Socialised Healthcare

[devonin]

Re: Socialism?

IT's only a scam while you don't need any very expensive medical procedures. Do you have 50 or 60 thousand dollars laying around in the event of a serious tragedy?

[Afrobean]

Re: Socialism?

IT's only a scam while you don't need any very expensive medical procedures. Do you have 50 or 60 thousand dollars laying around in the event of a serious tragedy?

I don't like the idea of wagering like 80k dollars (or more) over the length of my lifetime that I MIGHT have something VERY terrible happen that will be EXTREMELY costly.

I'd rather wager that if anything that terrible happens to me that it'd be big enough that that'd be how I go.

[Patashu]

Re: Socialism?

I don't have an awful lot of time right now, but the private for-profit healthcare system in America is terrible, just like your for-profit prison systems and so on. America's life expectancy is equal to Cuba's but yet it spends twenty times more per year on healthcare; Cuba and I think all of the world's industrialized nations besides America have some kind of universal healthcare system, and America is the unusual exception, unable to reflect on its own shortcomings because of the paradigm of American exceptionalism, for instance the consistent claims that America's healthcare system is 'number one in the world' despite falling short on many medical-related metrics. Because they are for-profit businesses, how do they make profit? They don't have a 'product' they can sell, so instead they have a huge bureaucratic web dedicated to denying claims, hunting down reasons to drop people when they get sick, etc etc. Basically something like half of all bankruptcies are due to medical costs and most of them had insurance lmao

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090819/OPINION02/908190364/Tyranny-of-a-pre-existing-condition

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez16-2009aug16,0,3959652.column

http://i27.tinypic.com/f52ema.png

Also if you don't want to rely on the government stop using roads, water and the legal system.

edit: oh yeah and if you had universal healthcare you wouldn't have to wager any money that you'd have a significant injury or illness over your lifespan lmao, it would just be accepted for granted that **** happens to people that's beyond their ability to control so we treat them until they're able to work for themselves again, I mean what did you think the point was. would you really just rather die the instant you got so sick that you lose your job and just die or go bankrupt w/o healthcare

[Afrobean]

Re: Socialism?

Also if you don't want to rely on the government stop using roads, water and the legal system.

Things like public roads, municipal water and legal systems are the few things that are wholly justified. Private roads and private legal systems are ****ing LAUGHABLE concepts to consider, and private water is only unreasonable to consider because of the outrageous cost that would be required to undergo a private water system as useful as the municipal one already in place.

You'll find some libertarians who are steadfast in their opinion that things like education or libraries or firefighting or even police force should be privatized. I don't think there are many who would make the same case for roads or THE ****ING LEGAL SYSTEM. Taxes, thus, are necessary for the necessary jobs that government IS justified in having, BUT the absurd taxes for the absurd **** they SHOULDN'T DO are NOT.

edit: oh yeah and if you had universal healthcare you wouldn't have to wager any money that you'd have a significant injury or illness over your lifespan lmao, it would just be accepted for granted that **** happens to people that's beyond their ability to control so we treat them until they're able to work for themselves again, I mean what did you think the point was. would you really just rather die the instant you got so sick that you lose your job and just die or go bankrupt w/o healthcare

You're right. I wouldn't be wagering under universal healthcare, I'd just be FORCED TO PAY REGARDLESS through the money I pay into taxes.

If there was an opt-out (including an appropriately large tax refund), I think I probably wouldn't have too much problem with this though.

Proponents of healthcare reform in the form of universal healthcare overlook the BEST choice. The current system is corrupt due to profit, right? So remove the function of profit. Banks can be argued as similarly corrupt, so to fix that problem, remove the profit. Ever heard of credit unions? They're basically NOT-FOR-PROFIT banks. And they work GREAT. So why not apply the same business model to health care system? It's probably not allowed under current bull**** laws is my only guess, but if you're gonna MUCK AROUND WITH NEW LAWS, just ****ing fix the **** that's wrong with it in the first place.

Private NPO healthcare. That's the ****ing solution here. Not bull**** government tinkering.

[Cavernio]

Re: Socialism?

They are going to tax people who can't afford it, and those that can they are going to tax more because they have the money. This whole "Plan" is trillions of dollars that is going to be gathered from tax payers over 10 years.

Where are they getting the money. Since we are going to be paying for this HEALTHCARE PLAN when the hell are we going to fix the national debt? Has this even been an issue?? Democrats and liberals used to whine about it all the time when bush was in office, but as soon as obama preaches to the brainwashed it's like... OMG BILL TIME!

