a bad cut, have a heart attack, or even have a fever, it will cost you nothing up front.

that sounds great, but in reality it costs me thousands upon thousands of dollars in the years leading up to it, even if the medical bills add up to only a few hundred, and even if i were capable of paying for it alongside minimal health insurance.


However, if someone couldn't breathe and were right infront of you, would you not help them?

i certainly would if i were capable of doing so.


People have the right to live, weather they can afford it or not.

why should someone other than me be entitled to my money?


Unpaid medical in the united states is now the number one cause of bankruptcy.

that's great. the US health care system is far from where i would like to see it.

[The New Left]

that's great. the US health care system is far from where i would like to see it.

Now I'm interested, where would you like to see health care? Just so I can understand where your coming from.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 03, 2007 02:13 pm

that's great. the US health care system is far from where i would like to see it.

Now I'm interested, where would you like to see health care? Just so I can understand where your coming from.
i'd like to see the FDA relax its control over medications, i'd like to see patent laws relaxed some to increase competition, i'd like to see more charity-based health care services, and in general i would just like to see less governmental presence in the market.

[CornetJoyce]

The capitalist program for healthcare is just one aspect of an overarching utopian vision.

http://patriot.net/~cnc/party.htm#Capitalism

[The New Left]

'd like to see the FDA relax its control over medications, i'd like to see patent laws relaxed some to increase competition, i'd like to see more charity-based health care services, and in general i would just like to see less governmental presence in the market.

'I can agree with the first 2 points that you say. I think most can. I'm not going to try to prove my point, because I can see you have chosen your morals and principals and I've chosen mine.

I do have something to add however, how to you get people to donate to hospitals enough to make a splash in the water? I mean, donations are a small splinter fraction of what funds hospitals without someone reaching in your pocket.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It's obvious that our health care system is like a train off it's tracks, it has became incapable of suiting to the necessities of millions of working people; like other services, it has came more based on profit, rather than the livelihood of the average worker.

U.S. health care: Critical condition (http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/526/526_06_CriticalCondition.shtml)

This was an excellent article that convinced me that privatized medicine has not been able to sustain the lives of it's so-called beneficiaries. I would like to present certain excerpts and visual representations that would press this argument.

http://www.socialistworker.org/OtherImages/HCareChart-Research.526.gif


And in this system, an alarming number of desperately needed but decidedly unprofitable drugs--including not only this year’s flu vaccine, but also childhood vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, measles and whooping cough--are in short supply, while the drug companies turn out knock-offs of Viagra or re-package (and re-patent) Prozac.

“If you get bitten by a rattlesnake,” observes Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, “you may not be able to get antivenin, but you can certainly get something for your cholesterol.”

[luxemburg89]

absolutely not; there is not nearly enough money going into charities currently, but this is mostly due to high tax rates which leave the majority of people without much money to donate to the less fortunate and because currently most people rely on the government to help the poorer members of society. the problem with relying on the government to do this is that it is not transparent and it distances the source of the money from the recipient of the money, so the source can't see where the money goes and doesn't interact with the recipients and so doesn't care too much about them.


QUOTE
I cannot believe anyone, though you make it blindingly obvious, would believe that the poor should be forced to survive on the crumbs from your table and the scraps that you throw them.



typical leftist sloganeering. please leave this out next time.


You do not seem to understand that those who are rich are rich not by hard work but by the cunning exploitation of others, therefore the crumbs from your table - which I shall not leave out, no matter that you shy away from the 'sloganeering' - are all you give them, as that would reduce your wealth. Charity, which is, indeed, dictated not by what is needed but by what you will give them, is simply not enough for the sole reason that you believe your wealth is deserved and, equally, is their poverty. This is idiotic. You have affluence simply because the chance of affluence is available to you, this is not the case in the 'third world'. Yet the nature of Capitalism itself is to have some richer than others, and the reason for the minority gaining riches at the expense of the majority is that to gain money it must be taken from others. That is, every penny you gain is a penny lost for someone else. That is the nature of Capitalism - you cannot dispute that. Equal opportunities, yes, equal opportunities to expoit each other until one is master over the other. Avarice is the nature of Capitalism. Yet all the same, forgive my 'sloganeering'.

