Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Socialised Healthcare - American Views Needed

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


I understand what you're saying, however, what about the people who work themselves practically to death daily and still can't afford insurance? Even if you don't drink or smoke or overeat, you can still get sick or be injured.

What about those who work hard and have insurance, which has been working fine until they get breast cancer, or some other serious condition which would require long term treatment, then all the sudden the insurance company, which is set up to find ways not to pay out, refuses to pay for treatment, and this innocent, hard working person dies?


The fact of the matter is that the system is very flawed and requires reform. The folks on here who have commented on socialized medicine have a mix of feelings and opinions, but I've seen a good many positive comments.

I for one don't mind paying a little extra out of my check in order to insure that all people can get adequate health care.

I do have my doubts that we will see it in this new administration, but, as I have said before, time will tell.




posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by chickenshoes
 


I can only speak for the UK, but the idea you put forth of a hardworking man suddenly struck down by an affliction through no fault of his isnt the average scenario.

I would say first of all, the lowest paid members of US society get about $15,000 a year right? Are we to assume that they pay for their accomodation, food and essentials out of this $15,000 and are left with nothing? If so, that is an issue of wage levels. Why are these people earning such a pittance? Why are they only capable of being in jobs with such a wage bracket? Why are they not attempting to earn more money, or cut down on expenditure to pay for their own healthcare.

If you feel strongly about helping those with disease, you should give freely to charity without coercion. I have donated significant amounts of money to Cancer Research charities in the UK. I believe that in the long term, this will benefit cancer sufferers much more than simply paying for one course of treatement with an overpriced proprietary pharmaceutical. I truly believe in the power of charity. Where there is a moral obstacle to be overcome, people will do it of their own volition to the degree they can. Forcing anyone into paying for another man's treatment regardless of the situations surrounding the case is not acceptable in my opinion. Even worse is this concept that majority confers some right to force others to pay for other's medicine (ie like if Tom forces Brad to pay for Jim's medicine).


I would actually like to ask you a few questions sir. Please dont feel like I am singling you out in a negative way, I would just like to hear your side of the story.

a. Why are you in a job which leaves you without enough money to buy insurance? Do you feel this was your own fault/ choice?

b. Do you think it is fair for you to force (through a vote) richer people to pay for your insurance?

c. Do you think that government/ society has an obligation to take care of you; or compensate you for the position that you were born in/ the path you chose?

Again, please dont think those are hostile, Im genuinely interested to know your views!



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Originally posted by 44soulslayer



I can only speak for the UK, but the idea you put forth of a hardworking man suddenly struck down by an affliction through no fault of his isnt the average scenario.


What then about the person who works hard and has insurance, but gets a disease or condition that is not covered by their insurance? It happens way more than you think.

Private insurance companies are set up not to pay out. There is a person in every insurance company who sits in a room all day and does nothing but review cases to try and find a reason to deny coverage.


I would say first of all, the lowest paid members of US society get about $15,000 a year right? Are we to assume that they pay for their accomodation, food and essentials out of this $15,000 and are left with nothing? If so, that is an issue of wage levels. Why are these people earning such a pittance? Why are they only capable of being in jobs with such a wage bracket? Why are they not attempting to earn more money, or cut down on expenditure to pay for their own healthcare.


Well, it's not as easy as all that. Some people are at the top of their game when they hit $15,000 a year. Jobs are scarce right now, and most of us are glad to have the ones we do have, no matter how bad.

Some people haven't had the opportunity to succeed, or may be in the process. Success doesn't usually happen overnight, but only after years of schooling, and even if that, you may not succeed, and still be strapped with debt from the loans you took out.

Before you argue with my statement about not given the opportunity, it is true that the poorest of us can get money to go to school, but after some arbitrary line drawn by the government, they deem you too rich to deserve anything. The cost of everything is skyrocketing right now, which leaves little left over for anything after you've bought gas and groceries and paid bills.


If you feel strongly about helping those with disease, you should give freely to charity without coercion. I have donated significant amounts of money to Cancer Research charities in the UK. I believe that in the long term, this will benefit cancer sufferers much more than simply paying for one course of treatement with an overpriced proprietary pharmaceutical. I truly believe in the power of charity. Where there is a moral obstacle to be overcome, people will do it of their own volition to the degree they can. Forcing anyone into paying for another man's treatment regardless of the situations surrounding the case is not acceptable in my opinion. Even worse is this concept that majority confers some right to force others to pay for other's medicine (ie like if Tom forces Brad to pay for Jim's medicine).