I'm not about to get into an argument over where the US government SHOULD be putting their money. We could both come up with hundreds of ideas at least one of us thinks is better, it really would get us nowhere. I'm really not an economist whatsoever, but I figure that paying off a countries debt works something like paying of your mortgage. You usually do it slowly, and people often take out a second one or re-mortage once it's paid off for various financial reasons. Paying off a mortgage in full is usually the last thing that someone does, and would also be stupid for the vast majority of homeowners.

As far as taxing people who can't afford it, if it is so similar to what canada has, then I wholly disagree with you. I've been on the low-income end ever since I've lived on my own, and I'm certainly not paying taxes beyond sales tax when I make less than a minimal amount of money.
Your argument against taxes is just that: an argument against taxes. The same argument could be made for any service the government would want to bring in. The only reason such an argument against taxes holds weight in this discussion would be if you thought the healthcare system that would be brought in would be terrible and end up being worse than the current system in the US, which is something you have not claimed.

Afrobean: Government healthcare is NOT insurance. You're not squirrelling money away either on your own or with a company who will then hopefully end up paying for anything that may happen to you. What you would be paying for is a service, a service I guarantee you will use multiple times in your life if you want to actually live a healthy life, and a service I guarantee will cost you less money than if you paid for the treatment from your own pocket. As someone who has just said that if any procedure you may ever need would cost so much money that you couldn't pay for it yourself, you'd rather die, you've basically just said you don't care if you live. If you don't want to live, your opinions and feelings about the issues involving sustaining living people aren't worth listening to.

Your comparison of roads waste management systems to healthcare is only saying that those systems are way better run by the government than by a smattering of individual, private companies. What you have yet to say is how government run healthcare is so drastically different from roads and water systems. You say it's absurd for government to run healthcare as if to make people feel dumb for not knowing the differences between why a road network and why healthcare are different in terms of why the government should be involved.

I see your points about road systems and other things and think you've just supported healthcare by making me think "I wonder if government can make healthcare that much better too?" Lets look at the main reason why private systems for roads don't work well, and see if there's a similarity in providing health care. The main reason why I see private companies building roads not working well is because roads need to interconnect and service everyone. If you have only even 2 companies building road networks in your state, then they would have to come to some sort of agreement as to how to connect or else your road network wouldn't get you where you want to go in anywhere near an optimal route. You would also have to charge some people somehow. The fairest way seems like putting on tolls when you cross from one companies' road to another. That'd be great for traffic flow! If, in this pretend world, you instead would just have people pay for the roads up front, and everyone would have to pay for their own individual pieces of road that goes in front of their house, no one would pay for the highway, or you'd have to pay for the highway by paying more money for your road in front of your house. It gets messy very, very easily.
Lets compare this to healthcare. Clearly the issue of payment for an individuals healthcare is going to much simpler. Pay for what you need and go. However, underlying this simple process is a lot of things. The very first thing is that you're going to have to have places and ways for people to pay. Having even 1 payment centre for, say, a hospital is way more overhead than taking a percent off someone's taxes. Secondly, in order to efficiently run things (all the while keeping in mind the road comparison of connecting everything properly) you would need to get individual doctors systems to agree with scheduling of equipment. Is it a first come first serve basis? Who pays the MRI tech's salary? Sure sure, the hospital does. But who gets what money when you find that hospital A's xray is booked to the max, and patients then get sent to hospital B for an xray but are still seeing some doctor who works at A? To top this all off, there has to be a liason between every insurance company and every healthcare worker because all this costs so friggin much that most people feel insurance is necessary. And then there's all the cost of the insurance.

With all that said, am I missing the point as to why roads are good for government to run but healthcare isn't?

As to your comments are credit unions and banks, they're functionally the same thing, except credit unions are smaller and don't have the weight of having to set precedents for balancing the economy. Any not-for-profit organization is just a company that sets a high salary for the top dog(s) instead of the salary of all the companies' profits (or losses if that's the case). If I were to join a credit union, I would feel as a part of it as I am about my local co-op store, which is basically not a part at all. If I had a say I would be able to complain about things like why the majority of the staff is paid minimum wage. As far as using some such thing with healthcare...I point to my previous paragraph.

[Patashu]

Re: Socialism?

Things like public roads, municipal water and legal systems are the few things that are wholly justified. Private roads and private legal systems are ****ing LAUGHABLE concepts to consider, and private water is only unreasonable to consider because of the outrageous cost that would be required to undergo a private water system as useful as the municipal one already in place.

You'll find some libertarians who are steadfast in their opinion that things like education or libraries or firefighting or even police force should be privatized. I don't think there are many who would make the same case for roads or THE ****ING LEGAL SYSTEM. Taxes, thus, are necessary for the necessary jobs that government IS justified in having, BUT the absurd taxes for the absurd **** they SHOULDN'T DO are NOT.

