Healthcare for all is a necessary thing. BUT, it cannot just be given to all. Just giving health care to all is Socialism. Socialized medicine is in France, Germany etc. They're all going broke. I'm a strong believer in you get what you work for. A free ride will just destroy the United States financially. Roosevelt had a good idea with Social Security. Then the liberal do gooder snivlers got hold of it and gave a monthly check to every lazy slob who complained that they couldn't work because of every fraudulent problem they could think of. Congress please think the healthcare issue out and just don't make it a feel good law that puts this country down the drain.
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
Free health care to all is Socialism. It will break this country financially.
Simply dismissing talk of universal healthcare (for lack of a better, stigma-free term) by terming it socialist is not actually accomplishing anything. I listen to a lot of conservative talk radio and that is what they do there. By terming something 'socialist', you bring in all of the negative connotations of that term and hope to avoid any serious debate on the matter. My understanding is that this organization seeks to do away with that sort of ideological warfare that the political parties have devolved into and actually attempt to have a serious discussion about issues that affect people's lives.
Now topazguns, that doesn't mean that you might not have legitimate points. If you had stated that a government-run, single payer healthcare system that the majority of the industrialized world has instituted is inefficient and undesirable, then there could be a serious discussion.
I suggest you try it, see what happens.
Hi
Im disabled im 29 a college student and I have a very bad time with my health care. My health insurance will not cover hospital stays they cover doctor visits to the doctors office and they cover my meds but they wont cover x rays and or tests and or long stays in the hospital.
I was wondering what can we do for someone like me to change things so that if I have to be in hospital that I can have the coverage needed
thank you
If you are disabled, you should be eligible for medicare.
Perhaps I don't know enough about your situation, but it appears you have made a choice between college and healthcare. Your choice is college. Live with it.
for disabled people, ask around, start with your state goverment.
That doesn't make any sense. You're saying that he should choose between healthcare and college. And since he chose college over healthcare he should suffer the consequences of his decision. ??? He is probably in college to get a degree to make his life better so that he CAN more easily afford healthcare...instead of sitting at home taking handouts from medicare and twiddling his thumbs. Please think about what you are saying before you post.
Your not alone, I am also disabled after 32 years of hard work having difficult times and todays Healt Care system provides little or no relief and lists me as uninsurable. Sad but true. We provide care for the rest of the world but not for own citizens whose taxes contributed to the worldwide care we provide.
Universal healthcare is just another way for politicians to buy votes.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury—with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by dictatorship."
–Alexander Tyler (in England 400 years ago)
Let's prove him wrong.
Is that why so many politicians support it? Right now, there is a pending bill in the House, HR 676, sponsored by John Conyers, which is currently sponsored by only 38 other Representatives. That is, it has about 9% support in the House. In the Senate, there is no comparable bill at this time. It would appear that support there is at 0%. Among the presidential candidates of the two established corporate parties, only one of the 18 major candidates supports Conyers bill - Dennis Kucinich. Some of teh others talk about universal health care, but when you examine their plans, you see that there are gaps in all of them (except Kucinich's), and all of them maintain the current private health insurance companies that are draining the system with 31% overhead costs, and denying coverage at every opportunity to maintain their profits, instead of actually providing coverage for health care, even when it is recommended by a doctor. So that's just under 6% of the presidential candidates. 9%, 6%, 0%...when 16% of Americans are entirely uninsured and another 24% are underinsured. If this was a means to guarantee a candidate votes, wouldn't it have a lot more support? I think you're drinking the kool-aid.
Just because empire is an ugly word doesn't mean you don't live in one.
JCL:
Hmmm, most western democracies, if not all, have socialized medicine. Are we so afraid of not providing health care to all? My friends, we are not at the top of the world in standard of living, quality of life, life expectancy, etc.,etc. Please open you minds and look beyond our borders and see that there are nations that are prospering and providing for all their citizens. Let us not continue to pray to the almighty dollar, let us stop worshiping wealth and develop into a nation of ideals and justice rather that stock market quotes. We are a country, a people, not a corporation.
Socialism has a stigma because it does not work. It is not a divisive or exaggerated term, it is an accurate one. And universal health care is socialistic.
I believe the discussion should be whether health care is a right or a privilege. Many people today do not have health care by choice. They claim they cannot afford it but that often shows that they believe their dollars would be better spent elsewhere. Of the 40+ million today without health insurance, many are middle class and choose not to buy insurance. That is their choice. So often the media interview people who say they can't afford it but do not dig deeper to find out if they can afford it.