While I have and do give to charity when I am able, the fact is that many charities which seek to cure various diseases take in tons of money, and yet still many times the diseases they are supposed to be seeking to cure still exist in full force.



I would actually like to ask you a few questions sir. Please dont feel like I am singling you out in a negative way, I would just like to hear your side of the story.


Actually, I'm a woman.


a. Why are you in a job which leaves you without enough money to buy insurance? Do you feel this was your own fault/ choice?


I had a job that had good insurance (for which I laid out a big chunk of my check), but I got laid off. The only other job I was able to get in the same field does not provide insurance unless you are full time, and of course, they could provide hours just shy of that, but still I'm only part time, so even if I somehow manage to work a full 40 hour week, I'm still not considered full time and am not eligible for their insurance.

My husband was fortunate enough about a month ago to actually move up to a better paying job, but he won't be eligible for their insurance for the first 6 months. The temp company through which he was hired has insurance, however, it's almost 400 dollars a month for only doc visits for which you still have to cough up a co pay, and a co pay for prescriptions, no major medical, which means nothing is covered at all if you need to be hospitalized. In short, we'd be better off with nothing rather than throwing money away on it.

If you seek insurance on your own, it's difficult to find a policy that is worth paying out for that doesn't cost practically half your salary. A woman I work with who is in the same weekly hours boat as me pays $1100 dollars a month for her insurance. I'd be willing to bet it takes her entire check just to have health care. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.

We do have insurance for our kids, but it's pretty crappy, and it's all we can afford right now. It works fine for doc visits and immunizations and so on, but God forbid they should get really sick. (knocking on wood)


b. Do you think it is fair for you to force (through a vote) richer people to pay for your insurance?


When those rich people have climbed up the backs of the middle class and stolen money away from our families to take luxury vacations, buy countless mansions, and do whatever it is uber rich people do, then hell yes I do.


c. Do you think that government/ society has an obligation to take care of you; or compensate you for the position that you were born in/ the path you chose?


I think we all should be willing to help one another, which I do to the best of my ability and so does my husband. No, we don't have extra money to give right now, but if a neighbor needs a hand, we give it. If a person is stranded on the side of the road, we stop to see if we can help. We donate our extra food if we have it to food pantries. 'We donate our extra clothes to goodwill.

As I said before, I'm perfectly willing to pay extra out of my check if it means everyone will get good health care.

I'm not asking for a freebie or a handout, or for anyone to take care of me. I want to make my own contribution to it.

Health care and the right to simply live is not supported by the system as it stands today. For the most part, only the super rich and government mucky mucks [edit-and the very poor] have decent insurance in this country.

It's a mess and it needs to be changed. Just because I'm not rich doesn't mean I or my family deserve to suffer or die because of a twisted, corrupt system.



[edit on 11/7/2008 by chickenshoes]



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Socialised health care is a nice idea. I will admit it, I think it would be great to have health care that takes care of all americans regardless of whether they have insurance or not. Plainly put, it's the human thing to do. That being said however, Whether it can be done, and done effectively is another thing. One of the problems with socialized health care is that hospitals will end up being overrun by people, making waiting lines worse, quality of care will suffer because the hospital's funding will be coming from and controlled by the govt. (and we know how good they are at that, just take a look at our schools thanks to "no child left behind") Heck our health care system is already suffering from the socialized health care that illegals are getting! I guess what I'm getting at is, too many people, not enough hospitals, doctors, etc.

If they can come up with a way of making socialized healthcare work, I'm all for it, but in the meantime, I don't think it will be possible.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
I am not against healthcare for everyone. I am against government running it. Government does not have a good record.

Things government can't presently run efficiently

Social security
Budget
Housing programs
Bailout money
Defense contracts
oversight and regulation
Medicare/Medicaid
Taking care of veterans


anyone care to add more....




