Those of you with "socialized medicine"...

[Angry_Games]

Excuse me for butting in but what does paying for someone else's health-care have to do with compassion or human rights or a "sickly" population?

 

It's what separates us from the rest of the animals, has allowed us to evolve in the way that we have to put us on the top of the food and evolutionary chain.

 

How about this thought! Personal responsibility! What a unique and wonderful thought!

 

it's a wonderful thought, but not everyone is as fortunate as others. How is personal responsibility even part of the equation of getting cancer? Nerve diseases? Birth defects? Catching the flu? Shall we live in a bubble deep underground where no gamma rays can penetrate? No sun can burn our skin? Live in bubbles where the air is filtered to the point of containing not even a single micron of anything but oxygen/nitrogen?

 

How can one be responsible for getting sick living in a place that has horrible air pollution, water pollution, etc? Move away? Sure, we'll all do that and leave one city in ruins while creating the same problems in the place that we move to...?

 

If everyone was responsible for their own health, they would take better care of their bodies.

 

We are all responsible for our own health. So that would put me in a group that cannot pay for cancer treatement...? Some sickness or accident like getting hit by a car that ran up on a sidewalk? How am I supposed to be responsible for something that I had no control over? (getting sick for the most part isn't something that irresponsible people do...it's what happens to us naturally as we roam around the environment, interact with others...shall we live in bubbles deep underground as I mentioned before?)

 

I'm all for a healthy population of productive citizens. The problem is that with socialized medicine there's no incentive to be healthy.

 

In your view maybe. In my view, the exact opposite is true.

 

To be brutally honest, paying for my own health-care has made me quite conscious of my "health" decisions and I'm much better off for it.

 

I've been conscious of my own health since I was a child of a family on welfare who couldn't afford to visit a doctor even with the state of Idaho paying for most of it. I make good decisions KNOWING I cannot visit doctors or hospitals regularly. What happens though when the inevitable happens and I get sick, get in an accident, get a disease?

 

This single quote is exactly what's wrong with socialized health-care...

 

I disagree. I say it's exactly why we should have universal healthcare and pay higher taxes for it.

 

Why are so many people willing to give up their control to governments?

 

Ask Brits, French, Canadians, Aussies, anyone who lives in a country with socialized medical care. They'll all tell you the same thing: take away our national healthcare and we'll revolt. You'll never get elected to another office again.

 

These people all know they'll pay extraordinary amount of taxes to have the benefits of healthcare available to themselves, their families, their friends. They have been willing to pay these taxes since the day each country has instituted nationalized healthcare. These countries are now healthier than we are, and have longer life spans than we do. And honestly, people from these countries seem a lot more chipper about life than we Americans do.

 

This simple act seems so backwards to logic that I simply can't understand the great cry for socialized medicine.

 

Well, because you've drank the spin kool-aid like a lot of people that believe the same thing as you. Your money is more important than your fellow man. There can be no other reason. If you can't see far enough ahead to think how it might benefit you, your family, your friends, your neighbors, then I can't think of any other reason you wouldn't see the logic in it except that it's more money out of your pocket, which brings me back to my statement: your money is more important than your fellow man.

 

Compassion has many definitions. My favorite is "The wish to free others from their suffering." Of course my solution means there's some personal responsibility so that won't go over well with the Socialists.

 

Personal responsibility such as that you claim in your statement is just more spin. As I mentioned, what happens if momma gets run down by a school bus and the school/state insurance only covers so much? What if I get run down by a hit-and-run driver with no insurance? What if momma gets cancer? What if your brother/sister/best friend is just minding their own business and they come down with Parkinson's Disease? Heart failure? Kidney Failure? Accident?

 

Again I'll ask, how is this personal responsibility and what part does it have in socialized medicine?

 

Zero. That's the spin that is always played out over this issue. Boo hoo, I'm going to spend more money because Bill and his wife got radon poisoning and now have lukemia. Wow, they should have been more responsible even though they tested regularly for it. Mitch was beat up by criminals downtown, but he should have been more responsible and not went outside of his bubble deep underground, and now I'm responsible for it? Sheesh. All those people in this town should have never lived next to a coal-fired power plant yet their houses they themselves lived there long before that coal-fired power plant was even a brainfart in some coal executive's head, and he convinced the government that he (and they!) needed that coal-fired power plant right there in that town, never mind that it might be harmful to all of those families, but hey, that's the FAMILIES' responsibility right? They shouldn't have been living there in the first place!