The advent of HMO's and the prospect of universal health care have helped propel the costs of health care up and the quality of care down.
We should make catastrophic health care(high deductibles, good for major problems) more prevalent and get away from the free visit mentality.
Take care
Giving everyone who walks into the doors of a hospital is like throwing taxpayer money away. If you ask me the businesses and the government of the United States should provide services to the people. The businesses should, as many of them already do, provide insurance to their employees. citizens whose jobs dont provide insurance, medical, dental ect., would have the opportunity to have a tax taken out by the government which would in turn provide insurance. This tax would depend on the persons imcome. Of course insurance companys would still be available to provide coverage and the prices for coverage would in turn go down because of the other readily available coverage.
it is better to have a better life than a longer life.
Why don't you just stay with the Republican party? Obviously, you think like them. If you don't leave out the middle man (the insurance companies) you cannot provide health care universally. And if you leave out people -- any people -- you kill people who might happen to be at a disadvantage stage of life. Republicans don't mind. But I'd hope people of a new party would mind. And unemployed people should not have to worry about whether they are covered or not either. We need to rid ourselves of insurance companies when it comes to the health of Americans.
People are always going to get the short end of the stick, thats life, im not saying i dont care about the people, im just saying this isn't a perfect world, and, frankly, its not going to be no matter ho much everyone gives, someone will always be unhappy and someone, unless were going to make everyone the same, im not for cloning anyone, there will always be people with a poorer standard of living. I can see that you mean well to give everone healthcare but i feel that if the insurance companys had enough compotition thwe prices would go down and the standard of living for all, especially the lower class, would go up. This would help help to close the gap between rich and poor, a low priced healthcare program is a better bet than a free one.
it is better to have a better life than a longer life.
Right! Insurance companies are scams. Profit over health. Capitalism at it's ugliest.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Hey I'm 51 years old have had my own retail busnes for 25 years and have worked my tail off all my life. I'm not complaining I make a good living and doing ok. It happened! I had a tripple bypass last year at age 50. I HAVE INSURANCE YEH. Because I am self employed and to try and keep my permiun down I have a high deductable 5,000 plus 20% of the next 10,000. I was ready for this to happen and figured ok i can pay 7 to 8 grand on by pass surgery my premium was 200 a month. No problem it worked got the surgery all I had to pay was about 8 grand for a 120,000 dollar surgery. Worked out great I feel great. now my premium is 350 a month, My doctor says If i have chest pain's go to e.r., the only problem with that is my ins. does not pay for ER about a 500 dollar visit. so i sit here typing you this with the bad spelling and gramor mistakes haveing chest pain's. should I go to the Er and pay the 500 dollar visit OR do I just sit here and try and fart hopeing its just indijestion! A FREE VISIT TO THE ER TO FIND OUT IF I'M DIEING I'LL TAKE IT. HEY I'D EVEN PAY 10 A MONTH... IF EVERYBODY PAID 10 A MONTHS THAT WOULD BE ABOUT A GAZILLION DOLLARS
seems to me you made a bad choice as to the amount you pay for your deductable. perhaps you should have realised that a lower dedudtable would cost you more in the long run. i have great health care and would not change a thing, so its going to be hard to get me on board to give even 5 bucks a month so that some one else can save a few bucks on there premiums.
We are an independent people, working hard to scratch out a living, hopefully a good living. That leads, by necessity, to be concerned for our own families well being and future. We are also a compassionate people, willing to help our neighbors, near and far away.
In the days of the industrial revolution, life for many of our citizens was grim. It wasn't until after WWII that a solid middle class took hold, and a majority of our citizens were able to live a much better life. One of the reasons for the up lift in our society, were the federal safety net programs started in the 1930's, and expanded in the 1960's.
Before then if a family needed help they went to religious, fraternal, or community based groups. Lack of food, shelter, and medical care was literally causing premature death among our people. It's no mystery that as those basic needs became more abundant, our life expectancy increased. There was much suffering. People starving and dying in the streets. Deep poverty and early death among our senior citizens. Horrible working conditions and child (slave) labor.
During the great depression the problem got so bad that even the best intentions of the good hearted help groups, were not enough to meet the needs of even a minority of the people in need. Those groups were overwhelmed by the number of people in distress, and their contributions were down because people had less money to give.