How about the public school system? Thank Bush on that thanks to his "No child left behind" act.

not a one line post.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by chickenshoes


When those rich people have climbed up the backs of the middle class and stolen money away from our families to take luxury vacations, buy countless mansions, and do whatever it is uber rich people do, then hell yes I do.


What do you consider 'rich'? Someone who makes $100,000 a year? $250,000? $365,000? I have news for you, those kinds of incomes aren't that hot after taxes - they're enough for family to live comfortably, but hardly luxuriously. Small businessmen who earn this much money every year are not rich; they are middle class. But even so, they still employ millions of people. You might even be one of them. Yet these are the people whose wallets you want to pilfer and steal from.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

So i have to ask americans here on ATS, what do you really think socialised healthcare is like? Speaking as someone in the UK who has had access to the NHS, i cannot understand your paranoia and fear over the system. If the government tired to abolish it here i can honestly say that the country would be in uproar and the government would be gone overnight. The NHS isn't perfect but it's absolutely amazing nonetheless.

So come on america, tell me why you're so scared of a social healthcare
system.


Well, you've seen what a stellar job our govt. has done with everything else our tax dollars have been thrown away for. I'm terrified of what the US Government would end up doing with it.
We have been working our asses off for decades and the American working class puts in more time with less pay and vacation every year. This used to be a huge, money generating economy and it's bankrupt. What will the same people do with it if we give THEM the opportunity to handle our medical care as well ????
I don't trust anything our government will do so it is safer for us as taxpayers to try to hold on to something even if it costs us more. The screw up EVERYTHING we trust them to do.
I'm not scared of socialism as an idea. I'm terrified of what our government will turn it into.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sc2099

Originally posted by chickenshoes


When those rich people have climbed up the backs of the middle class and stolen money away from our families to take luxury vacations, buy countless mansions, and do whatever it is uber rich people do, then hell yes I do.


What do you consider 'rich'? Someone who makes $100,000 a year? $250,000? $365,000? I have news for you, those kinds of incomes aren't that hot after taxes - they're enough for family to live comfortably, but hardly luxuriously. Small businessmen who earn this much money every year are not rich; they are middle class. But even so, they still employ millions of people. You might even be one of them. Yet these are the people whose wallets you want to pilfer and steal from.



Excuse you, I neither want to pilfer nor steal from anyone.

If my husband and I made 50,000 between us, we'd be sitting in a bathtub full of money every stinking night, throwing cash around us laughing. And, honey, here's some news for YOU. We do live comfortably, in our way. We may not take luxury vacations, but we camp out in our backyard in the summer, and it works for us. We are happy.

It's not that we aren't rich because we don't work. We work our asses off!!

You must have missed the part where we don't ask for any handouts, and actually look for opportunity to help folks.

So, anyway, FU! You obviously don't know how to read!!

[edit on 11/11/2008 by chickenshoes]

[edit on 11/11/2008 by chickenshoes]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by chickenshoes
 


Forcing someone to be abother person's safety net is stealing. And as 44soulslayer said, the safety net always becomes a hammock.

If you think $50,000 is a lot of money I think your standards are pretty low, although it does depend on where you live. If you live anywhere near a major city or anywhere in certain areas of the US then after taxes, bills, and the cost of goods and services, $50,000 barely enough for two people with a child or two to save anything for retirement. If you think that's the best you can do, then whatever, it's your life. But don't ask other hardworking Americans to subsidize your lack of ambition or income when you choose to smoke/drink/eat one morsel of unhealthy food/live in an industrialized area/ride a motorcycle or any other potentially dangerous behavior and you need medical care.

BTW, don't you think it's silly to question my literacy when I must have read perfectly well to compose my reply? Oh wait, I forgot that it's ok to insult people when they disagree with you and call into question your opinion. My bad, I must not have gotten the memo that that is kosher now. FYI, insulting people with a different point of view does absolutely nothing to further your cause. Instead, it makes you look petty and immature and your argument look weak since it needs to be fortified with mud slinging and (abbreviated) profanity.

edit: grammar

[edit on 11/12/2008 by sc2099]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sc2099
reply to post by chickenshoes
 


Forcing someone to be abother person's safety net is stealing. And as 44soulslayer said, the safety net always becomes a hammock.