[wtfm8lol]

You do not seem to understand that those who are rich are rich not by hard work but by the cunning exploitation of others, therefore the crumbs from your table - which I shall not leave out, no matter that you shy away from the 'sloganeering' - are all you give them, as that would reduce your wealth.

why, exactly, do you assume that the rich are the only ones who would donate? if the people making around $50 k per year were allowed to keep all of their income rather than having some ridiculous amount like $10-15 k robbed of them, they too would have enough money to donate some to the people who could truly not afford the necessities of life. So, too, could people making $100k, who are also not rich. despite your ridiculous worldview, the population can't be split into people who are abundantly rich and people who are scraping by on minimum wage. the vast majority of people are somewhere in between, and that is where i would expect the vast majority of charitable donations to come from.


That is, every penny you gain is a penny lost for someone else. That is the nature of Capitalism - you cannot dispute that.

yes, i can. first of all, that's wrong on the most basic level because more money is being put into the system all of the time. but it's wrong on another level, which is that if i create some product and sell it to some other person and it benefits him in some way, neither of us has lost a penny. we have both gained from the transaction.

[The New Left]

why, exactly, do you assume that the rich are the only ones who would donate?

How can you assume people will donate at all? You cannot depend of something that will never come.

[wtfm8lol]

How can you assume people will donate at all? You cannot depend of something that will never come.

people have a general sense of compassion.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:43 am

How can you assume people will donate at all? You cannot depend of something that will never come.

people have a general sense of compassion.
I think this guy is a shill sent by the Leninists to demonstrate the reason for the Red Terror. He's doing a great job.

[Ol' Dirty]

How can you assume people will donate at all? You cannot depend of something that will never come.

people have a general sense of compassion.

This is the reason why leftists laugh in your face when right-wingers call us "naive"

[wtfm8lol]

This is the reason why leftists laugh in your face when right-wingers call us "naive"

if people are willing to elect leaders who will keep welfare programs like medicare and social security knowing full well that they will have to give up a decent portion of their paycheck to them, what makes you think people will suddenly stop being willing to give up some of their money to the poor when they are no longer required to by law?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:30 am


How can you assume people will donate at all? You cannot depend of something that will never come.

people have a general sense of compassion.

This is the reason why leftists laugh in your face when right-wingers call us "naive"
I'm more confused than ever. If you don't believe that people have a general sense of compassion, how could you expect a communist society to ever not become a totalitarian state?

[luxemburg89]

yes, i can. first of all, that's wrong on the most basic level because more money is being put into the system all of the time. but it's wrong on another level, which is that if i create some product and sell it to some other person and it benefits him in some way, neither of us has lost a penny. we have both gained from the transaction

Sorry, perhaps I should explain my 'sloganeering' (the correct semantic would actually be 'rhetoric but never mind). I don't think you really understand what I'm saying. I am not simply talking about those that have the means to trade, for example you and I, as westerners, could trade effectively. However by selling me your product I am giving you money that you probably don't deperately need, and I could probably live without that particular product (unless it is food or water). Someone in Africa, on the other hand, does really need that money. By taking the money off me you are effectively taking money that could go to help them. The nature of Capitalism is profit and greed. Profit means you are making more from a product than you paid for it, effectively that creates a system where everyone is cheating everyone else. If you buy a can of coke for 50p then sell it on for 60p half an hour later then you cannot put that down to economic inflation, rather it is greed - that you sell it for 60p because you think you are worth more than the original seller; there is no reason, therefore, you could not have paid 60p in the first place, or that you did not sell it for 50p. It creates huge gaps in wealth, which is wrong - and don't tell me the rich work for their money, they get lucky for their money; Alan Sugar is a prime example.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:21 pm

yes, i can. first of all, that's wrong on the most basic level because more money is being put into the system all of the time. but it's wrong on another level, which is that if i create some product and sell it to some other person and it benefits him in some way, neither of us has lost a penny. we have both gained from the transaction

