Health Care for Everyone

[Danoff]

Apropos of this thread:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/16/jillette.atheist.libertarian/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Government is not compassion.

 

[KSaiyu]

While he makes valid points for a government's role in the life of an "educated" individual, I'm of the view healthcare is one area that has to be an exception in a democratic nation. There has to be provision for the people unable, or less willing (hence the quotation marks) to take control of their health, and ultimately with our country that buck stops with the NHS, and by association the government.

The argument over whether it's compassion or rights differs only from the viewpoint, and in healthcare the cost of arguing could be grave and far reaching.

 

[Famine]

While he makes valid points for a government's role in the life of an "educated" individual, I'm of the view healthcare is one area that has to be an exception in a democratic nation. There has to be provision for the people unable, or less willing (hence the quotation marks) to take control of their health, and ultimately with our country that buck stops with the NHS, and by association the government.

Many would point out that healthcare isn't essential, while food and water are - why is there no national food service or national water service to provide a basic minimum for people unable, or less willing, to take control of their nutritional intake?

The fundamental issue with a socialised healthcare system is that it requires whomever is controlling it to place a monetary value on the health or life of other people. In fact of everyone. Your health and life have a cash value set by someone else - someone who has probably never met you - and it's been set as equal to the health and life of Stephen Hawking, Ian Huntley, Richard Hammond or Piers Morgan...

 

[FoolKiller]

While he makes valid points for a government's role in the life of an "educated" individual, I'm of the view healthcare is one area that has to be an exception in a democratic nation. There has to be provision for the people unable, or less willing (hence the quotation marks) to take control of their health, and ultimately with our country that buck stops with the NHS, and by association the government.

Wait a second. So, because I am paying attention to my health it should be my responsibility to also make sure those who don't are taken care of? Why?

And as Famine points out, by your definition then we should also be taking charge of what everyone eats and drinks. I mean, we aren't just talking about providing food and drink. With your definition of being responsible for the "less willing" then we also have to make sure they eat and drink properly.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Wait a second. So, because I am paying attention to my health it should be my responsibility to also make sure those who don't are taken care of? Why?

Thats kind of how it works in a lot of things... I'm earning and paying tax, so that those who aren't working can still be taken care of... I think this is just a fact of modern life.

 

[FoolKiller]

Thats kind of how it works in a lot of things... I'm earning and paying tax, so that those who aren't working can still be taken care of... I think this is just a fact of modern life.

But why? Taxes are supposed to cover government services that everyone uses and everyone is paying for. Progressive taxes and the entitlement system is less than 100 years old in this country.

And why should I be making sure a guy that never washes his hands gets his colds treated?

And if this is, as you say, "just a fact of modern life" then how big of asses are we that we aren't first providing food and water and ensuring that everyone eats healthy? Those are needed far before healthcare.


Follow up question: Why does everyone who supports government healthcare avoid the food and water question?

 

[arora]

And as Famine points out, by your definition then we should also be taking charge of what everyone eats and drinks. I mean, we aren't just talking about providing food and drink. With your definition of being responsible for the "less willing" then we also have to make sure they eat and drink properly.

Oh that is coming, don't worry It's already happening on city and state levels, it could also be argued the fed is trying through the school system. It's also a worry of opponents to national health care, with just cause if you ask me. I mean, if it's mandatory by law that you use their system what is to say it won't be mandatory that you follow all of the doctors advice?[/tinfoil hat]. Also somewhat related are tobacco/alcohol issues like sin tax, regulations, etc.

Trans fat ban NY

McDonalds happy meal

and another

EDIT:

Follow up question: Why does everyone who supports government healthcare avoid the food and water question?

Doesn't free housing count for the water question? And we have food stamps, wick, etc to adress the food part.

 

[Keef]

Doesn't free housing count for the water question? And we have food stamps, wick, etc to adress the food part.

What exactly does a wood-frame structure have to do with drinking water instead of brown soda? Nothing. How do food stamps guarantee that the person is using them to buy healthy food and not junk food? They don't.

FK's point was that if caring for others' health is a "fact of modern life," then what we should be doing is guaranteeing everybody be drinking, eating, and exercising healthy. Not simply paying for their healthcare so they can still do all they can to ruin their lives because the doctor will make them better.