If you think $50,000 is a lot of money I think your standards are pretty low, although it does depend on where you live. If you live anywhere near a major city or anywhere in certain areas of the US then after taxes, bills, and the cost of goods and services, $50,000 barely enough for two people with a child or two to save anything for retirement. If you think that's the best you can do, then whatever, it's your life. But don't ask other hardworking Americans to subsidize your lack of ambition or income when you choose to smoke/drink/eat one morsel of unhealthy food/live in an industrialized area/ride a motorcycle or any other potentially dangerous behavior and you need medical care.

BTW, don't you think it's silly to question my literacy when I must have read perfectly well to compose my reply? Oh wait, I forgot that it's ok to insult people when they disagree with you and call into question your opinion. My bad, I must not have gotten the memo that that is kosher now. FYI, insulting people with a different point of view does absolutely nothing to further your cause. Instead, it makes you look petty and immature and your argument look weak since it needs to be fortified with mud slinging and (abbreviated) profanity.

edit: grammar

[edit on 11/12/2008 by sc2099]


Look, I apologize for the insult, you're right, it was uncalled for.

However, had you really read my entire post thoroughly, you'd have seen that I do not wish to pilfer, and I find your accusation highly insulting.

We live very cheaply out of necessity, and we have 2 children. We don't carry an assload of credit card debt, we only use them if absolutely necessary, our cars are paid for, we don't do anything but stay home and go to work. We don't eat fancy or unhealthy food, we shop at Aldi's, and our cars are efficient on gas. That's how we get by on what we make.

We have come a long way in our lives and made things better for ourselves. We just can't afford health insurance for ourselves.

Not everyone has the resources or opportunity to become wealthy.

I had said in my previous post that it seems you weren't bothered to read very thoroughly that I was more than willing to pay extra out of my check for healthcare. Conveniently, you somehow missed that part. I never asked anyone to take care of me. I have no desire to mooch.

The fact is that our medical system is greedy, corrupt and broken. If you don't know or see that, then lucky you. That probably means you have enough money to pay out the ass for really good insurance.

I hope you never have to deal with a serious illness and get denied coverage by your provider. I suspect if that ever happened to you you might change your tune.

[edit on 11/12/2008 by chickenshoes]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by chickenshoes
 


Apologies for not being able to quote the relevant sections, but I'll try to reply point by point. And as usual, I have to say please dont take this personally (even though there will be some attacks which seem personal). I wish you the best and just want to challenge the beliefs you hold.


So:
Insurance cover taken should be wholely comprehensive. If its an issue of companies immorally weaseling out of payment, then they need to be stopped.

Why are some people at the top of their game when they hit $15k a year? With a public schooling system in America, and the cost of living at a decent level, most kids get a decent shot at fulfilling their potential. As I said, I personally know people who have come from rural villages in third world countries who are now multimillionaires. Do you think they bitched about not being able to afford this and that? They used whatever education they could get to go out and take what they wanted.

Of course they are by no means the norm; they are the best of the best. But why must the best subsidize the worst? Again this may sound harsh, but if you're getting paid $15k a year, maybe thats all that you contribute to the company's income... and maybe thats all that you are worth.

What you cite as lack of opportunity is actually rank laziness compounded by intrinsic inability. People have done far better, from more humble backgrounds than many of the poorest in America.

If "society" had some moral obligation to care for everyone, then shouldn't society get a say about how you live your life? Allow me to expand...

Say we are both children born to two families living on the same street. Our parents earn similar wages, we go to the same school. In socio-economic terms, we start from the same point. Yet I work hard in school, I earn a scholarship to university and I start a company and become a multimillionaire. Meanwhile, you get pregnant as a teenager, drop out of school and work a menial job in a local restaurant. Do you honestly believe that I would have a moral obligation to pay for your welfare in such a situation?

Furthermore, should I have to pay for the welfare of your children? It was your choice to have children, why must I be penalized for it?

You claim that the rich have climbed up on the backs of the middle class. That is nothing but empty rhetoric, stemming from what I believe is jelousy. Do you honestly believe that all rich people are nothing but looters, "stealing" the proceeds of growth from a company that they funded, started and ran? Why dont you give me one single example of a rich person who got rich by exploiting the middle class workers he employed...