Sorry, perhaps I should explain my 'sloganeering' (the correct semantic would actually be 'rhetoric but never mind). I don't think you really understand what I'm saying. I am not simply talking about those that have the means to trade, for example you and I, as westerners, could trade effectively. However by selling me your product I am giving you money that you probably don't deperately need, and I could probably live without that particular product (unless it is food or water). Someone in Africa, on the other hand, does really need that money. By taking the money off me you are effectively taking money that could go to help them. The nature of Capitalism is profit and greed. Profit means you are making more from a product than you paid for it, effectively that creates a system where everyone is cheating everyone else. If you buy a can of coke for 50p then sell it on for 60p half an hour later then you cannot put that down to economic inflation, rather it is greed - that you sell it for 60p because you think you are worth more than the original seller; there is no reason, therefore, you could not have paid 60p in the first place, or that you did not sell it for 50p. It creates huge gaps in wealth, which is wrong - and don't tell me the rich work for their money, they get lucky for their money; Alan Sugar is a prime example.

Someone in Africa, on the other hand, does really need that money.

No, what they need are food and water. Unless you believe in some kind of racial or genetic inferiority of Africans, there is absolutely no reason why the population of a continent with the natural resources of Africa can not feed and clothe themselves. They are not children. It is not lack of resources, knowledge, or manpower that prevents them from doing so, it is dysfunctional politics and suicidal cultural conflicts. Showering them with cash or even basic resources has not, and will not, solve those problems.

There is a tendency among first-world elites, I think, to infantilize Africans, as though it is a simple and logical fact that only through the charity of the Western world can Africa survive. This is counter-productive and wrong.

[wtfm8lol]

pusher took care of what was important so..


Sorry, perhaps I should explain my 'sloganeering' (the correct semantic would actually be 'rhetoric but never mind).

calling it 'rhetoric' would give one the impression that your words are something other than empty slogans. in other words, 'rhetoric' has a much more positive connotation than what you said deserves.

[luxemburg89]

Showering them with cash or even basic resources has not, and will not, solve those problems.


Well I agree with that. However to clean the water they need the resources to do so, to buy these resources, in the current political climate, they will need to buy them, Africa does not have this situation. I CERTAINLY don't mean to come across as making Africa out to be an inferior group of people by any means. However I do object that they only need food and water, if that is what you are saying, as there is no reason MEDCs should have all these fantastic items, like a computer per house for example (though that may not be EXACTLY the case); whereas LEDCs should only get food and water. I think we should work to level the standard of life - even you must agree with that. Unless you think that the 'western world' deserves such finance and technology and luxuries, but the 'non-western world' does not, though I don't actually think you believe that.


calling it 'rhetoric' would give one the impression that your words are something other than empty slogans. in other words, 'rhetoric' has a much more positive connotation than what you said deserves.

Nope, I'm afraid the use of slogans to make a point, even if you don't take it seriously or credit it with any weight, would be classified as rhetoric. I know what I'm talking about wtfm8lol, studying rhetorical devices in literature and speeches for the past 5 years would give me a clear knowledge of what 'rhetoric' is. In many cases 'rhetoric' is used as an insult, as it has been used many times on this site. I am not saying what I'm posting is particularly brilliant, it isn't, but your definition of 'rhetoric' clearly differs from that of the English language.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:48 pm

I think we should work to level the standard of life - even you must agree with that. Unless you think that the 'western world' deserves such finance and technology and luxuries, but the 'non-western world' does not, though I don't actually think you believe that.

I do disagree. The goal should be to raise the standard of living, not level it. After all, the standard of living could be leveled very easily by making every country into a total shithole dictatorship like most African countries.

My point is that clean water, finance, and technology are not western luxuries, despite (arguably) being invented and refined in the West. They are human technologies, and there is no reason why Africans should be depending on others to give them those things. The really hard work is already done! The technology - the actual ideas - are freely available to anyone who wants them, and the people of Africa are just as capable and ingenious as any others. What is holding Africa back is not a lack of charity; it's Africa, and NO amount of charity can rectify that.