Better question: If you really cared, why don't you go to their door and help them personally? Why do you have to pawn it off on the government? I know why. Because people don't really give a damn. As long as you're donating to the cause then you can get all the warm cuddly feeling without any of the effort.

 

[arora]

What exactly does a wood-frame structure have to do with drinking water instead of brown soda? Nothing. How do food stamps guarantee that the person is using them to buy healthy food and not junk food? They don't.

HUD provided housing is required to have proper running water, it's the city's responsibility to regulate the quality of water, has everything to do with making sure access to free quality water is available. Not whether the tenants drink it over soda.

I don't know all the details on food stamps as I've never had them, but I do know what is bought with them is restricted or regulated. Wick is a program for pregnant women and it is more so regulated as in what can be purchased.

There must be a misunderstanding as to the argument, I stated two things; food and water are provided free to the poor, the gov is seeking to more strictly regulate peoples intakes for the sake of national health.

TBH it sounds like you just wanted to argue with me without reading what I was saying, which is fine by me.

 

[ScouserInExile]

Many would point out that healthcare isn't essential, while food and water are - why is there no national food service or national water service to provide a basic minimum for people unable, or less willing, to take control of their nutritional intake?

Have you seen the fuss that gets kicked up whenever the goovt tries to bring in laws that would "encourage" people to eat halthily? And by "encourage" I mean "make it hard to eat less healthily". Elf and saftey gone made. Nanny State. Meddling bureaucrats. And so on and so forth.

It's like drinking and smoking, anytime there is an innititive to cut that down, the papers go mad and claim our civil liberties are being infringed.

The fundamental issue with a socialised healthcare system is that it requires whomever is controlling it to place a monetary value on the health or life of other people.

That's no different to private healthcare. A mate of mine used to work for one of the UK's big private healthcare providers. It was her job to decide if it was economically viable to treat one of their members themselves or to ship them off to the nearest NHS facility. Some people paid huge premiums each month for years but because the provider would have to buy in specialist equipment to treat themn, they'd just bounce them on the NHS.

I've always considered the true measure of a civilisation to be how it treats it's poorest memebers, which is why I consider universal, free health care to be something that every society that considers itself civilised to have.

 

[Famine]

Have you seen the fuss that gets kicked up whenever the goovt tries to bring in laws that would "encourage" people to eat halthily? And by "encourage" I mean "make it hard to eat less healthily". Elf and saftey gone made. Nanny State. Meddling bureaucrats. And so on and so forth.

It's like drinking and smoking, anytime there is an innititive to cut that down, the papers go mad and claim our civil liberties are being infringed.

Yes, but it is irrelevant.

You will die at a point no later than three weeks from now if you do not eat or drink. The number of people reading this post who will die at a point no later than three weeks from now if they do not receive medication is limited to Foolkiller - and he is against socialised healthcare outside of the ER.

Food/water are more of a life essential than a doctor is. All that doctors do is make life longer. Those who are clamouring for socialised healthcare should be clamouring for socialised feeding and clean water - hell, the rich can always go private if they want, right?

That's no different to private healthcare. A mate of mine used to work for one of the UK's big private healthcare providers. It was her job to decide if it was economically viable to treat one of their members themselves or to ship them off to the nearest NHS facility. Some people paid huge premiums each month for years but because the provider would have to buy in specialist equipment to treat themn, they'd just bounce them on the NHS.

It's massively different. For a start, the person valueing the health of the individual is... the person whose health it is. They decide how much their health is worth to them and pay accordingly, rather than having someone else tell them that their health is equal in value to that of anyone else's and how much they should pay for it (which, inappropriately, won't be equal to how much everyone else pays).

If you can't be treated by a private facility due to lack of specialist equipment and are sent to an NHS facility with appropriate speciliast equipment, you still get treated ahead of the guy who went to his state-appointed GP first too.

I've always considered the true measure of a civilisation to be how it treats it's poorest memebers, which is why I consider universal, free health care to be something that every society that considers itself civilised to have.