What you consider to be "super-rich" is actually just slightly above average. I contend that any man or woman worth his/ her weight will be able to earn enough to pay for health insurance. It is only the dullards of society who, through their own actions, have ended up in an unfortunate position.

What you are suggesting is a direct form of punitive taxation, where those who have decided to go out and be successful are left with the bill for a meal eaten by those who are incapable and irresponsible.

Then there is the population issue... with a rising population, the concept of society becomes ever detached. I find that I have no affinity towards certain factions amongst the society of my country (for those living in the UK, I mean chavs). I literally couldn't care less what happens to them. What obligation do I have to them, simply because they were born on the same soil that I was? What have they ever done to help me, or better yet help their own situation?

I know you may think that medical care is a right, and that nobody deserves to die simply for being poor.

Yes, medical care is a right. But every right needs to be enforced by each person for himself. Don't expect me to stand up for your rights just because I can afford to do so. Would you stand up and fight for my right to bear arms, or my right to Habeas Corpus? No; because you have no responsibility to protect my rights.

Medical care is no different. If you want to protect your right, then earn enough to protect it. You also claim that you want to "contribute" to a socialized medical system- well I think we all know that is a euphemism for "I want to pay $1, while you pay $10 and then I want to use medical services worth $8". Certainly go ahead and form a socialized healthcare system where you pay a contribution into a pot, and anyone can use it whenever they need to.

Just do me a favour and leave me out of it.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Meh. You look at it all wrong. It has nothing to do with I pay $1 while you pay $10.

You're paying $10 anyway, and I'm paying $1 anyway. Look, the system is already screwed. You are paying the figurative $10 in insurance, while the rest pay the figurative $1 in Medicaid. That's why insurance prices are so high.

People think that things would change so much under socialized health care, when all it really does is consolidate the mess we are currently working under. It helps keep everyone under the same arm of protection.

Anyway, what socialized health care will mostly help with is people like me. I currently go to school full time and work part time. I pay my way, but I cannot afford health care and no job is going to offer it to me - nor is my school. So, if I get sick, guess what? There's two things that could happen:

1) They fix me and send me home, and I'm in debt or everyone else eats the bill.

2) I get a disease that needs treatment, I cannot afford the treatment, I die unnecessarily.

So, you can call them like you see them, that's fine. But, just know that there are plenty of hardworking people out there that are constantly walking a fine line.

What do I think of people who are afraid of socializing health care? I think they are scared. It's the same people who are always afraid of progress. The same people that always try to hold people back when trying to change for the better.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


So essentially what you're suggesting is that the poor be included under the umbrella coverage of the rich?

How could this possibly not increase premiums if under a semi-private system?

And any public solution would lead to inferior care quality, at a mandated cost for the rich for a solution which they would not use anyway since its inferior.

The latter is what has happened in the UK.

I can see the argument surrounding a "hard working" person simply collapsing under the weight of medical treatment. But from a pragmatic viewpoint:

Has the person died needlessly? What if he had been saved at considerable, mandated cost to the rest of society. Would he definitely be a positive influence? What if he turns out to be a criminal? What if he turns out to be a dullard who adds nothing to the progress of society?

On a purely numerical level, is it worth keeping everyone alive? Is it worth treating a serious felon at the expense of others?


What about an intermediate solution that I just thought up. How about a public fund which acts as a health overdraft account that can be accessed by any person when they need it. Rather than simply being allowed to walk away from the debts (and therefore put them on everyone else), how about people being able to pay back the money they have used for their own treatment. This would mean that nobody has to die unecessarily in desperation, but also that they can pay back what they owe. Nobody has to die, but nobody can walk away without reciprocity. The funds remitted via a long term, inflation pegged loan (similar to student loan provisions) could then be put back into the fund.

What do you pro- social healthcare folks have to say about that proposal? It lets everyone access the care they need, but lets them know that this is not free care, that someone has paid for it and that someone deserves to be paid back.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by chickenshoes
 



Insurance cover taken should be wholely comprehensive. If its an issue of companies immorally weaseling out of payment, then they need to be stopped.


Agreed. Any ideas?


Why are some people at the top of their game when they hit $15k a year? With a public schooling system in America, and the cost of living at a decent level, most kids get a decent shot at fulfilling their potential.