When FDR came along, the situation was serious, a national crisis. He had some ideas to stop the suffering and help the people. Those ideas involved national programs to help the whole nation, and they worked. The people had seen and lived through enough, they were willing to give more to help ease the suffering for all. Along with new laws to curb abuses, and yes, unions to negotiate for better working conditions, life improved greatly for millions of our citizens.
If conservatives want to reject that liberal political philosophy, or call it socialist, they should remember it is part of why we claim to be the best country in the world. Along with freedom, capitalism, and opportunity - our high level of lifestyle is part of what makes us great. Many problems are to big to be left to the charity of capitalists, or the philosophy of trickle down economics. The only way a job is the best self help program, is if that job pays enough to live within the current economic situation.
I would think that companies would want to relieve themselves from paying for medical insurance for their employees. I believe that a consumption tax is more natural for a capitalistic system than an income tax. Most of all, I can't believe we are going to watch all the hard work and suffering our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents put into making life so much better than anywhere else in the world, fade away because we are to selfish to care about our neighbors and the people of our whole country.
Basically I believe the government should stay out of my bedroom and out of my pockets, but it's not a matter of one political philosophy. It's a matter of what's best for the country.
We have to change our priorities. Is it more important to worry about who's married to who, or how we are going to meet our financial obligations? Is it more important to pander to our selfishness by saying "no new taxes", or invest in the future of our country and the well being of our people? When does this generation (as every other generation has before us) make a real hard sacrifice to ensure the future health of this country? The sacrifice we need to make now, is a financial one, not a military one.
So what kind of society are you willing to pay for?
Libraries closed, schools closed, mental patients tossed out in the streets (where they cause crime), an 8.8 TRILLION dollar current national debt, people dying in emergency waiting rooms, lack of proper military troop supplies, breaking our promise to our senior citizens for lack of funds (that the Congress spent on other things), a dangerous addiction to Arab oil because we won't invest in our own fuel sources, roads and buildings in disrepair, and on, and on, and on.
Why are we no longer willing to pay to remain the best country in the world?
Why should we settle for future generations having less of a quality of life, than we have been given from our parents and grandparents?
We need to think of our fellow men and women and provide single payer health care. However, I don't know if this will ever be possible. We are a nation of power, intellect and drive - but we've become so entrenched in our immediate selves that I fear we've forgotten about our country, let alone the rest of the world. Until we can remember that we are all suffering together, nothing will change (and the future will remain bleak for this great land I call home.)
Not big on typing (carpal tunnel) and long answers but:
oversimplifies it, and a false argument. we have had socialist-type policies (of course they are never called that) for quite some time. a little bit here and there is a good thing.
it is in the best interest of our nation in every way to have a healthy and fit citizenry. to deny any CITIZEN access to health care based on whatever reason, in my view, is amoral if not immoral, inconsistent with almost every religous and spiritual principle, and, I would dare say, un-American.
we already spend enough money to cover everyone. folks keep missing that.
we spend more money than anyone else, provide free health care to criminals in jail, terrorist in gitmo.
(imagine that one! we as a country have decided that it is our responsibility as a human nation to provide full health care to enemies like terrorist when in our custody, but we tell our own citizens that they are on their own, left to fend for themselves. you have to admit that is contradictory at the very least. it's actually insane, psychotic. we as a nation need our heads examined!)
we have to take corporate profit OUT of health care.
we MUST cover every one.
we must comprehend that the nonsense we are getting fed against universal health care have their roots in the camp that wants to destroy public education (another insane plan) by bringing us charter schools: primarily right-wing capitalist. why? profit. pure and simple. rather than find solutions to fixing our problems, they only see and opportunity to SELL US a solution, that is often times worse than what we already have, and not in our best longterm interests, and begin to manipulate you, me, the media, and the facts, to convince us that it's a great idea.
ok, my fingers r tired, and my brain is about to blow a fuse that folks don't get it
topazguns,
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Lemme guess... you're a Republican?
"Free" Health care is not what I call it.
I call it "Universal" Health Care.
Why? What's the difference?
BECAUSE THE AMERICAN WORKER HAS EARNED IT. WE WORKED FOR IT.
No, it's not free. No, it's not a "right".
But I believe, that:
IF YOU HAVE A JOB - YOU SHOULD HAVE HEALTH CARE.
No job - no Health Care. Nothing "Free" about it.
Except that children under 18 MUST always have Health Care.