But not universal, free* food and water which is absolutely essential to life? Seems a bit heartless to treat them for malnutrition and dehydration rather than stop them from getting there in the first place, wouldn't you say?

*At point of use

 

[Small_Fryz]

whereas bad socialised healthcare has no alternative except paying twice to access private healthcare.

This.

I see no benefit in paying for private health when I already have a national health system.

All I do is pay more for the same thing I can get through the government.

My perception of privatized health care is that the organization is in business to make money, not to help out their customers. Maybe that is wrong?

 

[Famine]

My perception of privatized health care is that the organization is in business to make money, not to help out their customers. Maybe that is wrong?

Their business is their customers.

 

[livemusic]

I see no benefit in paying for private health when I already have a national health system.

You would if you lived over here. Our public healthcare system is crap. Same goes for public education.

 

[FoolKiller]

Oh that is coming, don't worry It's already happening on city and state levels, it could also be argued the fed is trying through the school system. It's also a worry of opponents to national health care, with just cause if you ask me. I mean, if it's mandatory by law that you use their system what is to say it won't be mandatory that you follow all of the doctors advice?[/tinfoil hat]. Also somewhat related are tobacco/alcohol issues like sin tax, regulations, etc.

Trans fat ban NY

McDonalds happy meal

and another

And it could be argued that none of these things are allowed by the US Constitution, particularly anything having to do with the federal government and schools. But they are attempting to steer the markets. There is a class of people in Washington who think that they know what is best for you and want to remove that choice from you. I find that offensive and don't see how anyone can willing allow politicians to tell them what is best for them.

Doesn't free housing count for the water question?

Are all utilities paid? And how much free housing is there when there are homeless people who die from starvation or dehydration on a regular basis? I know there is rent controlled housing and housing aid, but that still doesn't guarantee your utilities get paid. Water is not free.

And we have food stamps, wick, etc to adress the food part.

From what I have seen food stamps and WIC are limited to the biggest bang for your buck items. And while processed cheese blocks are OK, I am sure the amount of sodium and cholesterol is just helping generate the fat old, poor person image. I rarely see those stickers in the organic or specialty items sections.

And of the two people I know who use food stamps and/or WIC, they complain about the price of food more than I do and I have to buy specialty items for health reasons. It is nearly impossible for me to get out of a grocery store for under $200, but I understand production and markets so I don't find my bill outrageous.

But the bigger issue here isn't a case of providing it just to the poor. The topic is health care for everyone. If you want a health care relation to food stamps or housing for the poor, that is Medicaid. If you want a food and water relation to nationalized health care, that is every farm, every grocery, every water utility, owned, operated, and controlled by the government.

HUD provided housing is required to have proper running water, it's the city's responsibility to regulate the quality of water, has everything to do with making sure access to free quality water is available.

Two things.

1) Water isn't free. I get a bill every month.
2) If access is all you want then we have that now. No one is turned away from an ER.

I don't know all the details on food stamps as I've never had them, but I do know what is bought with them is restricted or regulated. Wick is a program for pregnant women and it is more so regulated as in what can be purchased.

Trust me. Look for the stickers that say WIC Approved next time you are buying groceries. It isn't all organics and health food. You can buy a two-pound block of fake cheese though.

Have you seen the fuss that gets kicked up whenever the goovt tries to bring in laws that would "encourage" people to eat halthily? And by "encourage" I mean "make it hard to eat less healthily". Elf and saftey gone made. Nanny State. Meddling bureaucrats. And so on and so forth.

It's like drinking and smoking, anytime there is an innititive to cut that down, the papers go mad and claim our civil liberties are being infringed.

They are removing your choices. Your civil liberties are being infringed. These are not the policies of a pro-choice government.

Some people paid huge premiums each month for years but because the provider would have to buy in specialist equipment to treat themn, they'd just bounce them on the NHS.

This is what I took from what you just said:
With NHS in place your private systems can't even afford to keep proper equipment in place to treat their patients. See, at my cardiologist they have everything but an x-ray machine in office. If they decide they want a test done I get it then and there. And if I need an x-ray they are actually connected to the hospital via a pedway so I can walk over and get that done and come right back. When I was medically evaluated for my heart transplant I had about 10 tests to get done, and never had to step outside and was able to do them all on the same day, including a psychotherapy analysis and a two training sessions on what life changes I needed to make.