Well, not everyone has the same intelligence level or opportunities to get an education in the US. Sorry, but all the schooling in the world won't help you if you don't have the brains to use it. And many people just don't have the opportunity to get a good college education, unless you are very poor, and then you can get grants and scholarships.




Of course they are by no means the norm; they are the best of the best. But why must the best subsidize the worst? Again this may sound harsh, but if you're getting paid $15k a year, maybe thats all that you contribute to the company's income... and maybe thats all that you are worth.


So that means you deserve to be sick or die because you can't afford medical care?

What you cite as lack of opportunity is actually rank laziness compounded by intrinsic inability. People have done far better, from more humble backgrounds than many of the poorest in America.


Unfortunately, the ones who get left out are often the ones seen as "middle class" in this country. The very poor get the grants and scholarships, and also get subsidized health care. It's the ones in the lower middle who get crapped on most of the time, because they often don't have the money to afford an education or healthcare, and make "too much money" according to the state.

Sorry, but that's not rank laziness, it's because they are allowed to slip through the cracks.


If "society" had some moral obligation to care for everyone, then shouldn't society get a say about how you live your life? Allow me to expand...

Say we are both children born to two families living on the same street. Our parents earn similar wages, we go to the same school. In socio-economic terms, we start from the same point. Yet I work hard in school, I earn a scholarship to university and I start a company and become a multimillionaire. Meanwhile, you get pregnant as a teenager, drop out of school and work a menial job in a local restaurant. Do you honestly believe that I would have a moral obligation to pay for your welfare in such a situation?

Furthermore, should I have to pay for the welfare of your children? It was your choice to have children, why must I be penalized for it?


Ok, fair enough, I see what you are saying here, and agree with you to an extent.
We pay taxes for other services such as the fire department and the police. So are you saying that someone who doesn't make as much money as you deserves not to have police protection or have their house put out if it is on fire?

My main gripe with health insurance is that it is way expensive for virtually nothing. It is a system based on greed, and people die every day because of it. As I said before, in every insurance company, there is someone who sits in an office all day long and does nothing but review medical records looking for a reason to deny a person coverage. So even if you don't want to mooch off the state, and you do work hard and buy a policy, it doesn't guarantee that you'll be insured.

IMO, insurance is a racket.




You claim that the rich have climbed up on the backs of the middle class. That is nothing but empty rhetoric, stemming from what I believe is jelousy. Do you honestly believe that all rich people are nothing but looters, "stealing" the proceeds of growth from a company that they funded, started and ran? Why dont you give me one single example of a rich person who got rich by exploiting the middle class workers he employed...
What you consider to be "super-rich" is actually just slightly above average.


And just how do you know what I consider to be super rich? Have you the ability to read minds? I'm speaking about the big corporations who get the tax breaks and have accountants who can hide the money and thereby many times avoid paying taxes altogether.

So are you saying it's ok for them to avoid paying their fair share of taxes just because they have the money to get out of it?


I contend that any man or woman worth his/ her weight will be able to earn enough to pay for health insurance. It is only the dullards of society who, through their own actions, have ended up in an unfortunate position.

What you are suggesting is a direct form of punitive taxation, where those who have decided to go out and be successful are left with the bill for a meal eaten by those who are incapable and irresponsible.


Then there is the population issue... with a rising population, the concept of society becomes ever detached. I find that I have no affinity towards certain factions amongst the society of my country (for those living in the UK, I mean chavs). I literally couldn't care less what happens to them. What obligation do I have to them, simply because they were born on the same soil that I was? What have they ever done to help me, or better yet help their own situation?


Here again, not everyone who can't afford insurance is a lazy good for nothing SOB. Due to a greedy and corrupt system, people die, and not through their own doing.


Yes, medical care is a right. But every right needs to be enforced by each person for himself. Don't expect me to stand up for your rights just because I can afford to do so. Would you stand up and fight for my right to bear arms, or my right to Habeas Corpus? No; because you have no responsibility to protect my rights.


Actually, I have stood up for others rights, and I would stand up for your right to have a gun or your right to Habeas Corpus if I could. What affects others affects me too.

I do understand what you're saying, and I don't think all "rich" people are evil bastards who come sneaking in my house at night to rape my dog and steal my children's souls.