Okay, so you're fine with public services, you just disagree on which ones should be which. (I should talk about America's for-profit prisons too, haha. Awful stuff; they make money by imprisoning more people, which means they have a vested interest in not rehabilitating prisoners!)

You're right. I wouldn't be wagering under universal healthcare, I'd just be FORCED TO PAY REGARDLESS through the money I pay into taxes.

Actually, you'd be forced to pay tax regardless, which is different from paying for the procedure itself; you do not have to pay catastrophic amounts of money for a catastrophic illness, that's the whole point! While you're sick and can't work, a bit of the state's tax would go towards ensuring you're cared for so you'll be alive, jobbed and productive at the end.

Proponents of healthcare reform in the form of universal healthcare overlook the BEST choice. The current system is corrupt due to profit, right? So remove the function of profit. Banks can be argued as similarly corrupt, so to fix that problem, remove the profit. Ever heard of credit unions? They're basically NOT-FOR-PROFIT banks. And they work GREAT. So why not apply the same business model to health care system? It's probably not allowed under current bull**** laws is my only guess, but if you're gonna MUCK AROUND WITH NEW LAWS, just ****ing fix the **** that's wrong with it in the first place.

Private NPO healthcare. That's the ****ing solution here. Not bull**** government tinkering.

Isn't what you're advocating, a system with no incentive for profit, basically what the government is meant to do anyway?

[hayatewillown]

Re: Socialism?

I'm not about to get into an argument over where the US government SHOULD be putting their money. We could both come up with hundreds of ideas at least one of us thinks is better, it really would get us nowhere. I'm really not an economist whatsoever, but I figure that paying off a countries debt works something like paying of your mortgage. You usually do it slowly, and people often take out a second one or re-mortage once it's paid off for various financial reasons. Paying off a mortgage in full is usually the last thing that someone does, and would also be stupid for the vast majority of homeowners.

As far as taxing people who can't afford it, if it is so similar to what canada has, then I wholly disagree with you. I've been on the low-income end ever since I've lived on my own, and I'm certainly not paying taxes beyond sales tax when I make less than a minimal amount of money.
Your argument against taxes is just that: an argument against taxes. The same argument could be made for any service the government would want to bring in. The only reason such an argument against taxes holds weight in this discussion would be if you thought the healthcare system that would be brought in would be terrible and end up being worse than the current system in the US, which is something you have not claimed.

Um... If you payed attention to my first post my argument is about taxes that are completely unreasonable, rushed, and first off, the phrase "Taxation without representation". Again, the people aren't being represented. It is the JOB of these senators to reflect what their citizens want. And Yes, anti capitalism is the worst. The healthcare system is OK, it's far from perfect, but socialized is another story, considering that electrical costs would skyrocket. So would the cost for healthcare. 9 Trillion over 10 years? Ok Obama.. Ok

Actually, you'd be forced to pay tax regardless, which is different from paying for the procedure itself; you do not have to pay catastrophic amounts of money for a catastrophic illness, that's the whole point! While you're sick and can't work, a bit of the state's tax would go towards ensuring you're cared for so you'll be alive, jobbed and productive at the end.

So what happens to the nations debt?

Isn't what you're advocating, a system with no incentive for profit, basically what the government is meant to do anyway?

First off, there should be incentive for profit, but this is not a fix to debt, and it destroys private practice, again, I prefer a professional.

I'm not about to get into an argument over where the US government SHOULD be putting their money. We could both come up with hundreds of ideas at least one of us thinks is better, it really would get us nowhere. I'm really not an economist whatsoever, but I figure that paying off a countries debt works something like paying of your mortgage. You usually do it slowly, and people often take out a second one or re-mortage once it's paid off for various financial reasons. Paying off a mortgage in full is usually the last thing that someone does, and would also be stupid for the vast majority of homeowners.

And whats ironic is that the housing market sucks...


Take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr5FO9hvFkw

America is the world leader in medical advancements and people from all over the world travel to see U.S specialists. The US healthcare system's problem is not the quality of care(because we do have the best quality) but the costs of healthcare. However that can be achieved through tort reform and opening up nationwide competition. By the way wasn't it the Canadian health minister last week saying that the Canadian system is unsustainable?

And also... Cash for Clunkers is practically useless...

[Patashu]

Re: Socialism?

So you'd agree that the problem with Healthcare in America is the cost and lack of consistent coverage, not the effectivity of it, right? Why then do you oppose Universal Healthcare, which is not a reform of doctors but of the way care is provided and distributed between carer and client, as opposed to between carer, client and 'insurance provider' who's primary interest is to squeeze as much profit out of its hapless clients as it can get away with? Something like 30% of healthcare costs is on administrative overhead, i.e. chasing down claims, all because of insurance company greed, and because universal healthcare would allow people to feel safer and more secure in their job in case of catastrophic illness or injury, they would actually be able to spend more freely and be more equipped to keep their job; so joblessness would go down, costs would go down, what's meant to be the disadvantage?