 

I don't buy into a single cents worth of personal responsibility about healthcare. It's what people say when they don't have any other way to cover the fact that their money is more important than their fellow citizen, family member, friend, and the fact that one of these people might need to see a doctor or go into a hospital one day and need good care so they can be healthy and return to society as a productive member.

 

Personal responsibility to me means having to make some sacrifice for the greater good, not for the personal good. If I'm only interested in my own self, how is that being responsible? It isn't. It's more dangerous than anything I know.

 

The government, the government, the government. It's always about the FEAR of giving power to the government. Why should it matter now? The Patriot Act pretty much insures we gave the government more power in one bill than we did in the previous 200 years.

 

Who should we give the power to then? Corporations? Hey, we already did that! HMO's are part of that legacy, and HMO's are for-profit agencies. Meaning they will do exactly the things we've all seen on the news, read in the news, even saw in Moore's film. They will do whatever is necessary to make a profit for their corporation.

 

Me, personally? I'd much rather give my money to an inefficient government agency that at least tries to do well by everyone than to some corporation who is going to do wrong by everyone, including me.

 

The government isn't perfect, but they tend to do a lot better job on big social issues than all corporations combined. The difference is in the profit structure. The government relies on tax dollars to pay for these social plans. They are inherently inefficient because of some corruption, some moronic decisions, the good-ol'-boy system (giving your buddies a job even though they aren't qualified).

 

The same as big corporations are inefficient to the end-user (that would be you and me, the consumer/customer/patient) for the fact that profits are to kill for, so Mary can't have that operation because it might make our profit margin slightly lower, and all you investors, you want PROFITS not kind, cuddly, good-feeling messages about how patients are well cared for and are getting healthy.

 

So no, I don't buy any of the personal responsibility, nor any of the other arguments against socialized medicine. I KNOW it will cost money. Momma and I are willing to move to Canada and be productive citizens and pay those extremely outrageous taxes because to us, the benefits outweigh the money that we pay.

 

Money is just money. Money doesn't make you happy. Money doesn't do anything for you (beyond the minimum you need to survive). You want a Jaguar and a million dollar home? That's cool. Me, I just want my own home that is comfortable ($100k - $250k range, something affordable and won't keep me in debt forever) and a decent car that gets me to work, play, and family.

 

What do I care about any money extra beyond that that I pay for our meager means of living (very happy though!) and put a bit away into the bank for a rainy day each paycheck? Well it's nice to have I suppose, but I guess I am just missing a gene that some of you are missing because I don't NEED a bigger house, more expensive cars, more big screen tv's, more snowmobiles or 4-wheelers, etc.

 

So yeah, I'm willing to pay higher taxes if it means that care will be a non-worry issue when we need it. And we'll need it. No matter who is responsible. Momma is healthier than any 100 of you combined (including exroadie) because of her diet and exercise routine (as well as her emotional and mental state).

 

She's going to get sick more than once in the rest of her life. She'll maybe have a life-changing event happen (Diabetes runs in her family...how is she PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for that event, should it happen, even after all the precautions she's taken by living and eating healthy?) or possibly two. I'm sure I will. What if I fall off a ladder and break something?

 

Don't we want that piece of mind that says "ok, let's go to the doctor/hospital, even if it isn't the Johns Hopkins or UCLA Medical Center"?

 

Right now, what's the first thing most of you think of when you do the dreaded imagining (or even for some of you it's already happened in your life!) of one of these events that involve the medical system?

 

"How the hell are we going to pay for this?"

 

Yeah.

 

That's the dread for EVERY SINGLE PERSON we know in such a situation. And trust me, there's a lot of people that we know that have the top, best, supreme, untouchable health insurance (some are even nurses and one is a doctor!!!). So your insurance will pay so much beyond your deductible, check. Does your insurance pay for all the time you'll be off work? Does it pay for the extra expenses around the house/family that come with you being sick/hospitalized? Not even the top mega-big supreme chimichanga of healthcare insurance plans cover all of the things that happen.