Period. No excuse for that.
It's not "Free" Health Care.
It's "I BUSTED MY BUTT FOR IT AND I DESERVE IT" Health Care.
The American Worker is being ripped off.
That has to stop.
Richard H. Clark
Independent Presidential Candidate
www.MiddleClass2008.com
You did not address those of us who have worked 50 years and are no longer able to do so- Believe me, there are those of us out here who earned the right to good health care, and are not elegible yet for medicare, or medicade, I am a 63 year old with diabetes, blood Cancer, Breast Cancer, and Fibromyalgia- I am not asking for anything I have not earned, but my present insurance will not cover the tests my Doctor ordered, I did not choose the Insurance Plan, it is simply what I was eligable for-I had the privelege some years back to reside in Italy, the "Socialist" healthcare system there saved the life of my 18 month old child who had been badly burned - they were great, the Doctors and other health care workers in Sacily Italy were
attendent, and thoughtful during the entire healing process- My Son was hospitalized for 3 weeks while his burns were treated, it cost me 50 lire.
They were aware that I was an American working in their community, but made their healthcare available to us in our time of need. Having experienced that incident, I can hosestly say, the Socialized system beat the hell out of the American Health Insurance System - they will not even talk to me by phone about the needed tests my Doctor has ordered! Right now, my total monthly income is $602 a month Social Security- My company retirement was spent on my health last year, it was cleaned out for medical expenses the insurance would not cover - Our Country needs to take care of all the people, all the time. As we the people are the Country!
Socialism...
Why is that a bad word?
Socialism starts with "social", as in being nice...
Capitalism starts with "capital", meaning "money", meaning greed...
Free health care is not "Free", as we all know.
Someone has to pay for it. Well guess who... us, of course.
And you know what? WE EARNED IT. YES WE DID!!!
Health care need not break the country. There have to be some
reasonable limits on expenses. That's all. We can't afford to give
everyone $100,000 a month for an expensive drug, no. But we can
indeed afford to allow everyone a couple hundred. The question is not
whether we all should have health care, but rather to what extent.
ALL CHILDREN UNDER 18 MUST BE COVERED FULLY.
IF YOU HAVE A JOB YOU SHOULD HAVE HEALTH CARE.
NO JOB - NO HEALTH CARE.
NOT A CITIZEN - NO HEALTH CARE.
The system should be business-driven to help keep costs low and innovation high. But it must also be government regulated to keep profits from becoming exhorbitant. It is my belief that a business/government hybrid system can function exceedingly well, and provide us with a cost-effective solution.
Richard H. Clark
Independent Presidential Candidate
www.MiddleClass2008.com
America has Capitolism, France has socialism it has a higher unemployment rate. China has socialism, it has higher cime, higher imprisionment rates, and a lager percentage of poor. Russia is failed socialism, it with china hilds 60%of the worlds slums. Canada, France and germany all have health care programs that are not only going broke but leaving people wating for years to get necessary treatment.
Like it or not the reality is though capitolism has problems it is the only system that remotley works. You think capitolism is greedy, do you not see that its socialism thats greedy. Why do people deserve to benifit off others hard work, why do they think they are enitled to it. What more greedy asking for what you earned or claiming you are owed a portion of anothers work simply because you breathe the same air.
America is lower in polluntants, carbon emmisions, unemployment rates, poverty rates than all of the countires that practice socialism. And as I said before we happen to be capitolist.
Grant Ryan
voter in 2024
canidate for electing common sense in 08.
America has Capitolism, France has socialism it has a higher unemployment rate. China has socialism, it has higher cime, higher imprisionment rates, and a lager percentage of poor. Russia is failed socialism, it with china hilds 60%of the worlds slums. Canada, France and germany all have health care programs that are not only going broke but leaving people wating for years to get necessary treatment.
Like it or not the reality is though capitolism has problems it is the only system that remotley works. You think capitolism is greedy, do you not see that its socialism thats greedy. Why do people deserve to benifit off others hard work, why do they think they are enitled to it. What more greedy asking for what you earned or claiming you are owed a portion of anothers work simply because you breathe the same air.
America is lower in polluntants, carbon emmisions, unemployment rates, poverty rates than all of the countires that practice socialism. And as I said before we happen to be capitolist.
Grant Ryan
voter in 2024
canidate for electing common sense in 08.
