U.S. Universal Healthcare

[taks]

Why not mix the two systems?  Allow people to opt out of universal healthcare coverage if they choose to.  Good doctors will attract the clients who can afford them, and we won't have people attempting to fix the black death with half a capsule of Nyquil because they can't afford to see a doctor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

exactly who is going to pay for it if everyone that can afford their own, better, health coverage opts out? remember, those that can "opt out" are those that are paying the taxes. universal health care is nothing more than a handout for those that can't afford insurance.

 

get the government out of business, and these people won't have as much of a problem paying.

 

taks

[taks]

grrr... messed up the quote.

 

taks

Edited November 13, 2005 by taks

[WITHTEETH]

Taks, what form of goverment do you support if any? Im trying to get a feeling of where your coming from. You almost sound like an anarchist . Do you believe people do better off by themselves compared to large groups?

[kumquatq3]

While that doesn't really answer anything, taks is 100% correct.

 

In terms of quality of individual care, you can't compare privatized and universal health care.

 

and you should all thank your lucky stars America doesn't have things like universal coverage or price caps on drugs. If we did the entire pharmaceutical industry would crumble (especially R&D). We basically help pay for your caps and universal coverage.

Edited November 13, 2005 by kumquatq3

[taks]

oh no, strict constitutionalist (er, constructionist), pure capitalist. i love our republic, and i hate what the socialist influences have done to it.

 

closest real political alignment would be libertarian, but most of them are religious (i'm atheist).

 

taks

[taks]

and you should all thank your lucky stars America doesn't have things like universal coverage or price caps on drugs. If we did the entire pharmaceutical industry would crumble (especially R&D). We basically help pay for your caps and universal coverage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

do a search on my name and drugs and i'm sure you'll see similar statements.

 

of course, i'd never claim to be 100% correct... i just assume opposing opinions are 100% incorrect! (uh, a joke... since i tend to come off that arrogant...)

 

taks

[WITHTEETH]

While that doesn't really answer anything, taks is 100% correct.

 

In terms of quality of individual care, you can't compare privatized and universal health care.

 

and you should all thank your lucky stars America doesn't have things like universal coverage or price caps on drugs. If we did the entire pharmaceutical industry would crumble (especially R&D). We basically help pay for your caps and universal coverage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You lost me bud. I pay for myself. And those who make nothing, and especially the old. They, nor you support my ass.

 

Just thank your lucky stars your not in Iraq.

[kumquatq3]

You lost me bud. I pay for myself. And those who make nothing, and especially the old. They, nor you support my ass.

 

Just thank your lucky stars your not in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uh you lost me.

 

If you have universal health care, you don't pay for yourself. Not market price of what it costs.

 

If you don't, then I wasn't talking about you

 

Just thank your lucky stars your not in Iraq.

Edited November 13, 2005 by kumquatq3

[WITHTEETH]

I completely misread your point, i apologize dude.

 

Still, I don't see the point in thanking America for what i don't have.

 

I don't expect things to be handed over for nothing. I do pay my taxes, and those taxes are partially going to the poor for their healthcare, And also the senior citizens. How is it that they can get healthcare, yet someone like me cannot unless i pay a substantial amount to where i literally cannot eat? Whats even worse is children that can't get coverage. I know a family without healthcare who are afraid to let their children ride their bikes.

 

Things should be distributed more evenly.

Why does the working class man have to carry the burden on him?

Edited November 13, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[kumquatq3]

I completely misread your point, i apologize dude. 

 

Still, I don't see the point in thanking America for what i don't have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

NP

 

As far as thanking, I didn't mean it literally, as we're not doing it on purpose. I promise. It's just capitalism and pharmaceutical lobbyists in action

[random evil guy]

There are tons of countries with universal healthcare, why can't the richest(suppposedly, no thanks to Bush and his record deficit) have a healthcare system?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and most of those countries with universal healthcare cannot afford it, and, what they do provide, is substandard compared to US provisions. canadians that can afford better healthcare come the US and pay for it out of pocket (they aren't allowed to do that there...).

 

socializing healthcare will ruin it. there will be no incentives for medical professionals, no competition, and the quality of care will bottom out. HMOs have already damaged the level of care we get now.

 

the medicaid drug benefit, IMO, is the second worst travesty ever inflicted on the people of the US. first is social security.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you're a moron, but don't even know it... it's sad. the welfare state works perfectly in scandinavia. problem is with you liberalistic ****, is that you are selfish and don't care about others. don't suger coat it with economic bull****. economics isn't a real science. say what you really mean; you hate poor people, end off.