 

Not a single one.

 

I want to just be able to go to a medical professional and get whatever is wrong with me/her fixed. I'm willing to pay for it.

 

It's like car insurance, house insurance...how come I have to keep paying for my car and house insurance even though in 18 years I've never had a single accident nor speeding ticket? How come my uncle has to keep paying for his house insurance but yet it has been 23 years since he had even a single minor claim?

 

For the same reason I would pay for national health insurance for my entire life even if I never had to use it.

 

Because it's not about the money.

 

the idea that you can walk in and been seen buy a doctor is great i wouldn't give it up.

 

I wouldn't give it up either, and I would pay whatever it cost just like you do, if given the choice.

 

But I see through the marketing tactics of the HMO's and drug companies (as well as politicians who are in their pockets making ridiculous statements such as "personal responsibility" when no such thing exists for the majority of health problems/emergencies that typical citizens have).

[red930]

wasnt it so that hilary came to holland to see how we do it back then?

[red930]

But I see through the marketing tactics of the HMO's and drug companies (as well as politicians who are in their pockets making ridiculous statements such as "personal responsibility" when no such thing exists for the majority of health problems/emergencies that typical citizens have).

 

Simply to be argumentative, you can see through the HMOs and drug companies but you can't see through the socialist objective of these people?

 

I'm sorry, that was a cheap shot and it wasn't necessary.

 

Simply put, the socialist wants you to depend on government for everything. They strive to create a self sustaining entity so you can't survive without them. They create entitlements that keep people sucking on the teat of government simply to keep you voting for them to keep them in power.

 

That's the only reason why people that are provided health-care through their government will do just about anything to keep the tap open. They want to have someone tell them what they can and can not do. They've been trained to let the government think and do for them.

 

Every single government intrusion into personal affairs causes the individual to die a little until suddenly there is no way to live without the government.

 

As I stated in my earlier post, doing away with all health insurance simply isn't realistic due to unforeseen problems such as catastrophic illness. I have a policy just for such an occurrence. My auto insurance has medical payments included for injuries due to an accident.

 

What happened to saving money for an emergency? My Dad and both Grandfathers had "good" insurance but they still saved money for emergencies. It's a lesson that I learned and still practice.

 

Spin is a two way street my friend. The secular progressives will do everything in their power to convince you that letting them have control of your life is good for you as long as they are in power.

 

Human beings have never thrived when being held down to the lowest common denominator. It has never worked and isn't working right now. Lack of responsibility leads irresponsibility. Period

 

But lets take your argument a bit further. Since you feel that a man should care for his brother, why not extend that to people of neighboring countries. Or how about all humans on the planet. If it's good for one man it's good for all men. Where do you draw the line? Are the people of the United Kingdom, France and Australia being selfish by not helping people outside of their country?

 

I hope you can see where I'm going with this.

 

Just like the Great Society plan of the 1960's that laid waste to the inner city and families by taking away personal responsibility, so will socialized medicine. Welfare was supposed to "hold people over until they could get back on their feet". Well, 40 years later and welfare is an entire sub-economy draining taxes from the American people.

 

Welfare is such an insidious institution that the former residents of the housing projects in New Orleans are marching to get them reopened. One man even stated that he's lived there all his life and wants the same project reopened even though there are plans to create mixed-use single family housing in their place. "All his life". That should send a shiver up your spine.

 

Just to prove that I'm not making this stuff up...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/us/natio.../26housing.html

 

You have been warned!

 

Extra Credit!

 

Name one socialist country that has more people moving into it than out of it.

 

Hint, it doesn't exist!

[grimstar]

Simply put, the socialist wants you to depend on government for everything. They strive to create a self sustaining entity so you can't survive without them. They create entitlements that keep people sucking on the teat of government simply to keep you voting for them to keep them in power.

 

Honestly most people don't think for themselves to begin with. Ask most convervatives what news source do they listen to? They will say from a conservative source, and they probably won't even listen at all to a liberal source. The same thing can be said about many liberals.