[luxemburg89]

What is holding Africa back is not a lack of charity; it's Africa, and NO amount of charity can rectify that.


But Africa, through both political and geographical climates, is not able to afford these things pusher robot. Under the world capitalist system they would have to pay for these things, I don't think they are able too. Personally I think co-operation between west and non-west and a sharing of resources, because they have as much right to western resources as we do - but hey I'm an internationalist, I think a country is just the name of a piece of land, so I would say that. Anyway I'm sorry I seem to have deviated from the topic of the thread.

Back on to Nationalised Healthcare...

[Guerrilla22]

According to the World Health Organization thr best healthcare in the world is that of countries with nationalized helalthcare. So yes, natiopnalized healthcare in the US is needed. I'm also tired of paying over 300 dollars a month for perscriptions.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:48 am
According to the World Health Organization thr best healthcare in the world is that of countries with nationalized helalthcare. So yes, natiopnalized healthcare in the US is needed. I'm also tired of paying over 300 dollars a month for perscriptions.
No, that's incorrect. The countries with nationalized health care tend to be healthier than those without. But the US, which has subsidized care but is not single-payer, is first in patient care metrics.

[The New Left]

Originally posted by pusher robot+July 17, 2007 01:19 pm--> (pusher robot @ July 17, 2007 01:19 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 06:48 am
According to the World Health Organization thr best healthcare in the world is that of countries with nationalized helalthcare. So yes, natiopnalized healthcare in the US is needed. I'm also tired of paying over 300 dollars a month for perscriptions.
No, that's incorrect. The countries with nationalized health care tend to be healthier than those without. But the US, which has subsidized care but is not single-payer, is first in patient care metrics. [/b]
Great. So the whole population can be equally healthy and pay for it through taxes or the rich can get the best service in the world without a care while the rest have to struggle just to pay medical bills of from past hospital stays. I see a little problem in that, does anyone else?

And paying for medical costs by donating is idiotic, as kind as people may be, because if you don't have to pay for something, why don't you keep things for yourself? People who are brought up to care for themselves in a capitalist world don't care about the well being of others.

[MarcX]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 13, 2007 03:06 pm
'America' isn't a single unit. There's the underclasses and the ruling class, and fuck the rich they already have quality health care. The workers, the students, & the lumpenproletariat need to work togethor to start a movement for free, quality health care for the underclasses. No paying for prescriptions, treatments, checkups, & all other forms of health care — ever.
the rich in this country have a lower standard of health them most socialized country's poor.

There is a deeper problem with health care in America

Its not profitable to treat people keep them from getting sick treating the sick ect.
and If by a company such as insurance / pharmaceuticals/ Care ( hospitals) are run for profit they will minimize care.

[The New Left]

Originally posted by CornetJoyce+July 05, 2007 03:05 am--> (CornetJoyce @ July 05, 2007 03:05 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 02:43 am

How can you assume people will donate at all? You cannot depend of something that will never come.

people have a general sense of compassion.
I think this guy is a shill sent by the Leninists to demonstrate the reason for the Red Terror. He's doing a great job. [/b]
I hope your talking about me.

[Publius]

No, that's incorrect. The countries with nationalized health care tend to be healthier than those without. But the US, which has subsidized care but is not single-payer, is first in patient care metrics.

And what metrics would those be?

Here's an excerpt from a Krugman article:

http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.co...iting-game.html (http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/07/paul-krugman-waiting-game.html)

Try getting care at an emergency room without insurance and tell me how that lines up with your "patient care metrics."

[The New Left]

The reason theres less of a wait for private healthcare is because in America, theres 50 million with out health care. If you wanna substract one sixth of the country, that makes a much shorter list than before.

[Dimentio]

The problems with nationalised healthcare are not inherent but a consequence of artificial scarcity. In some provinces in Sweden, there is no queue at all, but in some, there are very long queues. That is because people are often not allowed to get treatment in another province.

