Nationalizing Healthcare

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari
There are dozens of other countries with these anti-freedom socialist schemes. I wonder why all the libs chose to live in this one.

On the contrary, a national healthcare insurance system with universal coverage would be one of most liberating policies in the history of our nation. It would unleash a creative/entrepenuerial wave as folks who feel chained to employers who provide healthcare benefits feel liberated to strike out on their own, knowing their healthcare is covered. By removing the fear of medical bankruptcy or denial of care folks will be free to strike out on their own.

You said that beautifully. It almost brought a tear to my eye.

People work at jobs with health insurance rather than striking out on their own in the most capitalistic venture available - owning their own business. With the cost of health care spiralling upwards, nobody can afford to own their own business for that first year or two of struggling to survive due to the fear of illness.

If universal healthcare were available, I can imagine the number of small businesses would swell greatly, which can only be a good thing for the economy.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari
There are dozens of other countries with these anti-freedom socialist schemes. I wonder why all the libs chose to live in this one.

On the contrary, a national healthcare insurance system with universal coverage would be one of most liberating policies in the history of our nation. It would unleash a creative/entrepenuerial wave as folks who feel chained to employers who provide healthcare benefits feel liberated to strike out on their own, knowing their healthcare is covered. By removing the fear of medical bankruptcy or denial of care folks will be free to strike out on their own.

:thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari
There are dozens of other countries with these anti-freedom socialist schemes. I wonder why all the libs chose to live in this one.

On the contrary, a national healthcare insurance system with universal coverage would be one of most liberating policies in the history of our nation. It would unleash a creative/entrepenuerial wave as folks who feel chained to employers who provide healthcare benefits feel liberated to strike out on their own, knowing their healthcare is covered. By removing the fear of medical bankruptcy or denial of care folks will be free to strike out on their own.

You said that beautifully. It almost brought a tear to my eye.

People work at jobs with health insurance rather than striking out on their own in the most capitalistic venture available - owning their own business. With the cost of health care spiralling upwards, nobody can afford to own their own business for that first year or two of struggling to survive due to the fear of illness.

If universal healthcare were available, I can imagine the number of small businesses would swell greatly, which can only be a good thing for the economy.

Odd how this bit doesn't match up with reality. Small business owners almost never vote Democrat. Quite the opposite, the opinion in small business is that the Democrats hate all business and small business especially. And anyone who has ever done a small business (including myself) knows that opinion to be true. Pay fee, pay fine, can't fire the loser employee who steals, etc.

 

[imported_Ant]

You can't go offering full healthcare for everyone at the expense of the taxpayer!
Imagine all the fatties wanting liposuction at the expense of the taxpayer, because the weight is affecting their health.

This idea is going to the extreme and does not take account of the social costs involved.
For a start, saying that your health will entirely be looked after by government funded insurance is looking at it the wrong way.
A good government should be providing a system that encourages good health and backing it up with free essential medical services.
I doubt the taxpayer could afford to pay for things like publically funded cosmetic surgery.

 

[luigi1]

If you are an american, nationalized healthcare will save you money. Again, no one in this country is turned away from ER. You are paying for it. If any savings could be realised from treating the conditions prior to an ER visit. Then there is money to be saved. Guys, this is a no brainer. There is huge money to be saved right there. Add to this the benifit of a small business buy not having the cost or not getting the talent because of health insurence charges. And my friends youve got a revitalized economy. You can't deny the facts.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
real healthcare starts at home, not in the doctor's office.

So true. It can also be put this way. Real healthcare is the RESPONSIBILITY of the individual and it starts at home, not the responsibility of the Government at the doctor's office.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: luigi1
If you are an american, nationalized healthcare will save you money. Again, no one in this country is turned away from ER. You are paying for it. If any savings could be realised from treating the conditions prior to an ER visit. Then there is money to be saved. Guys, this is a no brainer. There is huge money to be saved right there. Add to this the benifit of a small business buy not having the cost or not getting the talent because of health insurence charges. And my friends youve got a revitalized economy. You can't deny the facts.

Saved where? You didn't provide any facts. Just conjecture. Your whole post sounds like a bad sales pitch.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Ant
You can't go offering full healthcare for everyone at the expense of the taxpayer!
Imagine all the fatties wanting liposuction at the expense of the taxpayer, because the weight is affecting their health.

This idea is going to the extreme and does not take account of the social costs involved.
For a start, saying that your health will entirely be looked after by government funded insurance is looking at it the wrong way.
A good government should be providing a system that encourages good health and backing it up with free essential medical services.
I doubt the taxpayer could afford to pay for things like publically funded cosmetic surgery.

Add in Viagra, Levitra, and the rest of ED drugs to this.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Ant
You can't go offering full healthcare for everyone at the expense of the taxpayer!
Imagine all the fatties wanting liposuction at the expense of the taxpayer, because the weight is affecting their health.