I've always considered the true measure of a civilisation to be how it treats it's poorest memebers, which is why I consider universal, free health care to be something that every society that considers itself civilised to have.

I've always considered a measure of civilization to be how it treats all its citizens, which is why I consider a universal health care system on the verge of slavery as you can't guarantee medical attention without guaranteeing doctors. If at some point there were a shortage of doctors you have two choices, stop guaranteeing health care or force people to not retire or quit and others to become doctors.

But then I have to wonder, what does it say about a civilization that is finding itself having to ration health care due to costs?

My perception of privatized health care is that the organization is in business to make money, not to help out their customers. Maybe that is wrong?

When I found out I was going to need a transplant my arrhythmia doctor, who had nothing to do with the transplant issues, came in to see me just to ask how I was doing and told me he just wanted to check on me because he has a vested interest in me, because he likes me. When I called to schedule my next heart cath the scheduling lady, Glenda, asked me how my mom was doing (she hadn't talked to her in 10 years), wanted to know about my daughter, and asked what my brother was doing (he has no heart issues), and our allergist allowed my brother to shadow him for a week in high school and attended both of our high school graduations. When I see him he asks me about everyone in my family because he sees everyone on my mom's side of the family. And my mom has lunch with her GP about once a month. And after my second surgery the cardiologist's insurance claims woman told my mom that if we got anything from insurance or the hospital saying we owe money to bring it to her and she would take care of it.

I don't know what your relationship with your doctors is, but I wouldn't be able to pass any of mine on the street without saying hi. Maybe they just have really good bedside manners, but I have never once felt that they don't care. In fact, I get along with some of them better than my own family. My cardiologist even made fun of my mom's over-protective nature with me last year.

Oh, and I forgot, my cardiologist at the transplant center is leaving to focus on research (don't know if you heard they are cloning simple organs and tissues from your own stem cells and are hoping to get complex organs soon) and personally contacted all of his patients and made sure we all had a chance to meet the doctor who will be taking over for him, as well as giving us a list of all the other cardiologists available for us to see in the transplant center.

 

[Griffith500]

Yes, but it is irrelevant.

You will die at a point no later than three weeks from now if you do not eat or drink. The number of people reading this post who will die at a point no later than three weeks from now if they do not receive medication is limited to Foolkiller - and he is against socialised healthcare outside of the ER.

Food/water are more of a life essential than a doctor is. All that doctors do is make life longer. Those who are clamouring for socialised healthcare should be clamouring for socialised feeding and clean water - hell, the rich can always go private if they want, right?

...

This is the interesting point, I feel. What constitutes an emergency? I mean, if we're all going to die anyway, surely going to the ER / A&E is just prolonging your life? Technically, all that food and water do is make your life longer, too. Is this why the police and fire service are different, because they are intended for emergencies?

Of course, food and water are a damn-sight cheaper than health care, and historically people have learned to live without healthcare if they can't afford it. Like Foolkiller said, any kind of "socialist" approach to healthcare is less than 100 years old. Yet why do people feel entitled to decent policing near their homes, yet others still have barely such a need? Doesn't everyone pay for that, too?

Are we just seeing the results of differing acclimatisations? We are but products of our experiences, after all.

 

[Famine]

Is this why the police and fire service are different, because they are intended for emergencies?

I can't speak for the fire department, but police - like the army - are there to prevent breaches of human rights (by force if necessary - hence "police force" and "armed forces"). Since the purpose of government is only to ensure that human rights are respected, policing and armed forces are part of their role.


Incidentally, "policeman" and "politician" have the same etymology. Fun fact for the day there.

 

[Griffith500]

I can't speak for the fire department, but police - like the army - are there to prevent breaches of human rights (by force if necessary - hence "police force" and "armed forces"). Since the purpose of government is only to ensure that human rights are respected, policing and armed forces are part of their role.


Incidentally, "policeman" and "politician" have the same etymology. Fun fact for the day there.