Crazy, if you'd ask me.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:56 pm
What does everyone think?
So long as the gov't and private sectors decentralize, as well. Gov't healthcare will undoubtably be much worse in the US than in other medically - socialized nations because we're already accustomed to being fucked by one capitalist system - why should the capitalist state having the final say change much?

[amazed]

America doesn't need universal healthcare. We already have medicaid to take care of people who don't have or cannot afford healthcare. Also, anyone who needs emergency treatment gets it whether or not they can afford it. The lower the percentage of the economy that the government controls the better.

The 2 best thing we can do to lower health care costs are
1- Allow nurses to perform more medical procedures than they are currently allowed, ie, allow a nurse to set a bone.

2 - Have a "loser pays" legal system where, if a lawsuit is deemed frivolous or completely without merit, the person bringing the lawsuit would be required to pay the defendant's legal bills.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1588

What America (and everybody else needs) is true medical freedom and a true free-market in medicine.

Read the link I posted above. You can say a lot of things about the American health care system. In some respects, there are still some vestiges of a free-market, but overall not really.

If the free-market fails, point it out and lets discuss, but I really hate when people point to overly-regulated industries as failures of free markets. Health care (including insurance, pharmaceuticals, etc) is one of the most heavily regulated markets in this country.

I hardly think capitalism gets the blame for this one.

[Dimentio]

One could clearly see that privatised healthcare, no matter in what form, would lead to a situaton where a lot of people cannot afford healthcare.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 04:16 pm
One could clearly see that privatised healthcare, no matter in what form, would lead to a situaton where a lot of people cannot afford healthcare.
Why? Are you saying there is no possible way to reduce the costs of health care?

[The New Left]

Funny, I was talking to my friend about the American health care system is that when people hear "free-market system" they think of freedom, patriotism, democracy. I hate stupid people.

Private health care works... for the bourgeoisie.

Private entities cannot be trusted in a free market system because it allows to many was to screw over the workers and turn a profit, while handing out pay off checks to government reps.

Private organizations are unfair in general.

Private school undermine the children in public schools. Private health care undermines people in public health care. Private organizations undermine people.

[Herman]

What advantages are there in letting the free market have the power of medicine? None, for those who cannot afforded. Many for those who can.

And usually, those who cannot afford it are the majority.


One could clearly see that privatised healthcare, no matter in what form, would lead to a situaton where a lot of people cannot afford healthcare.

Indeed, and we've already seen this in the past.

Medicine, the right to be treated for any ill you may have is a basic human need. All men and women should have that right. Socialized healthcare gives that right to everyone. Learn from Europe and Cuba itself.

[The New Left]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:50 pm
What advantages are there in letting the free market have the power of medicine? None, for those who cannot afforded. Many for those who can.

And usually, those who cannot afford it are the majority.


One could clearly see that privatised healthcare, no matter in what form, would lead to a situaton where a lot of people cannot afford healthcare.

Indeed, and we've already seen this in the past.

Medicine, the right to be treated for any ill you may have is a basic human need. All men and women should have that right. Socialized healthcare gives that right to everyone. Learn from Europe and Cuba itself.
Yay! Someones gets it. Im sick of listening to robot pusher and wtfm8lol with his "charities to support the health care system". Urgh.

[The New Left]

Oh, Canada's conservative government is experimenting with private health care in Quebec. Why are they reversing them process to move forward? Why would the supreme court allow this to happen. All because a stupid decision by the typical leaders. Go Canada.... we're going down a drain.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 04, 2007 04:57 am
Yay! Someones gets it. Im sick of listening to robot pusher and wtfm8lol with his "charities to support the health care system". Urgh.
Can't contribute much to the debate, since I've never known anything but government health care. I've heard nasty things about how bad things can get without it, but I'm waiting for a chance to see Sicko, and read the counterarguments in the debate it's bound to kick up.