[Afrobean]

Re: Socialism?

Hi, my name is Afrobean and I make absurdly long quoted replies. Apologies for the obscenities if they offend you delicate constitutions, but I feel it's necessary sometimes to emphasize how ****ing stupid some of the **** put forth here is.

As far as taxing people who can't afford it, if it is so similar to what canada has, then I wholly disagree with you. I've been on the low-income end ever since I've lived on my own, and I'm certainly not paying taxes beyond sales tax when I make less than a minimal amount of money.

Canada doesn't have income tax?

Because in USA, any job that's legit (i.e., not "under the table") cuts a relatively large chunk of your money out of each pay check. Then when you spend/invest the money that they let you keep, they take more of it. They hit you coming and going.

Your argument against taxes is just that: an argument against taxes. The same argument could be made for any service the government would want to bring in.

So you're in favor of higher taxes? I'm sorry, but I am wholly opposed to the tax system as it stands now and to know it will get even worse from here is very troubling for me. And the only way it WOULDN'T become worse is if they **** up the national debt even more, and that's even ****tier.

The only reason such an argument against taxes holds weight in this discussion would be if you thought the healthcare system that would be brought in would be terrible and end up being worse than the current system in the US, which is something you have not claimed.

It would be slower and it would force people like me who DON'T WANT IT to pay for the ****s who are the pimples on society's ass.

Afrobean: Government healthcare is NOT insurance. You're not squirrelling money away either on your own or with a company who will then hopefully end up paying for anything that may happen to you. What you would be paying for is a service, a service I guarantee you will use multiple times in your life if you want to actually live a healthy life, and a service I guarantee will cost you less money than if you paid for the treatment from your own pocket.

I'm as healthy as I've ever been and haven't been to a medical institution in years. I honestly cannot think of a single instance in my life where I can be assured that I would even need to step foot in a hospital or doctor's office. Accidents are one thing, but you're GUARANTEEING I will need it? For what?

As someone who has just said that if any procedure you may ever need would cost so much money that you couldn't pay for it yourself, you'd rather die, you've basically just said you don't care if you live. If you don't want to live, your opinions and feelings about the issues involving sustaining living people aren't worth listening to.

You clearly misunderstood what I was saying. All I was saying is that odds are good that if something truly terrible happens to me, something so bad I wouldn't be able to scrounge to afford treatment, that it would be LIKELY that something that bad is bad enough just to kill me. Terrible car wreck, I could easily die from that. Terrible disease, I could easily die from that. I'm not saying I'd prefer to, I'm just saying it's likely.

Your comparison of roads waste management systems to healthcare is only saying that those systems are way better run by the government than by a smattering of individual, private companies.

Again, you misunderstood me. Don't know how you could draw that conclusion when I refer to the SUCCESS of waste management in private sector. Yes, water is impossible in the private sector pretty much, because of all the piping that would need to be laid, all the legal rights and all that.

But waste management can work. They don't require laying a bunch of pipes EVERYWHERE. They can just drive their trucks to the neighborhoods they're contracted for, pick **** up, and drive it back to their private dump (or whereever they're contracted to dump to). Same idea with health insurance. The thing stopping health insurance and "healthcare" from being useful is the profit model on it, NOT the fact that it's not feasible for the private sector to offer it. The private sector absolutely CAN offer it, they're just corrupted by the for-profit model. It's not like they need to apply work laying pipes all over the place and can't get the legal rights to it because of the inordinate cost.

What you have yet to say is how government run healthcare is so drastically different from roads and water systems.

Roads and water cannot be supplied by the private sector due to cost constraints. Insurance can, as there are no costs which stop it from being possible.

You say it's absurd for government to run healthcare as if to make people feel dumb for not knowing the differences between why a road network and why healthcare are different in terms of why the government should be involved.

Yeah, if a person can't see why the private sector can't do private roads and yet can do insurance, that person dumb.

I see your points about road systems and other things and think you've just supported healthcare by making me think "I wonder if government can make healthcare that much better too?"

It's not that government makes roads better, it's that the private sector CANNOT DO IT AT ALL. The Insurance industry, however, IS possible to function in the private sector.

Lets look at the main reason why private systems for roads don't work well, and see if there's a similarity in providing health care. The main reason why I see private companies building roads not working well is because roads need to interconnect and service everyone.