 

You really think people in America are not already complacent? I'm sure things can be worse. But most societies are like this to begin with, I feel it's a part of human nature.

 

Just like the Great Society plan of the 1960's that laid waste to the inner city and families by taking away personal responsibility, so will socialized medicine. Welfare was supposed to "hold people over until they could get back on their feet". Well, 40 years later and welfare is an entire sub-economy draining taxes from the American people.

 

Welfare is such an insidious institution...

 

Dude tell that to my stomach when I was 8 years old and my dad had to work like crazy to pay rent and bills. Welfare has worked for many families. My parents now own a home and are not in welfare (for the past 10 years). Welfare has helped many families. There will always be people who take advantage of things, but it has helped many people.

 

Welfare just needs more strict enforcement.

[AnUnknownSource]

That's the only reason why people that are provided health-care through their government will do just about anything to keep the tap open. They want to have someone tell them what they can and can not do. They've been trained to let the government think and do for them.

 

Damn right, I want someone to tell me that yes, when I'm ill, have broken a bone, shoot, if my tooth hurts, I can afford to go to the doctor/dentist. I went a few years (after living in England most of my life) without health care because I just couldn't afford it. Most of the plans I could have spent half my paycheck on didn't cover basics, and would have left me footing most of the bill anyway.

I'm leaving for basic in two weeks, so I have that stuff covered for my wife and I for the next few years, but I'm already worried about what I'm gonna do after that... and that's 4 years down the line... I shouldn't have to worry about health care four years from now...

 

Every single government intrusion into personal affairs causes the individual to die a little until suddenly there is no way to live without the government.

 

Just as every single individuals intrusion into government causes that form of government to die a little, until suddenly the government can no longer survive without the individual... without us, there simply isn't any government... we just need to stay active (lets not spin this thread off in another direction talking about how we don't have a lot of impact on the voting process though :tooth:)

 

As I stated in my earlier post, doing away with all health insurance simply isn't realistic due to unforeseen problems such as catastrophic illness.

 

In England, you can get private policies as well... a lot of people don't have faith in the NHS... that's fine, and inevitable, no matter if they're reliable or not... so they get private health care...

 

What happened to saving money for an emergency? My Dad and both Grandfathers had "good" insurance but they still saved money for emergencies. It's a lesson that I learned and still practice.

 

At $7 an hour trying to afford rent, utilities and not starving (wouldn't really call it eating ) there was no way to save money... my credit report will vouch for the fact it's hard enough to juggle bills, lol. Shoot, at $12 an hour it's still a little hard at times...

 

Spin is a two way street my friend. The secular progressives will do everything in their power to convince you that letting them have control of your life is good for you as long as they are in power.

 

As above... if you don't have faith in the NHS, you can get private health care... so where's the control? No ones saying that the ONLY health care you can get should be government controlled...

 

Are the people of the United Kingdom, France and Australia being selfish by not helping people outside of their country?

 

Billions of pounds get spent every year doing just that... I don't see where this is going...

 

Just like the Great Society plan of the 1960's that laid waste to the inner city and families by taking away personal responsibility, so will socialized medicine. Welfare was supposed to "hold people over until they could get back on their feet". Well, 40 years later and welfare is an entire sub-economy draining taxes from the American people.

 

I don't see how providing health care compares to handing out money...

 

 

Name one socialist country that has more people moving into it than out of it.

 

Well, since "Socialism is what the Labour government does" - Herbert Morrison and the population over here is growing rapidly, I get the extra credit :tooth:

[Angry_Games]

Great post grimstar, I'm the child of welfare as well. I can attest that it works. I was able to go to school, then college, and be a productive citizen. Conservatives crow about how it's just lazy people sucking down the system when that simply isn't true for the majority of people I've ever known on welfare.

 

But if you have your own radio show or tv show where you can reach a million listeners/viewers, you can spin this out to them and get them to spread the word that welfare is only making people more lazy, less likely to work (it just isn't true however).

 

 

 

Great post UnknownSource. As I said earlier, people who say healthcare for all funded by all is nothing but government intrusion, as well as 'personal responsibility' (I don't see anything from ExRoadie about that personal responsibility all the sudden, now he's on about welfare, which is also another tactic used by those with nothing real to argue: "let's turn the argument to something else".