Yes, I suspected police would be the odd ones out. Although I would be more cynical as to their real (original) usefulness to the government.

But still, what constitutes an emergency? Food and water only prolong your life, as do Doctors and healthcare. If you've a potentially fatal illness, chances are no amount of food and water will prolong your life beyond a certain point; likewise no amount of "medicine" will help you if you're not getting food and water.

 

[arora]

And it could be argued that none of these things are allowed by the US Constitution, particularly anything having to do with the federal government and schools. But they are attempting to steer the markets. There is a class of people in Washington who think that they know what is best for you and want to remove that choice from you. I find that offensive and don't see how anyone can willingly allow politicians to tell them what is best for them.

Agreed 👍

Are all utilities paid? And how much free housing is there when there are homeless people who die from starvation or dehydration on a regular basis? I know there is rent controlled housing and housing aid, but that still doesn't guarantee your utilities get paid. Water is not free.

Yes utilities can be paid but not always, the system works on a sliding scale. Homelessness is a sad fact of life I guess, I've spent enough time with non-profit organizations to know there is no easy solution to that It's a large topic though so I won't go much into it other then to say some choose it. Water is free to some but ultimately someone has to pay for it.

And of the two people I know who use food stamps and/or WIC, they complain about the price of food more than I do

Not surprised

But the bigger issue here isn't a case of providing it just to the poor. The topic is health care for everyone. If you want a health care relation to food stamps or housing for the poor, that is Medicaid. If you want a food and water relation to nationalized health care, that is every farm, every grocery, every water utility, owned, operated, and controlled by the government.

I understand the concept of the new healthcare bill, for lack of better words it sucks ass. You guys brought water and food into the mix so I noted some ways we are trying to nationalize them as well. Farm subsidies etc has had an ill effect on us for some time, I've never seen a government operated grocery? Water utilities are ran by city and county gov's as far as I know which I think is a good thing. It's the fed's meddling I don't like but you know that.

1) Water isn't free. I get a bill every month.
2) If access is all you want then we have that now. No one is turned away from an ER.

My point was water is free for some, the fed comes in and pays the state to pay for it for a select few. No one is turned away from an ER....... YET.

Trust me. Look for the stickers that say WIC Approved next time you are buying groceries. It isn't all organics and health food. You can buy a two-pound block of fake cheese though.

As long as the creators of such programs believe they are doing the best by telling a mother what is or not is acceptable food to consume while pregnant everyone feels all warm and fuzzy 👍

This healthcare bill is a disaster if you ask me on so many levels, one being putting the IRS in charge of collecting the monies. It makes me angry in general so I'll just post the document and hope some of you will read it, all 1,016 pages of it

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf

A fun thing to do is use the 'find' function in your reader and type the word required

SIDE NOTE; is it not these people in Washington's plan to make everything so screwed up and unafordable through rediculous regulations and such that they can come running in to be the hero? It is what Keef talks about when he sites Chicago politics I think.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

You would if you lived over here. Our public healthcare system is crap. Same goes for public education.

What do you mean the healthcare system in the US is crap?

If you're pregnant; you go to the hospital, have your kid, leave, and stick someone else with the bill. That's a pretty good system of welfare if you're an illegal. If you're on state-aid, you go to the hospital, have your kid, the state pays 50% of the tab (if that), and you stick someone else with the rest of the bill. Not bad eh?

And people wonder why healthcare costs are going up...

Factor in the tort system in the US is much-much different than the UK, Oz, Canada, etc and the cost for doctors to pay for malpractice insurance is astronomical.

Nothing is 'free'. And if you think health insurance and medical bills are expensive now...just wait until it's all 'free'. We don't have VAT in the US nor do we have the kind of taxes on fuel other parts of the world has. Someone has to pay the doctors & nurses...right?

...but what about all the bureaucrats & unionists? Look at the US's TSA; there's something like 15 paper pushers for every TSA agent in an airport molesting someone. That's a lot of salary, benefits, and pensions to pay for. And since any healthcare workforce will be unionized, like they are in the UK, you can bet your ass that they'll provide the least amount of 'care' for the highest price possible. Think politicians are going to fight that special interest group? Hell no...