[Calax]

well if we did decide to socialize the health care system what would we do with the old codgers?? Personally I'd say if sombody is unable to get out of his seat to relieve himself because he's too old shoot him and be done with it.

[Child of Flame]

Uh-uh Calax.

 

That's a large part of the problem.

 

Social security wouldn't be needed near so much if families would just step up and take care of their elders. In exchange, the elderly would contribute to the future by passing down experience in the form of stories to the younger generations, effectively shaping the future.

[Commissar]

Why not mix the two systems?  Allow people to opt out of universal healthcare coverage if they choose to.  Good doctors will attract the clients who can afford them, and we won't have people attempting to fix the black death with half a capsule of Nyquil because they can't afford to see a doctor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

exactly who is going to pay for it if everyone that can afford their own, better, health coverage opts out? remember, those that can "opt out" are those that are paying the taxes. universal health care is nothing more than a handout for those that can't afford insurance.

 

get the government out of business, and these people won't have as much of a problem paying.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't mean they wouldn't have to stop paying taxes for universal health care. I just meant they're more than welcome to choose their own doctors.

 

And you're right, it is a handout for those that can't afford insurance. So what? Until you come up with a plan to get us to 0% unemployment, there are going to be handouts.

[Commissar]

-snip-

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you're a moron, but don't even know it... it's sad. the welfare state works perfectly in scandinavia. problem is with you liberalistic ****, is that you are selfish and don't care about others. don't suger coat it with economic bull****. economics isn't a real science. say what you really mean; you hate poor people, end off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I imagine you're going to want to rethink your language there. Taks and I fundamentally disagree on a whole host of issues, but it's rarely, if ever, because he's uninformed, and never because he's a moron. I know his, "Go do your research, whelp!" style can be annoying, but it's actually pleasant once you get used to it.

 

If you think he's wrong, prove it, but this seems like a really stupid topic to start flinging mud over.

[random evil guy]

-snip-

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you're a moron, but don't even know it... it's sad. the welfare state works perfectly in scandinavia. problem is with you liberalistic ****, is that you are selfish and don't care about others. don't suger coat it with economic bull****. economics isn't a real science. say what you really mean; you hate poor people, end off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I imagine you're going to want to rethink your language there. Taks and I fundamentally disagree on a whole host of issues, but it's rarely, if ever, because he's uninformed, and never because he's a moron. I know his, "Go do your research, whelp!" style can be annoying, but it's actually pleasant once you get used to it.

 

If you think he's wrong, prove it, but this seems like a really stupid topic to start flinging mud over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no, he is a moron as all liberalists are morons per definition and the welfare state works. the scandinavian countries are a proof of that.

 

i may come of as a bit harsh, but right wing freaks piss the hell out of me. not only are they, mostly, unintelligent, but their politics is based either on selfishness or flawed logic...

[tarna]

Lighten it up guys.

[Laozi]

I'm not much on the idea of univeral healthcare, too much at the heart of the Nixon Republicans to be any good.

 

The problem is now that pharmaceutical companies spend so much money on advertising new diseases and their cures that they need to be able to rely on the backbone of their business, that being drugs that actually keep people alive, to support their new endevours into snake oil sales. Without the terminaly ill how would they be able to pay Antonio Banderas to play a bee for their new allegy medicine? This is a capitalist society and you can't make an omeltte without pricing life altering drugs out of the reach of fixed income elderly people who always vote, and so the AARP will spend some money in Washington ensuring government aid, and then they can screw you both ways. So as you see don't f#@k with the perfect plan, they have it all figured out and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

[alanschu]

Personally I like to see all property and income taxes removed and simnply have a state and federal sales tax on all items except for food.  Also until we have 100% healthcare for all citizens we have no right to interfere with other nations.  We need to be 100% self sufficient in taking care of our own people before worrying about someone else.  We have people living below the proverty line and homeless yet the world and our own government expect us to take care of "poorer" nations.  Lets take care of the poor in our own country first and once that problem is solved permanently then lets worry about other countries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The poverty line refers to relative poverty.

 

The absolute poverty experienced by the "poorer" nations is unimaginable compared to what developed nations compare to "poverty."