But, they more often than not get the tax breaks and leave the little guy to pick up the slack. Sorry, not fair.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by chickenshoes
 


You know as a result of this debate I have begun to rethink my stance slightly.

It does seem rather stupid that a person should die simply because they are unable to pay for medical care. However I still don't believe that the burden must be placed on another person, regardless of how rich that second person is.

I'm beginning to move closer and closer to the system I suggested above:


What about an intermediate solution that I just thought up. How about a public fund which acts as a health overdraft account that can be accessed by any person when they need it. Rather than simply being allowed to walk away from the debts (and therefore put them on everyone else), how about people being able to pay back the money they have used for their own treatment. This would mean that nobody has to die unecessarily in desperation, but also that they can pay back what they owe. Nobody has to die, but nobody can walk away without reciprocity. The funds remitted via a long term, inflation pegged loan (similar to student loan provisions) could then be put back into the fund.


Any thoughts?



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Speaking as a brit,i can say the NHS is absolutely brilliant,the fact the richest country in the world can waste so much money on the military yet not give every single american citizen rich or poor equal healthcare is shameful.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by chickenshoes
 


I'm not afraid. It won't be any different. Certain medical treatments will get ignored because the major pharm companies won't make as much money. This time, the government will have more stake it in and will regulate out the ass. Nothing will be able to interfere with the corruption in the industry.

Either way, it doesn't matter until we are allowed access to any/all treatments WE (the patient) choose. Until that happens, it doesn't matter what happens to the healthcare system.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Because you already pay for it. Everyone who has health insurance pays for it. Doctors overcharge to make up for losses incurred by people paying with Medicare and Medicaid which is why insurance premiums have spiked.

But that's fine, if you don't give a damn about your fellow countrymen, what can I say? Me, personally, I think anyone who is living and breathing in this country deserves the right to live and receive proper health care.

And I can't respond to your scenario. If it helps you sleep at night to assume that those who don't get help might be criminals... then do what you have to do. It's all a facade, but think whatever.

reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


And I see your plan, and I like the way you are thinking. However, I do think that there would have to be some lowered costs or reduced pricing. Have you seen the costs of some of these medications or procedures?

They'll just end up going bankrupt, and you'll still end up paying out of your pocket like you are today.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer


You know as a result of this debate I have begun to rethink my stance slightly.

It does seem rather stupid that a person should die simply because they are unable to pay for medical care. However I still don't believe that the burden must be placed on another person, regardless of how rich that second person is.

I'm beginning to move closer and closer to the system I suggested above:


What about an intermediate solution that I just thought up. How about a public fund which acts as a health overdraft account that can be accessed by any person when they need it. Rather than simply being allowed to walk away from the debts (and therefore put them on everyone else), how about people being able to pay back the money they have used for their own treatment. This would mean that nobody has to die unecessarily in desperation, but also that they can pay back what they owe. Nobody has to die, but nobody can walk away without reciprocity. The funds remitted via a long term, inflation pegged loan (similar to student loan provisions) could then be put back into the fund.


Any thoughts?


Well, it looks pretty good on paper to me.


However, there also needs to be reform in actual cost for treatment, which has skyrocketed in part due to the very thing that supposedly protects you, health insurance. Otherwise, a person could potentially spend the rest of their lives strapped with debt.

And, what do you propose for those that default?



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by chickenshoes

However, there also needs to be reform in actual cost for treatment, which has skyrocketed in part due to the very thing that supposedly protects you, health insurance. Otherwise, a person could potentially spend the rest of their lives strapped with debt.



I totally 100% agree that the cost of treatment is the real problem with any medical system, public or private. If prices for treatment weren't ridiculously inflated due to the exhorbitant cost of malpractice insurance and student loans, not to mention the drug pushers, I mean drug reps, medical care would be affordable and socialized medicine would be a nonissue.

chickenshoes, I read where you said that you'd be willing to take some money out of your check to pay for your healthcare...but I'm confused. If you're willing to pay for your own healthcare, why do you want the rest of the tax base to chip in? If it's because the money you could set aside out of your own check isn't enough to cover the expense and you need to have others contribute so you can afford medical care, then I stand by my previous statement that that is stealing money from others.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join