The largest employer in the world is UK health system. Just think how big the US's health system would be. Lot's of paychecks coming from Uncle Sam.

There's a lot of states & cities going bankrupt right now due in part to the pensions of the unionized public workforce. Same goes for Fed workers. Now imagine you throw the entire medical field in that mix.

Someone has to pay for all that and it isn't cheap. What happens next? Rationing & budget cutting in healthcare while the expenses keep going up & up. Which brings me to the real kicker; sin taxes.

Now that the gov't has a financial interest in seeing that people do not go to the doctor or seek medical care, it'll use every excuse in the book to 'raise revenues' in order to pay their pension obligations.

 

[Danoff]

What do you mean the healthcare system in the US is crap?

If you're pregnant; you go to the hospital, have your kid, leave, and stick someone else with the bill. That's a pretty good system of welfare if you're an illegal. If you're on state-aid, you go to the hospital, have your kid, the state pays 50% of the tab (if that), and you stick someone else with the rest of the bill. Not bad eh?

And people wonder why healthcare costs are going up...

Factor in the tort system in the US is much-much different than the UK, Oz, Canada, etc and the cost for doctors to pay for malpractice insurance is astronomical.

Nothing is 'free'. And if you think health insurance and medical bills are expensive now...just wait until it's all 'free'. We don't have VAT in the US nor do we have the kind of taxes on fuel other parts of the world has. Someone has to pay the doctors & nurses...right?

...but what about all the bureaucrats & unionists? Look at the US's TSA; there's something like 15 paper pushers for every TSA agent in an airport molesting someone. That's a lot of salary, benefits, and pensions to pay for. And since any healthcare workforce will be unionized, like they are in the UK, you can bet your ass that they'll provide the least amount of 'care' for the highest price possible. Think politicians are going to fight that special interest group? Hell no...

The largest employer in the world is UK health system. Just think how big the US's health system would be. Lot's of paychecks coming from Uncle Sam.

There's a lot of states & cities going bankrupt right now due in part to the pensions of the unionized public workforce. Same goes for Fed workers. Now imagine you throw the entire medical field in that mix.

Someone has to pay for all that and it isn't cheap. What happens next? Rationing & budget cutting in healthcare while the expenses keep going up & up. Which brings me to the real kicker; sin taxes.

Now that the gov't has a financial interest in seeing that people do not go to the doctor or seek medical care, it'll use every excuse in the book to 'raise revenues' in order to pay their pension obligations.

His location says Brazil.

 

[Joel]

His location says Brazil.

 

[FoolKiller]

I understand the concept of the new healthcare bill, for lack of better words it sucks ass.

My comparison to a government run food market wasn't even close to what this new plan is in the US. It was a comparison to what the thread title suggests: Health Care for Everyone.

If you want to find a food comparison for Obamacare it would be all groceries must meet specific recommendations that will cause them to be expensive, but they can't raise their prices. Then the government will offer its own grocery you can use that is cheaper than every other store. You don't have to use their grocery, but you have to use a grocery. You will be required to buy a set amount of milk, eggs, bread, red meat, white meat, fish, fruit, and vegetables. If you want to grow your own food or shop at a farmer's market, that is fine, but you must buy the minimum from a government approved grocery.

You guys brought water and food into the mix so I noted some ways we are trying to nationalize them as well.

But no one has suggested removing all food choices except for some farmers markets and having you primarily only use what the government gives you. It would be the only way to guarantee proper and healthy food and water intake for everyone, rich or poor. That is the only example of a food and water program equal to a nationalized health care program.

Water utilities are ran by city and county gov's as far as I know which I think is a good thing.

Depends on where you live. Where I grew up the cost of water was determined by how much rain there was. We had a cistern. If it was a dry year we had to call out "Water Bob" and pay him for a truckload of water. There were competing water companies, but "Water Bob" was my mom's old bus driver so we always used him. Recently some cities in Kentucky that controlled the water talked about selling it off.

SIDE NOTE; is it not these people in Washington's plan to make everything so screwed up and unafordable through rediculous regulations and such that they can come running in to be the hero? It is what Keef talks about when he sites Chicago politics I think.