Actually, it's that, plus the fact that roads need to be officially standardized, plus how would a person pay for private roads? Would every road you drive on from the street you live on up to main streets up to interstates be TOLLWAYS? Every mile you'd have to stop and pay money? How do you think it would cost effective for a private company to build and maintain these roads, keep them standardized in size and type and rules and such, ANNND maintain their money collection system which would likely need to be MANNED BOOTHS freaking EVERYWHERE.

Lets compare this to healthcare. Clearly the issue of payment for an individuals healthcare is going to much simpler. Pay for what you need and go. However, underlying this simple process is a lot of things. The very first thing is that you're going to have to have places and ways for people to pay. Having even 1 payment centre for, say, a hospital is way more overhead than taking a percent off someone's taxes. Secondly, in order to efficiently run things (all the while keeping in mind the road comparison of connecting everything properly) you would need to get individual doctors systems to agree with scheduling of equipment.

Roads interconnecting analogy doesn't work here. If you're covered by Company X with health insurance, Company X doesn't need to interact with Company Y to serve you. They have to interact with HOSPITALS AND ****. I would guess that in the terrible and broken analogy of road construction, that would be like ensuring that all roads and ways to get off the roads to enter private businesses. You can't say "all roads need to interact so all health care needs to interact therefore government should socialize health care". **** no. That's just stupid.

With all that said, am I missing the point as to why roads are good for government to run but healthcare isn't?

Because roads need to:

#1: be standardized
#2: collect money for payment

Insurance:

#1: doesn't need to be universally standardized
#2: Has no problems being able to collect payment for their services

Honestly, how can you look at the profits they make and say "no, they have problems with money and government running it would make things better." Seriously? They have a problem with money: they have too ****ing much of it.

As to your comments are credit unions and banks, they're functionally the same thing, except credit unions are smaller and don't have the weight of having to set precedents for balancing the economy. Any not-for-profit organization is just a company that sets a high salary for the top dog(s) instead of the salary of all the companies' profits (or losses if that's the case).

Or in other words:

"I don't understand how NPOs work!"

If I were to join a credit union, I would feel as a part of it as I am about my local co-op store, which is basically not a part at all. If I had a say I would be able to complain about things like why the majority of the staff is paid minimum wage. As far as using some such thing with healthcare...I point to my previous paragraph.

If an employee is only paid minimum wage, that is all they are worth. You have no right to complain "This person here is only making minimum wage for their unskilled work!" If the employer says they are going to pay the employee that much and they are able to fill the job with a person, THAT IS WHAT THE JOB IS WORTH. THIS IS HOW THE FREE MARKET

CAPITALISTIC WORLD WORKS MOTHER ****ER.

Okay, so you're fine with public services, you just disagree on which ones should be which. (I should talk about America's for-profit prisons too, haha. Awful stuff; they make money by imprisoning more people, which means they have a vested interest in not rehabilitating prisoners!)

That is truly terrible, and I will say that prisons should be government run due to their necessary role in the judicial system.

Actually, you'd be forced to pay tax regardless, which is different from paying for the procedure itself; you do not have to pay catastrophic amounts of money for a catastrophic illness, that's the whole point!

So you're thinking that taxes will remain CONSTANT? Where will the money come from to pay for this then? If I'm not paying any more in my taxes and no one else is paying any more, where does the money come from to pay for my "catastrophic illness"?

And what if I don't feel as though I will ever be catastrophically ill? What if I don't want to pay into the pot that will be used IN CASE I am ever catastrophically ill? What if I don't like the idea of paying for health insurance when I'm perfectly healthy so that some **** who doesn't deserve it can get whatever medical treatment. Screw the asshole who can't fend for himself.

While you're sick and can't work, a bit of the state's tax would go towards ensuring you're cared for so you'll be alive, jobbed and productive at the end.

**** that. I don't need mommy picking me up and kissing my booboos. I can take care of myself, at least as far as "[being] alive, jobbed and productive at the end."

And actually, you say "state". If this was a STATE decision, I think I might be more ok with it. If the state I live in sets up something I don't like, I could always move to another state, right? BUT THIS **** IS FEDERAL.

Isn't what you're advocating, a system with no incentive for profit, basically what the government is meant to do anyway?

Sort of, except that it would be private sector with COMPETITION. And it's not that there is no "incentive for profit", it's that it's not profit above all else. They would provide the service necessary first and foremost, provide a FAIR salary for the people they employ, then figure out what to do with surplus, which would otherwise be PROFIT. It can go toward new projects, new advancements, expansion, whatever.

And also... Cash for Clunkers is practically useless...

lmao FREE MONEY

That's what makes government great, right? WHEN THEY GIVE AWAY FREE MONEY?!

