Our government is intentionally fiscally irresponsible and cannot operate anything efficiently or with common sense. A deregulated, free-market economy would find solutions. The FDA exists to protect pharmaceutical companies, and prevents competition and practical health solutions. Our government profits from healthcare in it's current form while diminishing people's ability to heal themselves. Government does not benefit from healthy, robust populations; it profits from sick, complacent people who are unable to protect themselves or their families. Always follow the money... and then the power.

I agree with the OP about the NHS. It is not perfect, but it is basic healthcare for free. The French nationalized system is actually very good indeed, and people from all over Europe were traveling there to use it before Sarkozy told them not to.

I can't get my head around the idea that anyone should go without healthcare. It's pretty atrocious, isn't it?
I think healthcare is a basic human right.

Originally posted by Pathos

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
That's the question i pose to you all. There seems to be a general consensus that helping millions of people who cannot afford to get health care is fundamentally wrong. It seems to suggest that a as long as 'i'm all right Jack' kind of culture exists in the U.S...

From the people who I have talked with, their concern is not about helping others. If the government were to implement a mandatory health system, there is the potential for them to tell everyone: what to eat, what to drink, how much you 'must' weigh, etc... Its all about the government controlling 'everyone's' life. Over the past six to seven months, the United States government has embraced nationalization. This is a bad thing. It will give the government power to control all aspects of life, and it will eventually lead to the regulation of 'everything' we call freedom. Imagine if we woke up tomorrow morning and everything was nationalized?

Some of things will come from nationalization (socialism):
(1) Regulated meaning behind "The Freedom of Speech".
(2) Regulated weight program that will force people to be a certain size.
(3) Regulated paycheck that limits your economic growth.
(4) Regulated hair length for men and women.
(5) Regulated hair color.
(6) Regulated eye color.
(7) Regulated style of clothes.
(8) Regulated thinking towards one's own country.
(9) Regulated heating systems, which prevents you from adjusting your house thermostat.
(10) Regulated laws that prohibit tattoos and piercings.
(11) Regulated (forced) social service involvement. They should just call it a military draft.
(12) Regulated type of radio programs you are allowed to listen to.
(13) Regulated types of websites you are allowed to visit.
(14) Regulated types of music you are allowed to listen to.
(15) Regulated car insurance.
(16) Regulated financial system.
(17) Regulated educational limits.
(18) Regulated gun rights that conflict with constitutional law.
(19) Etc...

Nationalization (socialism) is the restriction of a societies rights, so that a government can maintain control over the limitations of a group's freedoms. Once you nationalize one portion of society, there is no limit behind how much farther the government will reach.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Pathos]

I'm sorry, but WHAT? As a CANADIAN with a 'socialized' healthcare system into which I pay $54 a month so that ANY health care problem I may have can be cared for..

..I have to put a stick in your 'slippery slope' argument there.

Please tell us how we as Canadians have the following restrictions you are identifying?

(1) Regulated meaning behind "The Freedom of Speech".

** In CANADA, so long as you don't incite hatred, 'go to town', as they say. Just try to use wood that's deemed not economically useful, for your soapbox.

(2) Regulated weight program that will force people to be a certain size.

** I'd like to see them try this one considering all the crap they feed us.

(3) Regulated paycheck that limits your economic growth.

** Yeah.. no.

(4) Regulated hair length for men and women.

** We still have people stuck in the 80's with their mohawks.

(5) Regulated hair color.
(6) Regulated eye color.

** I'll just roll my eyes here.

(7) Regulated style of clothes.

** You know, I kind of wish they would.

(8) Regulated thinking towards one's own country.

** Maybe in YOUR country. See #1.

(9) Regulated heating systems, which prevents you from adjusting your house thermostat.

** One phrase sums it up; 'Hot water heat' baby!

(10) Regulated laws that prohibit tattoos and piercings.

** I just got my 2nd tattoo and contemplating my third..

(11) Regulated (forced) social service involvement. They should just call it a military draft.

** I AM talking about Canada remember, with our one submarine?

(12) Regulated type of radio programs you are allowed to listen to.

** Hehehe.. maybe in YOUR country

(13) Regulated types of websites you are allowed to visit.

** No men in black havw come to MY door yet.

(14) Regulated types of music you are allowed to listen to.

** Long live Gothic metal!

(15) Regulated car insurance.

** Geez, do you REALLY want to pay for that twit that has caused a 3 car pileup on the freeway while she was texting her BFF?

(16) Regulated financial system.

** I'll say it once, SUBPRIME LOANS. Which one of our countries is actually doing relatively okay in this recession?

(17) Regulated educational limits.

OMG they dare to tell me I don't need that 3rd PHD?? Well I don't but they aren't actually telling me that now, are they?

(18) Regulated gun rights that conflict with constitutional law.

All we ask is that you register it. And it's pretty much voluntary.

____
So, please tell me by which statistics/examples/ etc, you base the assumption that 'nationalizing' health care is going to lead directly to lack of freedoms?



[edit on 2009/7/30 by juniperberry]

you know, i don't care anyway.

the US government won't exist in a few years so they won't have anything to do with healthcare.

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
That's the question i pose to you all. There seems to be a general consensus that helping millions of people who cannot afford to get health care is fundementally wrong. It seems to suggest that a as long as 'i'm all right Jack' kind of culture exists in the U.S.