Ever hear them talk about the evils of HMOs during all of this? Guess who pushed for those to be created as an attempt to lower health care costs.

 

[arora]

My comparison to a government run food market wasn't even close to what this new plan is in the US. It was a comparison to what the thread title suggests: Health Care for Everyone.

If you want to find a food comparison for Obamacare it would be all groceries must meet specific recommendations that will cause them to be expensive, but they can't raise their prices. Then the government will offer its own grocery you can use that is cheaper than every other store. You don't have to use their grocery, but you have to use a grocery. You will be required to buy a set amount of milk, eggs, bread, red meat, white meat, fish, fruit, and vegetables. If you want to grow your own food or shop at a farmer's market, that is fine, but you must buy the minimum from a government approved grocery.

As I said, I already understand the healthcare bill.

But no one has suggested removing all food choices except for some farmers markets and having you primarily only use what the government gives you. It would be the only way to guarantee proper and healthy food and water intake for everyone, rich or poor. That is the only example of a food and water program equal to a nationalized health care program.

Lets hope it never comes to that

Depends on where you live. Where I grew up the cost of water was determined by how much rain there was. We had a cistern. If it was a dry year we had to call out "Water Bob" and pay him for a truckload of water. There were competing water companies, but "Water Bob" was my mom's old bus driver so we always used him. Recently some cities in Kentucky that controlled the water talked about selling it off.

Of course, I was speaking of municipalities or wherever their is heavy population. I own land in Washington and I have a well drilled before any laws where passed regarding water rights and such(thank god). I pay nothing for that water other then the fuel to run a generator.
(well, property tax but it's veeeery little)

Ever hear them talk about the evils of HMOs during all of this? Guess who pushed for those to be created as an attempt to lower health care costs.

There is a word for those people, several even, but can't be said here

 

[Small_Fryz]

When I found out I was going to need a transplant my arrhythmia doctor, who had nothing to do with the transplant issues, came in to see me just to ask how I was doing and told me he just wanted to check on me because he has a vested interest in me, because he likes me. When I called to schedule my next heart cath the scheduling lady, Glenda, asked me how my mom was doing (she hadn't talked to her in 10 years), wanted to know about my daughter, and asked what my brother was doing (he has no heart issues), and our allergist allowed my brother to shadow him for a week in high school and attended both of our high school graduations. When I see him he asks me about everyone in my family because he sees everyone on my mom's side of the family. And my mom has lunch with her GP about once a month. And after my second surgery the cardiologist's insurance claims woman told my mom that if we got anything from insurance or the hospital saying we owe money to bring it to her and she would take care of it.

I don't know what your relationship with your doctors is, but I wouldn't be able to pass any of mine on the street without saying hi. Maybe they just have really good bedside manners, but I have never once felt that they don't care. In fact, I get along with some of them better than my own family. My cardiologist even made fun of my mom's over-protective nature with me last year.

Oh, and I forgot, my cardiologist at the transplant center is leaving to focus on research (don't know if you heard they are cloning simple organs and tissues from your own stem cells and are hoping to get complex organs soon) and personally contacted all of his patients and made sure we all had a chance to meet the doctor who will be taking over for him, as well as giving us a list of all the other cardiologists available for us to see in the transplant center.

I've had the same Cardiologist and Pediatrician in the same hospital since I was born (22years ago) and its always a pleasant experience going back to see them for my yearly visits. If I was in private health care I would still be in the same hospital (Prince Charles is one of the leading heart hospitals in Australia) with the same doctors and due to my condition my waiting times for things are very low anyway. Ive also had broken legs and bones and a few other trips to the emergency ward I dont really have many bad things to say. Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones. All that being said I could be paying quite a penny for my "public" health care through my taxes that in a free market could potentially cost me less privately.

 

[Danisfast]

There's a massive gap you've failed to notice. Fire services and policing are run by local people who practically devote their life to protecting the people at little to no money at all. A healthcare system for an entire nation is run directly by the government. Now, when has the government EVER run anything properly? Let alone better than the private sector?



Surprisingly rare? Did you once think there might be a fairly good reason for that?




Did you count those who are left to die?