Charity-based social services were tried in the last half of the 19th century. It was part of the failed experiment in laissez-faire capitalism which led to the horrific conditions that sparked anarchism, socialism and communism. Letting the proponents of that poisonous and blatantly self-serving ideology have another go would be like returning to a violent spouse and beg for another beating.

Here, even the conservatives don't dare trying to dismantle state health care. They did reorganize its management along corporate lines, and have closed down a number of small community hospitals which are sorely missed - but the state still has complete ownership, and pays the bills. I pay for my own medication up to a point, when the state pay the rest. A large % of each GP consultation is covered by government subsidies. Every citizen has a primary GP, who keeps track of your journal, conditions, medication etc, handles references, clinic and hospital contact. This generally mitigates the risks of information glitches in a huge bureaucratic system. I've been hospitalized twice, and had a few minor surgeries. No complaints, no financial troubles. Knock on wood.

Seems to me that if your hospitals are making a profit, you're doing something wrong. Keeping people healthy is expensive, but a primary objective of a state, one of the reasons it exists. I, and many health workers, might prefer a health system more autonomous, not subject to changing political whims, but privatization certainly wouldn't be a step in that direction. Of course, such a huge organization, on which so many lives depend, needs some sort of central coordination, someone who knows what both the left and the right hand is doing. But turning it from what was essentially a state-funded federation of health worker's guilds into a corporocratic feudal system with the ministry of health as sovereign has increased efficiency - at the cost of quality, work conditions and health worker's influence over their own workday.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:40 am
Yes it does and it needs one more efficiently run than the British system - this means doing away with private healthcare and all that bollocks for starters.
I agree. The problems with the British NHS started when Margaret Thatcher (who'd have guessed the problems lie with her?) introduced a mixed economy within the NHS. Whereas previously it was entirely state-controlled, she established these NHS 'Trusts'. The problem is that having a mixed economy in healthcare is extremely difficult to manage and very beurocratic. If the NHS is to ever sort itself out of the mess it's in it needs to be entirely controlled by the state once more.

[ECD Hollis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 04:35 am
America doesn't need universal healthcare. We already have medicaid to take care of people who don't have or cannot afford healthcare. Also, anyone who needs emergency treatment gets it whether or not they can afford it. The lower the percentage of the economy that the government controls the better.

The 2 best thing we can do to lower health care costs are
1- Allow nurses to perform more medical procedures than they are currently allowed, ie, allow a nurse to set a bone.

2 - Have a "loser pays" legal system where, if a lawsuit is deemed frivolous or completely without merit, the person bringing the lawsuit would be required to pay the defendant's legal bills.
Agreed.

[RHIZOMES]

I live in a country with universal healthcare and our healthcare system is great. America's sucks. No matter which way capitalists try to spin it, 50 million people still don't have healthcare. That's a fact. I'd rather have a waiting line then not being allowed in one. But that's just me. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by pusher robot+July 17, 2007 01:19 pm--> (pusher robot @ July 17, 2007 01:19 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 06:48 am
According to the World Health Organization thr best healthcare in the world is that of countries with nationalized helalthcare. So yes, natiopnalized healthcare in the US is needed. I'm also tired of paying over 300 dollars a month for perscriptions.
No, that's incorrect. The countries with nationalized health care tend to be healthier than those without. But the US, which has subsidized care but is not single-payer, is first in patient care metrics. [/b]
...Which is the entire point of healthcare, to make people healthier.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by mcteethinator+August 16, 2007 04:10 am--> (mcteethinator @ August 16, 2007 04:10 am)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 01:19 pm

[email protected] 17, 2007 06:48 am
According to the World Health Organization thr best healthcare in the world is that of countries with nationalized helalthcare. So yes, natiopnalized healthcare in the US is needed. I'm also tired of paying over 300 dollars a month for perscriptions.
No, that's incorrect. The countries with nationalized health care tend to be healthier than those without. But the US, which has subsidized care but is not single-payer, is first in patient care metrics.
...Which is the entire point of healthcare, to make people healthier.[/b]
Hmmm. Let me illustrate my example with a hypothetical.