 

Furthermore, the idea behind helping the impoverished over seas is often lead (for better or worse) by the idea of expanding markets to help keep the costs of goods down in the host country and create new flows of capital. I would wager that if the U.S. shut down it's borders and became isolationist, things would not be better.

 

 

 

 

To the topic on hand, I believe that both health care and basic education (K-12 type stuff) should be universal. I'm also a supporter of government bursaries and scholarships for post secondary education.

[Azarkon]

Don't worry, with the gap between rich and poor widening in the US, sooner or later we'll have some major riots to wake the goverment up about these issues. Society is never as simple as work hard & reap the benefits. There will always be winners, there will always be losers, and when the losers outnumber the winners and realize it, society will change.

 

I won't claim that socialism is the next step, but I will say that free market capitalism is about to bite the first world in the ass and hard. For proof of this, simply witness the motions in Washington in the coming years towards outsourcing and competition from countries like India and China.

[taks]

no, he is a moron as all liberalists are morons per definition and the welfare state works. the scandinavian countries are a proof of that.

i tell you what, a sure sign of a losing argument is lobbing insults.

 

if your argument is so good, why do you need to?

 

by the way, look up the phrase "ad-hominem" and see what you find. i knew what that meant, did yoU?

 

i may come of as a bit harsh, but right wing freaks piss the hell out of me.

but i'm not right-wing.

 

not only are they, mostly, unintelligent, but their politics is based either on selfishness or flawed logic...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh there's a good one, where to start...

 

first, exactly how much education do you have? i'm working on a phd, already a BS and an MS, all three in electrical engineering... so, exactly how unintelligent am i compared to you?

 

second, if right-wingers are so unintelligent, why are the top 20% income earners in the US primarily conservative? guess what, these guys are also, not coincidentally, the most educated.

 

i've reported your obvious inability to debate without slinging insults. maybe one of the mods will finally wise up and ban you for consistently violating board rules. how ironic, btw, that you choose to criticize others' logic, while committing fallacies in your own...

 

taks

Edited November 14, 2005 by taks

[taks]

I won't claim that socialism is the next step, but I will say that free market capitalism is about to bite the first world in the ass and hard.  For proof of this, simply witness the motions in Washington in the coming years towards outsourcing and competition from countries like India and China.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, hate to tell you but these things are not a result of capitalism. the reason there is outsourcing is because these other countries do not have protections on wages like we do in the US. protections on wages are a problem of SOCIALISM. capitalism is based on the free market and this goes for wages as well. minimum wage and states like california setting other wage limits on salaried employees is socialism, not capitalism, and the very reason jobs are shopped out. allow market demands to set salaries and there will be no need to outsource.

 

sorry, but you need to get your facts straight.

 

plus, btw, nearly every socialist program has either failed, or is failing. the richest countries in the world are the most capitalist, and the third world countries that are gaining are all implementing capitalist reforms as well (china, for example). as soon as these countries that are gaining ground take steps to protect their trade and wages, they will suffer the same problems as the rest of the world.

 

taks

[taks]

btw, reg's fabulous example of scandinavia as a welfare success is a bit disingenous. those countries, by and large, benefit from a trade surplus. i.e. the export more than the import because they have the natural resources to do so. in general, this is not the case for the rest of the world.

 

scandinavia also happens to be blessed with oil, accounting for 50% of norway's exports.

 

i.e. it's easier to fund welfare when you have the rest of the world paying for it through taxes on imports. also, you can't directly compare the 19 million people in scandinavian countries to the 300 million in the US. the larger a population, the harder it is to implement socialist programs...

 

taks

[LadyCrimson]

I just wanted to point out that the fact people have to wait in line for hours to see a doctor has less to do with the system than with the fact not enough people want to be doctors (vs. the speed of the growth of the population)...or at least, not enough people want to be general practictioners, because it pays less or has less chance for 'glory and recognition'.

 

I've always wanted 'universal' preventive healthcare - the check ups, the tests, tho being no policy expert I'd have no idea how to implement it or if it would even be possible given the mechanics of the US systems.

 

Currently, the US medical system seems to largely consist of nothing but drug-pushers.

[taks]

or at least, not enough people want to be general practictioners, because it pays less or has less chance for 'glory and recognition'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

don't ya' think that maybe it pays less because of the system? take away free market competition, and that's what you get: civil servant medical professionals working for government wages. socialist healthcare removes incentives for high-quality doctors. to believe that good people will go into medical professions "for the good of the community" is naive. the bightest will, no matter what system, find what benefits them the most.

 

taks