And who might that be?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

The American healthcare system costs more, is hugely inefficient and does actually allow people to die (roughly 18,000 - according to data submitted in 2002)http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/ins-m25.shtmlhttp://monthlyreview.org/2003/09/01/the-inhuman-state-of-u-s-health-care (that second link seems to indicate that the figure is closer to 100,000)! I've heard about the scaremongering going on over in the US; don't fall prey to that absolutely diabolical abuse of 'freedom of speech' that is the far-right's campaign http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/18/berwick-medicare-medicaid-nomination/. Our system is far, far more efficient (at least financially, if not morally) than the American version (as it is/was before the proposals) will likely ever be. When it comes to human life, it's not about "socialism" or any of that naff; it's about decency. Stop being scared by that word - we'd all be laughing at you if it wasn't so tragic.

I think when you make the comparison between our public healthcare and your public healthcare, the statistics speak for themselves. It can be done right by the state, you're simply not allowing that to happen.

Danoff, I do not fail to understand libertarianism; but I question how extreme the common branch of it is for you to be in a situation such as this. Although, I have recently discovered the publicity campaigns that exist against the reforms... The misinformation is quite shocking.

EDIT: As for surprisingly rare, apparently not. Only the Americans, the Chinese and the Russians have private or semi-private systems. The Russian's system is a total mess, and the Chinese system has had several major changes to it due to public outcry. Not surprisingly, the Chinese system has now expanded its role in health significantly.

 

[CMvan46]

This thread is a massive eye opener for a Canadian like myself.

I for one am a massive advocate for free healthcare. I have an chronic life long disease that costs a little over $2000 a month in medication though so maybe my view is slightly skewered.

Once upon a time (around four years to the day) I was as healthy as could be. I played a ton of sports, mainly hockey and baseball, and besides a lot of broken bones was rarely if ever going to the hospital or clinic for anything. Then I was diagnosed and well I was in clinics, hospitals and treatment centers more than my own house it seemed. I thank god for our healthcare system, I go for blood tests monthly (and sometimes weekly) which are all free, I get my $4000 medication every other month free, I see my specialist free, I see my local GP free, and I get one wicked excuse to get out of anything. Oh well that's free anyways :lol

Anyway this isn't a pity post but my point is you never know when anything could change. People I know in the states with my disease often go bankrupt due to it or leave there disease untreated. It's bad enough treated and I can't imagine what those people go through. I for one think it's better to constantly know that if anything goes wrong that your covered. I couldn't imagine always worrying about insurance and how to pay for everything.

Anyway that's my extremely biased $.02

 

[Famine]

This thread is a massive eye opener for a Canadian like myself.

I for one am a massive advocate for free healthcare. I have an chronic life long disease that costs a little over $2000 a month in medication though so maybe my view is slightly skewered.

Read Foolkiller's posts - including the six-figure bill he received for treatment, of which he paid $0. He disagrees with you wholly.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

Maybe if the United States wasn't spending a ton of money on wars, they could have the funding for proper Public Healthcare like we have in Canada. For example, in my province we have OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan), every resident with a OHIP card is covered in Canada. In essence our healthcare isn't federally run, American's would consider it State-run. This is where 'Obamacare' gets the whole concept wrong by trying to do it Nationally. Public-run healthcare should be state-run, but this would be expensive as well (Canada has 10 provinces and 3 Territories. Whereas USA has 52 states). A more economically viable method would be to create 3 healthcare zones. (i.e. West Zone covers western Area of USA, East Zone covers eastern area, Central Zone covers central area). States pool together X % revenue and use X amount of money for that region's healthcare. Is it the best idea out there? No. Is it better than Obamacare? Yes.

 

[Danoff]

I for one am a massive advocate for free healthcare. I have an chronic life long disease that costs a little over $2000 a month in medication though so maybe my view is slightly skewered.

Find a rich guy who is paying for your treatment and shake his hand.

Maybe if the United States wasn't spending a ton of money on wars, they could have the funding for proper Public Healthcare like we have in Canada.

That's not proper. That's broken in a very critical (and predictable) way, which is why Canadians cross the border and pay cash to avoid waiting in line.