While some of your statements are true, cherry-picking facts can be done the other way too. Furthermore, some of your statements are simply false. Particularly in reference to prisons. The United States by far has the world's highest rate of incarceration at 702 people per 100,000, and being one of the most populated nations, we also have the most total number of people in prison.
While indeed France has higher unemployment than the US, China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam all have lower rates. And 18 nations have lower poverty rates than the US, including China, France and Germany. And health care statistics routinely rank the US below Canada, France, Germany, and several other nations that have universal care of one sort or another, and these statistics do incorporate waiting periods into their calculations, as well as average life expectancy, infant mortality and a variety of other factors.
Just because empire is an ugly word doesn't mean you don't live in one.
For the same dollars we are spending today to cover 85% of the population, we could provide healthcare to 100% of our people. We'd eliminate the 31% of bureaucratic waste than is consumed by the insurance bureaucracy and spend it on healthcare instead. That's called a single payer plan.
Nothing is free, but it is cheaper than giving it to the insurance industry. Medical inflation has been 5% per year, but insurance premiums have risen 87% since 2024, obviously to offset losses of Katrina, Rita and Florida.
And get this: We ALREADY ARE paying for everybody's healthcare in the price of the products we buy at the cash register. Let's fix this system so our businesses can once again compete with foreign products that do not have healthcare costs built into them.
Jack Lohman
Business Leaders of Single-Payer Healthcare
www.BusinessCoalition.net
jlohman@execpc.com
It seems to me than when any "ism" is kept pure, it has its flaws. Immediately labeling socialized medicine as "Socialism" scares a lot of people off. Exactly what the health care industries want us to see, I think.
I also think that capitalism in it's purest form can lead to ruin as well. Maybe someone smarter than me will be able to take the best of all the "isms," paste them together and create one "ism" where all of the citizens can thrive.
In the meantime, we don't have to wait for a healthcare plan for this country to be broken financially. The cost of this war may do that all by itself.
Deb Mc
It's interesting to note that everyone who bitches about "free" health care is probably not disabled (other than politically), probably employed with a rare "good" employer who helps with health care for workers (often not their families, however!)and claims to be a "good Christian."
No one said "free." The reality is "shared" access and payment of health care. It is the only way to ensure that people with disabilities, mental problems, many elderly, wives and children who aren't covered under their spouse/father's work policy, college students, and people who are forced by circumstances to take a crappy minimum wage job (or two or three) can get the medical care they need.
It would be helpful if the neo-cons and their near-Nazi Rethuglican followers would actually read the Bible they keep thuymping and find out if Jesus would deny health care to any of the above groups. Oh, wait, it would be faster to listen to the Rethuglican apostle, Rush Lindbaugh or Fox News, rather than to actually read the bible, think for yourself and maybe begin to think about your neighbors in a more "Christian" manner.
First, it must be pointed out that the only universal health care plan that is currently in Congress is John Conyers' HR 676, which is a universal single-payer proposal, also known as Medicare for all. It is not socialized medicine, which would entail the government actually hiring the doctors, owning and managing the hospitals, and operating the pharmacies. That is what they have in the UK. It is not even on the table here.
The most similar system to the one Conyers has proposed is Canada's. It is single-payer, which means that everybody is covered by the same insurer and is in the same risk pool, but doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies remain independent.
And oddly enough, we do have socialized medicine in this country. Primarily, it exists in the VA hospitals. It is not open to all citizens, but restricted to veterans and their dependents, but the hospitals are government-owned and operated, and the doctors are employed by the government...and if you know any veterans, I'm willingto bet if you asked them, they'd tell you they wouldn't trade that for anything.
Another example of socialized medicine we have in some places in this country are county hospitals and free clinics. Because we have so many uninsured here, these places are often overcrowded here, but they generally still provide top-notch care once you get in.
In fact, in my personal experience, I have experienced equally long waits in private hospitals as I have in county hospitals, but I'll grant that is merely anecdotal. But I'd wager that if we did choose to socialize the entire system, we would not see any reduction in quality of care or increases in wait times, but would see better health statistsics overall, and an improved economic situation as many people would be less burdened with medical debt, or even the exceedingly high premiums most of us are paying now. Of course, these improvements should also come with just moving to a single-payer system, so there is no reason to jump to a fully socialized one. But the irrational fear of socialism, or any aspect of it, that is rampant in this country is entirely unfounded.
Just because empire is an ugly word doesn't mean you don't live in one.