And of course everyone turned around and bought Japanese cars and ****, when the whole point was to try to prop up the American companies that the government had given loans to (while at the same time, they had just given FREE MONEY away to the financial industry).

Man, I hate the world some times. It's like we get the worst of both worlds from capitalism and socialism without anything of the good stuff. Where's the competition brings down costs and brings up quality? Foreign cars are way better than American because American cars are pieces of **** and the companies refuse to fix it. Then we turn around and get the ****ty side of socialism in government taking their absurd taxes and using it to prop up failing industries, and yet we don't get the benefits of government funded social projects that help the greater good (we instead only get social projects that help the BOTTOM RUNG).

[devonin]

Re: Socialism?

(Friendly "Here's how it is in Canada" aside)

Canada doesn't have income tax?

If you make less than a certain amount of money in the year, your income is not taxed. And if it were taxed but you made little enough money that you shoudln't have been, you get that money back when you file your income taxes.

[Patashu]

Re: Socialism?

the tax burden will be lower then it would if you were getting private insurance, for a couple of reasons:
1. government provided healthcare is not a for-profit service, so slash off the 30% or more overhead for administrative costs dedicated to squeezing more money out of the venture
2. progressive taxes tax the poor less and the rich more, so if you're at a level where catastrophic illness would seriously endanger your life you're probably not needing to pay much towards it
3. because the country will now be able to better handle healthcare issues without fear of going bankrupt or into debt or being denied coverage they will be healthier, more economically mobile and better able to hold down jobs; thus, there will be more of an ability to make wealth go around.

It's one of those community social cohesion things. When one member of the community is down, use a bit of everyone else's productivity to help him back up; as long as you do this for everyone, everyone will remain productive and it will pay itself off.

You say you can take care of yourself? It's okay, you don't need to prove you're a big strong tough man to us. Some diseases and injuries are MUCH tougher than you are, and you can't just pull up your bootstraps and get over it; if you're not getting taken care of for the duration and can't be confident you'll have money and a job when you recover, you're pretty much screwed.

[Afrobean]

Re: Socialism?

the tax burden will be lower then it would if you were getting private insurance, for a couple of reasons:
1. government provided healthcare is not a for-profit service, so slash off the 30% or more overhead for administrative costs dedicated to squeezing more money out of the venture

NPO would do the same in this area, while still faciliating the function of competition in the free market. It would also give individuals AN OPTION of whether they want to pay for this service or not.

2. progressive taxes tax the poor less and the rich more, so if you're at a level where catastrophic illness would seriously endanger your life you're probably not needing to pay much towards it

Or in other words: "take from the rich and give to the poor". You really think it's fair to charge the rich with funding public health insurance for poor people who don't deserve it? REMEMBER: good health and insurance are NOT government protected rights. A person isn't endowed by their creator with the right to be healthy or with the right to be protected by any sort of insurance service or medical care service.

3. because the country will now be able to better handle healthcare issues without fear of going bankrupt or into debt or being denied coverage they will be healthier, more economically mobile and better able to hold down jobs; thus, there will be more of an ability to make wealth go around.

Huh? You're talking on a micro level but refer to it as "the country"? No. A single person, particularly a POOR PERSON would be better able to handle health insurance issues without fear.

In addition, I think you're oversimplifying things and missing the point of CLASS DIFFERENCES. Looks to me like you're envisioning a world where everyone is economically equal and that's not only impossible, but it's also not an ideal choice: that would be communism.

SOME people need to be at the bottom rung of society. That's just the way it is. It's unfortunate for those individuals, but we can't all be equal. You can't just say "oh we'll just move all of the lower class up to middle class by taking extra money from the rich."

It's one of those community social cohesion things. When one member of the community is down, use a bit of everyone else's productivity to help him back up; as long as you do this for everyone, everyone will remain productive and it will pay itself off.

This is counterproductive to capitalism and the American way. If you're so fond of that sort of thing, go check out Cuba or something. I hear they love communism.

You say you can take care of yourself? It's okay, you don't need to prove you're a big strong tough man to us. Some diseases and injuries are MUCH tougher than you are, and you can't just pull up your bootstraps and get over it; if you're not getting taken care of for the duration and can't be confident you'll have money and a job when you recover, you're pretty much screwed.

You are clearly not an adult. You do not understand how little health insurance (or "healthcare" as you would say it) helps a person. You talk about "having money and a job when you recover", but healthcare won't do that for you. All it CAN do for you is minimize (NOT eliminate) the INSTANT cost of medical treatment, but it does this by making you pay CONSTANTLY the rest of your life as well.

ps do you seriously believe taxes would be LOWER if the government brought upon itself such an enormous and ridiculous social project? I assure you, costs of government will be HIGHER if this happens, and if taxes aren't raised to compensate, the debt will just become even more and more worse.