Suppose I live in Society A, and I like to smoke. So I smoke a pack a day. At age 50, I get lung cancer. Society A's health care system has the resources and skill to treat my cancer and keep me alive for another 15 years.

Now suppose I live in Society B, and I like to smoke. But Society B prohibits smoking, so I am unable to do so. I don't smoke and so I don't get cancer at age 50. Which is good, because Society B's health care system would be unable to keep from dying from cancer past 2 years. I live until I die of old age, at say, 75.

So my life expectancy in Society A is 65 years and in Society B is 75 years. I would live longer and be healthier in Society B. Given enough people like me, it would be 100% accurate to state that Society B was healthier than Society A. But do you think it would be accurate to state that Society B has superior health care? I don't.

You see, the fact that health care is for improving health is irrelevant to my point that health care is not the only determinant of health. It is a factor, but it's not the only factor and it's probably not even the most important factor.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by pusher robot+August 16, 2007 04:25 am--> (pusher robot @ August 16, 2007 04:25 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:10 am

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 01:19 pm

[email protected] 17, 2007 06:48 am
According to the World Health Organization thr best healthcare in the world is that of countries with nationalized helalthcare. So yes, natiopnalized healthcare in the US is needed. I'm also tired of paying over 300 dollars a month for perscriptions.
No, that's incorrect. The countries with nationalized health care tend to be healthier than those without. But the US, which has subsidized care but is not single-payer, is first in patient care metrics.
...Which is the entire point of healthcare, to make people healthier.
Hmmm. Let me illustrate my example with a hypothetical.

Suppose I live in Society A, and I like to smoke. So I smoke a pack a day. At age 50, I get lung cancer. Society A's health care system has the resources and skill to treat my cancer and keep me alive for another 15 years.

Now suppose I live in Society B, and I like to smoke. But Society B prohibits smoking, so I am unable to do so. I don't smoke and so I don't get cancer at age 50. Which is good, because Society B's health care system would be unable to keep from dying from cancer past 2 years. I live until I die of old age, at say, 75.

So my life expectancy in Society A is 65 years and in Society B is 75 years. I would live longer and be healthier in Society B. Given enough people like me, it would be 100% accurate to state that Society B was healthier than Society A. But do you think it would be accurate to state that Society B has superior health care? I don't.

You see, the fact that health care is for improving health is irrelevant to my point that health care is not the only determinant of health. It is a factor, but it's not the only factor and it's probably not even the most important factor. [/b]
Do any of those societies ban smoking though? O_o

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:42 am
Do any of those societies ban smoking though?
You do know what the word "hypothetical" means, right?


O_o

Quite.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by pusher robot+August 16, 2007 05:28 am--> (pusher robot @ August 16, 2007 05:28 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 04:42 am
Do any of those societies ban smoking though?
You do know what the word "hypothetical" means, right?


O_o

Quite. [/b]
Yes I do. What other things could make the country healthier besides the healthcare? Wait, no, include the health care.

And, despite any way you spin it, 50 million people in America are going without it. Isn't that a bit... I don't know... heartless?

Even basic healthcare for people that can't afford it and rich people could just buy better healthcare would be an improvement, which is just sad.

[pusher robot]

And, despite any way you spin it, 50 million people in America are going without it.

That is simply a lie.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 03:53 pm

And, despite any way you spin it, 50 million people in America are going without it.That is simply a lie.
Americans without health insurance. Just Fucking Google It (http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/).

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+August 16, 2007 05:32 pm--> (Idola Mentis @ August 16, 2007 05:32 pm)
pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 03:53 pm

And, despite any way you spin it, 50 million people in America are going without it.That is simply a lie.
Americans without health insurance. Just Fucking Google It (http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/). [/b]
Different claim.

"Doesn't have health insurance" ≠ "Doesn't get health care"

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 09:43 pm
Different claim.

"Doesn't have health insurance" ≠ "Doesn't get health care"
Whow. So you know how to deliberately misunderstand statements in order to obstruct a conversation. I'm not really that impressed.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+August 16, 2007 09:49 pm--> (Idola Mentis @ August 16, 2007 09:49 pm)
pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 09:43 pm
Different claim.