Health care should be free. You're talking about the one thing that keeps a country running. The industry of keeping people alive. Without me here, healthy, able to work and pay taxes... the country suffers. Without my ideas, concepts, wisdom, and knowledge the country would suffer just slightly. You add millions of people to that list and the country loses everything. Why are Americans poor? Health care and mortgages. Those are the only two reasons. Free health care is not socialism. The government already runs our schools and the postal service. It has for a very long time.
We look at it the wrong way. How is free health care any different than the post? I pay to send a letter. I could send it through UPS/FEDEX for a higher price or through USPS for a decent price. That gives me public service with the option for private service. We all know UPS will give it more care and ensure fast delivery, but essentially USPS does the same thing for less. It's the same between public and private schools. State college versus private college.
Think about it. If the government increased the tax on just one thing so that you ended up paying a few hundred dollars a year... which is probably less than you pay for insurance, to give you full and undeniable medical care. Would it really bother you? No more arguing with a guy on the phone to only be denied coverage or removed from coverage. No more working a job you hate just because they have good insurance. It works that way in almost every country in the world. It's not socialism. If it were socialism would countries like the UK and Canada do it and do it well? Think about how many days off we all take collectively because of medical needs. How many jobs are lost due to depression. How many cancer patients spend their life broke. If just one person loses, we all suffer.
The only reason we don't have free health care is because it's blood money to congress. Everyone has their hands dirty in oil and insurance. If we make health care free, they no longer get the lobby money. They lose out on hundreds of thousands of dollars. Congress gets rich off of our blood. You get denied coverage, then you die, then they get paid. Essentially you pay the government anyway, and get nothing from it. We pay the government and insurance companies to make us suffer.
It's estimated that nearly 500,000 people die each year from heart attacks in the US. Over 500,000 people will die from cancer each year in the US. Over 1 million people die each year from some type of illness either due to lack of prevention or the inability to pay for treatment or cure. The government is busy trying to protect us from terrorists. It's our health that is really killing us. So I really think it's worth the country possibly going broke, which we are anyway, in order for its people to be happy and healthy.
Socialism is already a part of this country. We are not pure-bread capitalists and there is no need to call liberals "snivelers". You yourself are a liberal when compared to autocratic idealists.
If we can afford what is becoming a trillion dollar war we can most certainly afford to take care of our citizens. We have already socialized many programs in this country, such as the fire department and police forces, both invaluable rescources. When coupled with our system of education, the success of these socialized programs has helped make our nation into the most powerful country on earth. In fact, I would say that they are indespensible in that regard. Would you care to disagree?
shadismount@hotmail.com
Our "socialized" police do little more than act as revenue collectors. They are far more content sit on the side of the road and pull over a mini-van going 7 miles-an-hour over the speed limit than get out of the patrol car and walk a beat in a crime stricken neighborhood. The mother in the van will promptly pay her fine, the crack dealer won't.
The fire department is another study in "socialized" laziness. The majority "work" half the month, then runs a side business as well. Is it too much to actually expect them to work a full month, with shift work...like the rest of us?
Our education system is another prime example of how poorly the government operates. Our worldwide standing has fallen to 4th (maybe lower), we graduate high schoolers who can't read or write. Yet we are *forced* to pay for this failure. Even if you send your child to private school, you still must pay. There is ZERO incentive to improve with any socialized program. The post office is terribly inefficient, and lacks customer service. They don't care, if they run short of money, the price of postage rises to cover their poor business skills. FEDEX, UPS, and DHL all do the same job, more efficiently and less costly because they NEED you business. If they don't provide the best service, customers will go elsewhere, they will go out of business. The FREE MARKET system inspires better products, better service, and better overall value.
I hardly see the validity of considering these "successful socialized programs".
We already have coverage for the uninsured, it's called medicade and medicare. Both programs are terribly implemented and executed. My wife deals with them on a daily basis.
What is so wrong about making people responsible for themselves? Health care insurers want to make money. If people won't buy their coverage because it's too expensive, or doesn't go far enough, they won't be in business long. The companies that provide the best coverage for the lowest price get the business.
Perhaps if we knew we had to pay our own medical costs, we wouldn't do things to increase our risks.
Smoking, drinking, obesity, sedentary lifestyle... Why should I have to pay for others poor life choices?
Communities have been raising money to cover exceptional cases forever. I will give readily to help a child with cancer; I will not give to an overweight smoker who needs angioplasty.
Ron Paul...The only option for the American way of life.