[Patashu]

Re: Socialism?

NPO would do the same in this area, while still faciliating the function of competition in the free market. It would also give individuals AN OPTION of whether they want to pay for this service or not.

who's going to fund it then?

Or in other words: "take from the rich and give to the poor". You really think it's fair to charge the rich with funding public health insurance for poor people who don't deserve it? REMEMBER: good health and insurance are NOT government protected rights. A person isn't endowed by their creator with the right to be healthy or with the right to be protected by any sort of insurance service or medical care service.

Why are you complaining about progressive taxation NOW when it's been going on for ages? Having maintained roads and a functional legal system aren't God given rights either, but they sure are desirable for a properly functional society; just like prisons should be not-for-profit because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (private prisons have no interest in rehabilitation because it reduces their profits to not be locking people up), so should healthcare because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (the best way to make profit is to deny claims, charge more and other bureaucratic abuses, as opposed to providing more of or a better product)

Huh? You're talking on a micro level but refer to it as "the country"? No. A single person, particularly a POOR PERSON would be better able to handle health insurance issues without fear.

In addition, I think you're oversimplifying things and missing the point of CLASS DIFFERENCES. Looks to me like you're envisioning a world where everyone is economically equal and that's not only impossible, but it's also not an ideal choice: that would be communism.

SOME people need to be at the bottom rung of society. That's just the way it is. It's unfortunate for those individuals, but we can't all be equal. You can't just say "oh we'll just move all of the lower class up to middle class by taking extra money from the rich."

haha where have I suggested making everyone completely equal? all I'm advocating is that the system doesn't **** someone over as soon as they get too sick to work even though they could get better and be just as productive as before with a little help from the rest of us. we are not giving them money, we're just not sucking them dry for things beyond their control that could strike at any moment.
whether and why it is the case that some people have to be obscenely ultra rich and others have to be obscenely ultra poor is something that would be interesting to discuss but is outside the scope of this debate

This is counterproductive to capitalism and the American way. If you're so fond of that sort of thing, go check out Cuba or something. I hear they love communism.

so what, you hate helping others? humans are, you know, social creatures who naturally bond together in groups.
I love how you put 'the american way' in italics like some kind of reverent indisputable jingoistic phrase. what does that even mean? is it the american way to **** over your neighbours when they get weak and sick? or wouldn't you rather lend a helping hand?
also I'm pretty sure I said this earlier but cuba's life expectancy is the same as america's despite spending 5% per annum of the amount america does on healthcare, so I'd say they're doing p. OK given the circumstances

You are clearly not an adult. You do not understand how little health insurance (or "healthcare" as you would say it) helps a person. You talk about "having money and a job when you recover", but healthcare won't do that for you. All it CAN do for you is minimize (NOT eliminate) the INSTANT cost of medical treatment, but it does this by making you pay CONSTANTLY the rest of your life as well.

in america, half of bankruptcies are related to medical costs and most of these people had health insurance. how many times would you like me to say this?

ps do you seriously believe taxes would be LOWER if the government brought upon itself such an enormous and ridiculous social project? I assure you, costs of government will be HIGHER if this happens, and if taxes aren't raised to compensate, the debt will just become even more and more worse.

it worked in canada, the UK, france, cuba, etc etc etc. basically all the industrialized countries except America implement some form of universal healthcare, and most of them are doing better than America in various metrics of health, i.e. life expectancy (no, america's life expectancy is not number one in the world)

[Cavernio]

Re: Socialism?

I'm as healthy as I've ever been and haven't been to a medical institution in years. I honestly cannot think of a single instance in my life where I can be assured that I would even need to step foot in a hospital or doctor's office. Accidents are one thing, but you're GUARANTEEING I will need it? For what?

Then you're lucky and young and you're an idiot for not being able to perceive anything that could possibly go wrong with you where you could easily live through it and it could be expensive to live through. You WILL die. You will likely die from a disease than can be slowed or even stopped. Otherwise you'll likely die from an accident. Both are situations where you WILL want medical attention if you want to live. (The only other situation of death is from war or murder: neither are likely.) And we're just talking about death situations here...god forbid you get something that makes your quality of life crap that you might want to seek medical help for.

Yeah, if a person can't see why the private sector can't do private roads and yet can do insurance, that person dumb.

I never said private sector couldn't do roads, you did. I'm saying it's a bad idea for the private sector to do roads. I'm also claiming it's a bad idea for the private sector to give healthcare. I'm claiming that public sector can do roads AND healthcare better than the private sector. My analogy was too much of a stretch...I should have set it aside and said what patashu's been saying all along, because it was an elaborate way of saying things are terribly inefficient with private healthcare, and that government run healthcare would take away those inefficiencies. The very fact that you say private companies can do INSURANCE and not healthcare means that a huge inefficiency will go away.