 

This is what happens when people feed you nonsense and lies your whole life. You believe it to the point where you spew it yourself.

 

It really goes right back to what I said: your money is more important than your fellow man

 

Are the people of the United Kingdom, France and Australia being selfish by not helping people outside of their country?

 

another attempt to deflect the argument to something other than the topic at hand. People within their own country have a responsibility to see that their fellow countrymen are healthy, well-educated individuals that can give some of that back to other fellow countrymen. To say that this is not true is once again another form of saying "your money is more important than your fellow man". It always goes back to that wth these people who claim it's another form of government intrusion, another form of this or that negative.

 

The question wasn't "isn't France selfish for not helping everyone outside of their borders?". The question is "Is it France's responsibility to try and provide to everyone in their country?".

 

Name one socialist country that has more people moving into it than out of it.

 

ah, ANOTHER deflect attempt. *sigh*

 

And the simple truth is, even though it is not valid in this particular argument, Europe has a very slim to zero population growth rate. Most of their growth rate is now the influx of immigrants, whether from another EU country or from other parts of the world. The truth is that almost all countries in the socialized sphere (EU, Australia, etc) are growing in population BECAUSE of the influx of immigrants who, like others did when they came to America, wish to have a better life.

 

They don't wish to suck off the system like a vampire. They wish to live in a country that will help them get on their feet, provide medical care and education so they can worry about the real things in life, like becoming self-sufficient, growing a family, etc.

 

Spin is a two way street my friend. The secular progressives will do everything in their power to convince you that letting them have control of your life is good for you as long as they are in power.

 

The threat of government power over you is one that conservatives have used since who knows when (got strong with Reagan though). It always comes down to this. Government bad! Self good!

 

It's such a farce honestly. There is not big bad scary boogyman government. The government is like every other government in a democratic society: for the people, by the people. And it is no different in another sense: power corrupts.

 

The problem isn't with the government. It never was, and never will be. The problem is with the people we elect to the government. But once again, it has zero valid points in this question about socialized medicine, other than they would be a major provider in it.

 

If I had a choice between a good government-backed health plan, and a private HMO, in the United States of America I would go for the low-cost government plan that I'm already paying taxes for (especially knowing how awful and downright criminal HMO's can and have been).

 

That's the only reason why people that are provided health-care through their government will do just about anything to keep the tap open. They want to have someone tell them what they can and can not do. They've been trained to let the government think and do for them.

 

You really have drank all the kool-aid my friend. You drank extra on top of what they gave you looks like to believe this. This sounds exactly like what I hear from conservative radio/television talking heads. They've trained you to repeat it and you've made them proud with your flawless presentation of their case.

 

I LOVE how conservatives always say this bit of nonsense. Honestly, it's so amusing....except for the scary part that others bleat this out in their sheep-like fashion.

 

Everyone I know...mistrusts the government. I don't trust the government one bit. I'm SCARED of the government. This is a good thing that even the founding fathers knew about. No one wants anyone to tell them what to do, tell them what to think, tell them what way they should live their life.

 

Saying that this will happen because we have socialized medicine makes me wonder what kind of kool-aid you've been drinking, because it's absolutely ridiculous. Seriously.

 

Again, it comes back to not having a truly valid argument about why we shouldn't have healthcare for everyone. Unless you want to stick with that "personal responsibility" thing (that you didn't mention at all in your last post after I laid out scenario after scenario that blew holes in your theory). Changing the subject to nonsense like "we'll all be asking the government what to eat and drink if we allow nationalized healthcare!" or any other subject shows that people who believe what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity say were never trained what to say when you had to stick to the subject at hand.

 

I think it's YOU who likes being trained by radio/television talking heads or conservative congressmen (who only repeat what their lobbyists tell them to, which is true of both parties) what to say, what to think, what to believe.

 

People need to think for themselves. Once people have the power to think for themselves, they realize that the betterment of ALL men will bring about the betterment of ALL men...meaning they themselves.

 

If I help build a dam, won't that also help me not be flooded?