Do i really understand that you think police and fire departments should be disbanded and people should sign on to private security and emergency services? So if I cannot afford a police subscription no one will come to my aid if I am robbed or my family killed?
There's bad apples in any system, but in my experience police and firefighters have mostly been people willing to risk their lives for people they do not know and there is no way to organize public safety except through a government. Now private industry supplies them--making their trucks, radios and other equipment.
But I also hear plenty of people, including doctors and medical workers, who have more problems dealing with PRIVATE health insurance companies than Medicare and Medicaid.
No one in the mainstream of American politics is talking about a government takeover of medical PROVIDERS, only of the insurance to allow all americans to be able to afford medical care.
The point is an increasing number of hard-working people are not able to afford any care, even for the most simple procedures. We have the best hospitals in the world, but only visiting Saudi princes can afford it.
What is YOUR plan for the growing number of people who work 40-60 hours per week and still cannot afford proper health care?
So reduce spending on the military(which we can) and create a new tax, which I'm sure could be negotiated in such a way that it would cost less for the average American than medical insurance costs now. Can you reveal the source of your statistic, dccolby? Other reports place entitlements closer to 66%. Additionally, we have a trillion dollar war that can be removed and plenty of corporations who have managed to slip through our taxation system. If we can get a firm grip on thsoe industries and extricate ourselves from this war, we will eventually be able to afford a universal, government-regulated healthcare program.
shadismount@hotmail.com
Universal health care does not have to be socialism. Healthcare should be a right not a privilege. The fact that many people have inadequate health care (including preventative care and health education) costs us much more in productivity as a nation than most people realize. If we guarantee minimum coverage to everyone, the benefit would far outweigh the cost.
The best plan I have seen is that proposed by the New America Foundation. They suggest mandatory consumer-based health care (like car insurance) in place of current employer-based system which is horribly outdated in an era when people change jobs several times before retirement. If every adult is required to pay for health care but they could choose among various plans, competition among insurance companys will increase, driving the premiums down. Also, having more people pay into the system will allow more money to pay out claims. This would use "market forces" to our advantage. The government would only need to subsidize premiums for low-income citizens that qualify through means-testing. Goverment would also have to guarantee coverage despite prior health issues and guarantee a minimum coverage (including preventative care). SInce most of the uninsured are young working americans, the influx of premiums would help pay for this system and take the burden from employers. It is a win-win situation.
We would have to put up with talking gekko ads from Aetna and the Blues, but that is a small price to pay and you can change the channel. Everyone should check out http://www.newamerica.net/ for a better explanation of this great idea....
Paul-
The problem with what you advocate is that health insurance companies are a scam - they are for profit and regularly deny valid claims. They all do. There are no good health insurance companies, just varying degrees of bad.
Other countries have solved this - why can't we?
I envision something where you'd go to doctor or hospital, and send bill to government, which would pay the hospital or doctor - they way insurance companies are supposed to work.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Quicksilver,
I like the way you think. Go to the doctor, sent the bill to the government, they pay the medical expenses. But let's take it one step further...
Re-Set the priorities of the entire system.
Expenses are paid through government revenues. Taxes, perhaps. The taxes are how we pay for it. But every service also includes a reasonable co-pay by the patient, to reduce the motivation for possible abuse.
The medical part: The priorities of the medical system are to keep the patient productive so they can continue to earn and pay the taxes that supply the payment for the medical expenses.
Granted, several details need to be considered but perhaps a change in the approach and priorities would be a good place to begin. Would solve the insurance issues by eliminating the entire need.
Just some thoughts. It will be a complex issue on several levels.
Phoenomagus
武士の単語
I support your ideas - particularly on co-pay - I don't think we need free care, but currently the major cause of bankruptcy is medical expenses, and I feel that's wrong.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
When car insurance was mandated, premiums did not go down, they went up and on top of that, you get penalized for using that insurance by paying higher premiums.
Your suggestion will only make things worst, not better.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
No matter how one tries to modify a universal healthcare strategy to conform to a capitalist system, one will encoutner tremendous difficulties that are all derivitives of the system itself. Capitalism is based upon the pursuit of profits. Regardless of how competitive the market is, the companies involved will still seek to deny instead of approve. The result is individuals who are unable to receive healthcare and this is unacceptable.
shadismount@hotmail.com
Yes, universal health care is indeed the creation of a social system. Simply saying something is socialism does not mean that it is bad for the majority of this country. Keep in mind:
1) The current healthcare system is incredibly inefficient, so the subsitiuting with a government system or government reforms of the private system could actually cut total costs (taxes would go up less than insurance goes down.)