This idea is going to the extreme and does not take account of the social costs involved.
For a start, saying that your health will entirely be looked after by government funded insurance is looking at it the wrong way.
A good government should be providing a system that encourages good health and backing it up with free essential medical services.
I doubt the taxpayer could afford to pay for things like publically funded cosmetic surgery.

Add in Viagra, Levitra, and the rest of ED drugs to this.

You guys are both morons, how old are you? NO private insurnace in USA offers these benefits let alone any social welfare country.

Saved where? You didn't provide any facts. Just conjecture. Your whole post sounds like a bad sales pitch.

Seems pretty clear they, as in every other 1st world country, pays half what we do per capita. Nevermind they insure everyone, they pay half! How they get these is what I'd like to know.

 

[HamSupLo]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari
There are dozens of other countries with these anti-freedom socialist schemes. I wonder why all the libs chose to live in this one.

On the contrary, a national healthcare insurance system with universal coverage would be one of most liberating policies in the history of our nation. It would unleash a creative/entrepenuerial wave as folks who feel chained to employers who provide healthcare benefits feel liberated to strike out on their own, knowing their healthcare is covered. By removing the fear of medical bankruptcy or denial of care folks will be free to strike out on their own.

extremely well put :thumbsup:

 

[imported_Ant]

Originally posted by: Zebo
NO private insurance in USA offers these benefits let alone any social welfare country.

My point was perhaps a little extreme... but I was pointing out that any purely commercial healthcare enterprise will not take account of causitive factors in treating people.
Their job is to make money, and if anything they'll try to encourage more customers.

If the government has ownership of medical facilities, they can put the policies in place to reduce the overall social and economic cost on the system.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Seems pretty clear they, as in every other 1st world country, pays half what we do per capita. Nevermind they insure everyone, they pay half! How they get these is what I'd like to know.

Easy. They pay the doctors, the lawyers, and the insurance companies less. The doctors get paid like high school teachers, the malpractice lawyers get shut out, and the insurance companies become government bureaucracies. We don't have to socialize to do that. What was my first post in this thread? "Problem. Reaction. Solution." I, for one, do not like be treated like a puppet on a string.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zebo
Seems pretty clear they, as in every other 1st world country, pays half what we do per capita. Nevermind they insure everyone, they pay half! How they get these is what I'd like to know.

Easy. They pay the doctors, the lawyers, and the insurance companies less. The doctors get paid like high school teachers, the malpractice lawyers get shut out, and the insurance companies become government bureaucracies. We don't have to socialize to do that. What was my first post in this thread? "Problem. Reaction. Solution." I, for one, do not like be treated like a puppet on a string.

I don't know if what you say is true Someone earlier in thread comented his bro is a English Dr doing well, besides, like you guys always say, who the heck would become a doc if pay was'nt commensurate with time and effort?

Prevention prevention prevention I think. Here, as I said everyone has health insurance anyway, so when they are 45 and so-called "un-insured" and roll into the emergency room with a heart attack it costs 350K instead of getting some basic prevention maybe drugs which would have avoided such

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zebo
Seems pretty clear they, as in every other 1st world country, pays half what we do per capita. Nevermind they insure everyone, they pay half! How they get these is what I'd like to know.

Easy. They pay the doctors, the lawyers, and the insurance companies less. The doctors get paid like high school teachers, the malpractice lawyers get shut out, and the insurance companies become government bureaucracies. We don't have to socialize to do that. What was my first post in this thread? "Problem. Reaction. Solution." I, for one, do not like be treated like a puppet on a string.

I don't know if what you say is true Someone earlier in thread comented his bro is a English Dr doing well, besides, like you guys always say, who the heck would become a doc if pay was'nt commensurate with time and effort?

Prevention prevention prevention I think. Here, as I said everyone has health insurance anyway, so when they are 45 and so-called "un-insured" and roll into the emergency room with a heart attack it costs 350K instead of getting some basic prevention maybe drugs which would have avoided such

But prevention doesn't require socialism either, not could socialism guarantee prevention (the availability of healthcare does not guarantee that one would actually use it, and socialized healthcare in America can almost be guaranteed to be a system in which one would be discouraged from using it -- England already had that problem, hence their mixed system today). Only education can bring about any true form of prevention.

Regardless, I think my point is being missed. Have you not noticed that those elite groups who run the Democratic party are the same ones that would stand to lose the most under the ideal socialized health plan? Hmm...

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari
There are dozens of other countries with these anti-freedom socialist schemes. I wonder why all the libs chose to live in this one.

On the contrary, a national healthcare insurance system with universal coverage would be one of most liberating policies in the history of our nation. It would unleash a creative/entrepenuerial wave as folks who feel chained to employers who provide healthcare benefits feel liberated to strike out on their own, knowing their healthcare is covered. By removing the fear of medical bankruptcy or denial of care folks will be free to strike out on their own.

You said that beautifully. It almost brought a tear to my eye.