"Doesn't have health insurance" ≠ "Doesn't get health care"
Whow. So you know how to deliberately misunderstand statements in order to obstruct a conversation. I'm not really that impressed. [/b]
What have I misunderstood?

Because I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

The claim was that 50 million people in America are going without health care. I challenge anyone to back that up with real statistics, keeping in mind that lots of people without health insurance still get health care.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 10:04 pm
keeping in mind that lots of people without health insurance still get health care.
Proof?

[Obese-Dimentia]

I believe that Americas Healthcare has no problems from the fact that its not State.
Wouldnt changing Healthcare to a state system just cause taxes to shoot up, and people could be treated for Sickness but their on the streets?

Blame Americas High Hospital Bills on Sue Happy ****heads.

Pusher Robot Made an awesome point with the hypothetical Healthcare Systems. Not sure what to add than that... :D

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by The Red Ghost+August 16, 2007 11:19 pm--> (The Red Ghost @ August 16, 2007 11:19 pm)
pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 10:04 pm
keeping in mind that lots of people without health insurance still get health care.
Proof? [/b]
Just look at the financials. The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services (1) (emphasis added).

Now, being uninsured is certainly far from desirable. It makes routine checkups and preventative care more of a hassle. I'm willing to concede that the U.S. health care system is in need of some changes. But this statement that the 45-50 million without insurance are not receiving health care is simple a bald-faced lie.

(1) Institute of Medicine. Hidden Costs, Values Lost: Uninsurance in America. The National Academies Press. 17 June 2003.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by Obese-[email protected] 17, 2007 01:46 am
I believe that Americas Healthcare has no problems from the fact that its not State.
Wouldnt changing Healthcare to a state system just cause taxes to shoot up, and people could be treated for Sickness but their on the streets?

Blame Americas High Hospital Bills on Sue Happy ****heads.

Pusher Robot Made an awesome point with the hypothetical Healthcare Systems. Not sure what to add than that... :D
My country has universal healthcare and we're doing just fine. They are not "hypothetical" as it's been successfully implemented in several other countries. And government-run healthcare generally have lower costs then privatized.

[Herman]

My country has universal healthcare and we're doing just fine. They are not "hypothetical" as it's been successfully implemented in several other countries. And government-run healthcare generally have lower costs then privatized.

Spain has 'healthcare' and it's doing great. No one can disagree with healthcare after taking Europe as an example!

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by pusher robot+August 17, 2007 04:38 am--> (pusher robot @ August 17, 2007 04:38 am)
Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 16, 2007 11:19 pm

pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 10:04 pm
keeping in mind that lots of people without health insurance still get health care.
Proof?
Just look at the financials. The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services (1) (emphasis added).

Now, being uninsured is certainly far from desirable. It makes routine checkups and preventative care more of a hassle. I'm willing to concede that the U.S. health care system is in need of some changes. But this statement that the 45-50 million without insurance are not receiving health care is simple a bald-faced lie.

(1) Institute of Medicine. Hidden Costs, Values Lost: Uninsurance in America. The National Academies Press. 17 June 2003. [/b]
So you are for universal health care?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by The Red Ghost+August 18, 2007 12:19 pm--> (The Red Ghost @ August 18, 2007 12:19 pm)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 04:38 am

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 16, 2007 11:19 pm

pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 10:04 pm
keeping in mind that lots of people without health insurance still get health care.
Proof?
Just look at the financials. The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services (1) (emphasis added).

Now, being uninsured is certainly far from desirable. It makes routine checkups and preventative care more of a hassle. I'm willing to concede that the U.S. health care system is in need of some changes. But this statement that the 45-50 million without insurance are not receiving health care is simple a bald-faced lie.

(1) Institute of Medicine. Hidden Costs, Values Lost: Uninsurance in America. The National Academies Press. 17 June 2003.
So you are for universal health care? [/b]
Sure, I'm only against state-run health care.