 

If I help put a kid through college, won't that mean a better educated population surrounding me? (instead of a bunch of tv-watching moron kids addicted to Girls Gone Wild and Playstation2)

 

If I help put out a fire, isn't that helping myself by saving maybe my house, or my family dentist, or my kid's daycare teacher?

 

 

 

 

"Common good" is a phrase that is so very foreign to anti-socialist republicans. So is community. It's all about the self. Myself. Me. Mine. I'm not sharing because I want it all for myself.

 

 

Me, myself and I, we all like money like everyone else, but we also have a sense of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. That personal responsibility is all about helping not only ourselves, but those around us that are less fortunate.

 

 

 

Your money is more important than your fellow man.

[Branjo]

America is a great country and I freaking love it but that love isnt blind, I see people in need going without and the people that have been born into a comfortable head start call the rest whinners and lazy cause they can't provide themselves with the same life.

 

A "Great" country should look after its people, this means amongst other things health care, your basic need and right to health should be provided reguardless of your bank account.

 

JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country", well 50 years have passed and people are sick doing for their country with no reward in sight. Every decade is worse than the last for them.

 

People will always abuse any system it truly is unavoidable but that is the exception not the rule. The abuse of power is a far greater crime, like a politician that pushes a drug on the market cause he holds stock in that company. Or a president that demolishes a country cause and has a friend with a company that rebuilds them...lol.

 

Here in the US I have noticed that people are trying desperately to build a bubble for themselves were they dont need anyone or anything else to survive. People will look down on a less fortunate person and say I told you so and try to deny them the hand up that they truly need.

 

The old saying that "My tax money is paying for this" is absolute BS, im sorry but your tax dollar is going on the latest jet fighter or submarine or the latest surveilance technology for a Government to spy on its people and circumvent their rights.

 

There is no need for medication to be the price that it is, its sheer criminal to me. The price alone forces people to choose between thier health and how much food they can buy a month. Oh but the healthy food is twice the price of the generic food so how can you stay healthy on unhealthy food and the more drained you become due to poor nourishment the more you need your medicine and then you are in a hole and then you listen to people saying your a drain on society and its your own fault for not saving money.

 

Angry is right, We own the government we pay their salaries. We the people have more power than they do, So why are the people not being listened to? because some fat bastards are making serious money from the suffering of others.

[AnUnknownSource]

oh, when I said "Over Here" in my last post, I was in England at the time :-)

[red930]

Look, I've answered every question and rebutted every statement. I've made suggestions on how to resolve this situation.

 

Even this pro-socialized medicine group sees the same problem as I do. They just choose a different solution...

http://www.pnhp.org/

 

This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment though a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.

 

But my plan is better since it cuts out the middle-man of the government and puts the payee and payer in direct contact. Run the numbers through your calculator and tell me where I'm wrong. You will no longer have any insurance premium to pay. You'll be able to save that money for yourself and invest it to earn even more money.

 

A catastrophic care policy with a fairly high deductible is remarkably inexpensive and quite affordable even to people making minimum wage. My policy costs less than my cell bill. Doctors and other health providers will be able to lower their rates since their overhead will be dramatically reduced.

 

All I ask is that you at least try to prove me wrong on the facts.

 

NO SPIN NO DEFLECTION

 

BTW Please try to prove the difference between Socialized Welfare and Socialized Medicine. Even the most liberal of all publications The New York Times is able to see the connection...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/opinion/...gin&oref=slogin

 

I'll leave this thread and watch the proceedings since I'm obviously not welcome as an equal participant.

[dr_bowtie]

ouch.... I feel for ya Ex...

[AnUnknownSource]

Hey EX... The NY times article... that's an opinion column... :tooth:

 

Noone said you're not welcome... I for one welcome the debate

[suedenim]

I think you should stay Roadie this debate is certainly one-sided and without you it can only descend into back slapping, high five-ing and who knows where that will end. We could be printing t-shirts, writing songs and baking cakes to bring social healthcare to a country we don't even live in (only the fascists get the smart uniforms and violent excesses. Now where did I put the leather patches for my tweed jacket?)

 

Then again considering the original question it was going to be one-sided and so far no-one has wanted to give up social healthcare.