It's not that government makes roads better, it's that the private sector CANNOT DO IT AT ALL.

Just to be a pain, I've got a solution for private sector road building companies in terms of payment. Have every car registered in the US have a GPS system which also records where the car has driven. Every month or week or whatever, it would be mandatory to send that info somehow. Make it as easy as taking out your car's USB key and plugging it into any computer and upload the info to a website. The website would have to a separate company for sure, but that wouldn't be a problem. Maybe you could even just have the data always send the info wirelessly from the car. Whatever road or highway you've driven on, you have to pay that company's rate. Pretty easy, not a lot of overhead, totally doable.
On another note, there's no reason that a private company couldn't do the mapping for any road network. Multiple, private companies can decide to build roads wherever they want provided where they want them built meets whatever good criteria they need to meet for environmental reasons or what have you. If they incorporate a payment system as I said above, it seems like the main issue with private road building has been resolved.
Just because private companies haven't done a good job at making roads, and just because you can't perceive a way for them to do it, it doesn't mean they can't. I'm sure if suddenly the department of transportation got dissolved, we'd have private companies take a step in and do a fine job of making roads with new, innovative ways of doing things. For godsakes, if you think the free market is so uber and taxes are so terrible, don't give up on non-government so easily. Use your head.

The Insurance industry, however, IS possible to function in the private sector.

Your own counterargument follows....

The thing stopping health insurance and "healthcare" from being useful is the profit model on it, NOT the fact that it's not feasible for the private sector to offer it. The private sector absolutely CAN offer it, they're just corrupted by the for-profit model.

I gather that you think it's better that you personally don't have to pay for anything and not get anything in terms of health coverage, and to have people essentially steal money from sick people who thought they wouldn't have to pay anything, and for you to not be able to ever get treatment for diseases or accidents even though we totally have the technology because our infrastructure makes them too expensive, than for you to have to pay a couple hundred dollars a year so that everyone can get equal access healthcare? And you talk about people who are drains on society...seems like you're refusing to help it on principal.

Or in other words:

"I don't understand how NPOs work!"

Nice of you to enlighten me. Really, discussion where I'm told I'm wrong with nothing else beyond that it isn't much of a discussion. (I should really let this point slide.)

If an employee is only paid minimum wage, that is all they are worth. You have no right to complain "This person here is only making minimum wage for their unskilled work!" If the employer says they are going to pay the employee that much and they are able to fill the job with a person, THAT IS WHAT THE JOB IS WORTH. THIS IS HOW THE FREE MARKET

CAPITALISTIC WORLD WORKS MOTHER ****ER.

/start sarcasm. Ohhhh, I'm sorry, I was misinformed. I thought having a free market and being a part of a co-op meant I actually had a say in what goes on. I didn't realize a free market meant I have no free speech or that I have no say in the value of work and goods are. That's right, apparently I can only say things with money in the free market. And of course, I only have any meaning of any sort in a free market if I own a company! Why do I even have a mouth or a keyboard? All I have to do for my voice to matter is own that store! I'll get right on that just so I can validly say that my cashier doesn't get paid enough by going out and paying her more. If she doesn't get paid enough, it's my fault for not paying her more. Maybe I'll just start tipping everyone who I assume doesn't get paid enough...because I think its best that I spread my meagre wealth around so that I can try and get all 'poor' people can be on the same level while letting large business owners do whatever they want. /end sarcasm
You've just cited perfectly why I dislike purponents of capitalism. It must be nice to have an 'out' in your pocket against any virtually all complaints about something that exists in a free market economy. (The out being that because clearly that's how things are supposed to work, and if we didn't have things that way, we wouldn't be 'free' anymore, and that would be bad.)

and yet we don't get the benefits of government funded social projects that help the greater good (we instead only get social projects that help the BOTTOM RUNG).

Well, it'd DEFINITELY be a waste of money for the government to be funding social programs for the people who don't need them. I think not seeing people living and dying on the streets helps the greater good anyways. You really don't want more people sitting on the streets asking you for money, do you?

[eMVy]

Re: Socialism?

Think about nationalized health care this way:

You walk into a hospital to have an appendectamy.
The hospital takes a look at thier charts and says "Sorry, we're at a deficit of the proper type of stitching for that particular part of the body."
You get turned away with an erupting appendix.

There was a story in England about a man that had an appendectamy done twice, because the first time the doctor didn't care to actually take his appendix out.
That is what nationalized health care will do.

There are ways for people to get health care that can't afford it now - It's called Medicaid.