2) Monopolies dominate healthcare at every level. Insurance companies, hospitals, specialists, healthcare technology and drug companies, doctors unions... all of these organizations can have significant market power. If a free market is to be efficient, there cannot be market power.
3)Healthcare has two information problems that economists call "moral hazard" and "adverse selection". Moral hazard has to do with the fact that doctors, insurance companies and other intermediaries may not be working in the interest of the patient, but the patient does not see this behavior. Adverse selection has to do with the problem that the "worst" health risks will want the most insurance and healthy people are less willing to pay. Both of these information problems lead to a market which is not efficient. If left to its own devices, the healthcare market will never bend to Adam Smith's invisible hand.
4) Mandatory social insurance can be an efficient solution to adverse selection problems. Further more, many healthcare services are natural monopolies which should not be profit maximizing if they are intended to be efficient. Suffice it to say, there are legitimate economic arguments supporting a "mixed healthcare economy".
5)Government control poses its own set of problems and corruptions, so a universally satisfactory solution may not be possible.
Most of us do have pretty good health care insurance. Therefore, it does not make sense to ruin the good system that most of us possess for the benefit of those who do not have health care insurance.
Agreed. Another means of providing health care to those who do not have it must be found totally APART from a government mandated solution.
What the government mandates, the government destroys.
First, your system is over priced.
Second, if your neighbors house was burning down, would you call the fire department? Your house is fine, what's the problem? All that water could end up ruining your lawn.
Final point, providing more social structure does not necessarily mean getting rid of the private system. Most European countries have a public and private system. The existance of social security does not mean that you can't get a private pension plan. We have excellent private schools along side the public school system.
There are lots of areas where government mandates make a lot of sense. Where would this country be without education mandates and the public school system? Where would the rivers of this country be with environmental enforcement? As much as you want the government to be a force of destruction it isn't universally the case.
I think you'll be surprised at how good your insurance really is if you become seriously ill - the number of rejected claims you get, the challenge to get bills paid...
Helath costs are now the # 1 cause of personal bankruptcies - that's just wrong.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
tha answer is what..socialist medicine? not!
what is your suggestion? I would like to see regulation of the health insurers - they ARE committing fraud - but again, that would take government and the lobbyists would object.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
in the House of Representatives is HR 676 by John Conyers. It is not socialized medicine, it is Medicare for all, a single-payer universal insurance plan where our premiums are an increased tax, but much MUCH cheaper than the premiums we are now paying (those of us lucky enough to have health insurance), and we are all in the same risk pool, lowering the cost of covering us, and where overhead costs are cut from 30% to about 3% because there is no need to advertise, pay people to deny claims, or to make a profit for shareholders, further lowering the costs to us.
Just because empire is an ugly word doesn't mean you don't live in one.
the horror stories are piling up. There is a social psychology theory called the just-world hypothesis. It states that generally, people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. People who are fighting for the insurance industry as it stands and voicing the rhetoric of McCarthy and 1950s hysteria generally believe in the just-world hypothesis.
I don't.
The small group of the richest people in this country live in a socialist paradise.
They have everything they need and more.
Health care on demand.
Tens of thousands of people are dying each year because they had no health insurance and therefore had to neglect their health to continue to make enough money to live.
So, in the U.S., does everyone get what they deserve and deserve what they get with respect to health care?
I'm finding it harder and harder to say yes.
Hating Michael Moore as much as I do, and working in the healthcare industry, I did not expect to watch the “Sicko” movie. Certainly I was not going to pay to watch it. My son sent me a bootlegged copy of the movie, and since I was not contributing to his far right campaign, I watched it.
I was surprised. I weaved through the stupid parts, like when he went to Cuba and was used by Fidel to paint a pretty picture of communism. This was wrong on so many levels and shows how naïve he is. Not only to be used, but to link communism with free healthcare.
What really hit home for me was the HMO coverage and the games the health insurance companies play with denial of claims and bankrupting families for their personal gain. This is really the root of the problem. We have a high quality of healthcare in this country, but we ARE overlooking the fact that we as a nation should afford to make health care a benefit of citizenship. I agree with the previous poster that we are spending billions (with a big “B”) on Iraq and Afghanistan, but we over look the care of are own people.