People work at jobs with health insurance rather than striking out on their own in the most capitalistic venture available - owning their own business. With the cost of health care spiralling upwards, nobody can afford to own their own business for that first year or two of struggling to survive due to the fear of illness.

If universal healthcare were available, I can imagine the number of small businesses would swell greatly, which can only be a good thing for the economy.

I agree mostly, though my thoughts on this subject are stilled mixed.

However a SIGNIFICANT reason my wife continues to work at a job (which offers a decent health plan) she does not like...instead of starting her own small business...is because MY job (and healthcare) is not very stable at the moment.

If healthcare were not an issue. She would quit tomorrow and fire up that business. Our current family plan for us would be well over $1000 a month on our own.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zebo
Seems pretty clear they, as in every other 1st world country, pays half what we do per capita. Nevermind they insure everyone, they pay half! How they get these is what I'd like to know.

Easy. They pay the doctors, the lawyers, and the insurance companies less. The doctors get paid like high school teachers, the malpractice lawyers get shut out, and the insurance companies become government bureaucracies. We don't have to socialize to do that. What was my first post in this thread? "Problem. Reaction. Solution." I, for one, do not like be treated like a puppet on a string.

I don't know if what you say is true Someone earlier in thread comented his bro is a English Dr doing well, besides, like you guys always say, who the heck would become a doc if pay was'nt commensurate with time and effort?

Prevention prevention prevention I think. Here, as I said everyone has health insurance anyway, so when they are 45 and so-called "un-insured" and roll into the emergency room with a heart attack it costs 350K instead of getting some basic prevention maybe drugs which would have avoided such

But prevention doesn't require socialism either, not could socialism guarantee prevention (the availability of healthcare does not guarantee that one would actually use it, and socialized healthcare in America can almost be guaranteed to be a system in which one would be discouraged from using it -- England already had that problem, hence their mixed system today). Only education can bring about any true form of prevention.

Regardless, I think my point is being missed. Have you not noticed that those elite groups who run the Democratic party are the same ones that would stand to lose the most under the ideal socialized health plan? Hmm...

I don't know what you mean Vic? Lose what? Constituancy? Sure why not, they say 45 million peeps are un or under insured and I'm sure many if not the majority vote democratic. But don't let Repubs fool you, if enough peeps find themselves w/o insurance they'll be pimping a plan lickty split like they did with SS meds.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Zebo

I don't know what you mean Vic? Lose what? Constituancy? Sure why not, they say 45 million peeps are un or under insured and I'm sure many if not the majority vote democratic. But don't let Repubs fool you, if enough peeps find themselves w/o insurance they'll be pimping a plan lickty split like they did with SS meds.

And how many people were uninsured after 8 years of Clinton?

 

[Zebo]

Whats clinton got to do with anything? His wife tried some health care plan way back when but country was'nt ready for it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't know what you mean Vic? Lose what? Constituancy? Sure why not, they say 45 million peeps are un or under insured and I'm sure many if not the majority vote democratic. But don't let Repubs fool you, if enough peeps find themselves w/o insurance they'll be pimping a plan lickty split like they did with SS meds.

I'm talking about the elites that run the DNC. Trial lawyers and insurance companies. IMO what they'll be pimping is the slow and steady socialization they've already been doing that continues to make them rich while jacking our premiums ever that much higher, creating more cries for something to done, etc. Like I've been saying this whole damned thread, "Problem-Reaction-Solution." Create a problem that generates a public reaction that leads to a pre-planned solution.

The shame of it all is that people really do need healthcare. Badly. But no solution will work until the real problem is addressed. Costs. Artificially driven up by the AMA, by the lawyers, by the pharmaceuticals, by the insurance companies, and by overburdening government regulation. A government bandaid that doesn't address those problems will not make healthcare any more affordable. Quite the contrary, our history of socialism demonstrates that government money just makes the corruption that much worse and the cost to the people that much more.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: zendari
Add in Viagra, Levitra, and the rest of ED drugs to this.

You guys are both morons, how old are you? NO private insurnace in USA offers these benefits let alone any social welfare country.

Most insurance plans in this country cover something like 6 ED pills a month, hell IIRC medicare will even cover it.

The biggest problems with the system right now are that there is a doctor shortage artifically created by the AMA, overhead and administrative expenses are running endlessly upwards and not everyone is paying into the system.

There are 40million people that are uninsured that are using the system and not paying into it. The single biggest thing they could do to lower costs is to create a nationalized system that people are forced to pay into IF they do not provide proof of insurance through their employer that would cover emergency services and reimburse the hospitals and clinics for the currently uninsured. All the freeloaders are screwing the system balance up. I would actually like to see a mandatory disability and high deductible insurance for everyone so that we can cover people that aren't smart enough or willing to pay for it on their own. With everyone paying into the system, instead of just the upper end, the system would be much more viable and that would drive costs down.