Correct me if i'm wrong please, but surely helping those who really genuinely cannot afford health insurance get it is a great thing. No-one, i feel, should have to enter through hospital doors with 'can i afford this?' running through their head.

We have the NHS in the U.K and it is nowhere near perfect, trust me, but at least it is all inclusive and levels the playing field for everyone. ANd at the same time you can get private health care if you please.

I am not trying to interfere or tell you how to run your country, i just have trouble understanding the mentality behind this. Is it because of the economic troubles your country has, and you think you cannot afford it as a nation? Is it an idelogy against any kind of paternal socalistic role of the government?

Please let me know.

We are not agianst health care for the poor. Good lord I'm creeping up on poor myself thanks to the mass job loss in America. We are against socailism. Or at least I am. This government health care system is not just to help the poor (that is what they want you to think). The health care plan is designed to ultimatly put private insurances out of business and force all American's onto the government plan. This is one step closer to controll. I liked it best when my husband and I had work and we had health insurance at work that we could afford. It seems like a dream now, yet it was only a year ago we had incomes of 70K a year and insurance. We were hard working and living the American dream, now it is like a nightmare and we are pissed. We want things like they used to be. But yes we would also like a civilized government health care plan that would cover anyone who could not afford insurance.No one hear is against helping those in need, what we are against is the goverment using the concept of helping the poor to controll us.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
you know, i don't care anyway.

the US government won't exist in a few years so they won't have anything to do with healthcare.

Do you know something that we don't?

I am a member of this board and can tell you that I am for single payer all the way! I can't figure out if Obama is or not. The other side is noisy and organized but they are NOT the majority.

Some say Obama is trying to introduce a public option knowing full well it will eventually put the private insurance leeches out of business. I'm not so sure.

The only way it will happen is if TPTB want it. Corporations are no longer seeing any advantage to providing healthcare so maybe they will allow this change.

We must revoke corporate personhood and take the money out of politics by publicly funding elections. No lobbyists or corporate money!

Revoke the Bush and Reagan tax cuts for the rich. Restore tariffs and protection for our workers and businesses and restore our middle class.

If it ain't good enough for the senators,representatives and other Washington bodies and people in power then it ain't good enough for everyone is how i see it. If those in power were willing to take this form of healthcare then i MAY support it more than i do. But currently i have no reason to support it and rather i should be against it.

I think Americans not only want to get raped by their corporate owned government, but they beg for more at every opportunity.

We have never been a country of to each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. America has always been a country to pursue your dreams. Where you could come and make a great living. A land of personal responsibility, and reliability.

We are becoming a society that allows wealth redistribution all in the name of public welfare. I would be pretty upset if I finally achieved the American dream, made a lot of money and was then punished by the government by extraordinarily high taxes.

Who is going to pay for this health care? Us. Well I'm sorry but I don't feel like paying for everyone. I like having the freedom to chose the health care and insurance company that is the most cost effective for me.

And say what you want but we have all heard, and I have personally seen your hospitals, and how overcrowded everything is.

Our President is trying to strong arm us into this when not even HE has read this health care reform. Our leaders in congress haven't read it. But they're supposed to vote for it? There are too many questions about this bill and this is too big to just rubber stamp.

Should we just get national (socialist) health care just because our poor, and illegal immigrants don't have to pay? That's a great idea.

Originally posted by JalZhaunlUss
If it ain't good enough for the senators,representatives and other Washington bodies and people in power then it ain't good enough for everyone is how i see it. If those in power were willing to take this form of healthcare then i MAY support it more than i do. But currently i have no reason to support it and rather i should be against it.

This is exactly what I have been telling everyone. Do we get to have gas pumps at our businesses like the congress has too?

Fairly simple - because;

1) They can decide if your treatment is simply too expensive - so fail to mention it as an option, and you die

2) Those WITHOUT health care are a smaller fraction than those with it - but they are going to carte blanche kick everyone off what they have now, and give them a crapped down version

3) Regardless of how fit you are personally - the cost of providing medical care to everyone will be averaged. So you pay a higher premium - with a small insurer they would adjust the cost with your age, risk profile and fitness

4) The nation can't afford the horrific cost

5) Your all owned by China now anyway - ask China what to do.


Last but not least - only those SPECIAL friends of the government will be given the contracts to provide medical care - having a monopoly, they don't have to compete against anyone - so they can and will cut costs as much possible - you can't go anywhere else, so service can be as #ty as they like - you still have to keep coming back, you have no choice.

If they deem that a 5 year wiating list is appropriate for chemo therapy - then too bad for you - it also saves them a lot of money on expensive therapy, because all the people who need it die before they have to supply it.

Not only that - all private health care companies just go broke - all dead.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Amagnon]

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
As for blaming everything on illegal immigrants, forced to look for work outside there own countries as a result of the pushing of the free-market ecnomy on their countires by sucsesive U.S administrations, get a new record, cause i just broke that one.

oh lordie ... a 'blame america for everything' post ...

No monk ... the illegals are here because their own countries suck and they want all the goodies we have and they want it without going through legal channels.

Illegals drag our system DOWN. They clog our hospitals. They use our resources that WE PAID FOR. They push law enforcement to their limits and stress the judicial systems in California and the South West. They sponge off the free education system that is paid for by AMERICANS and is in place for AMERICANS and those who are here legally.

Their own countries suck because of the people living there ... because of the drug thugs ... because of their own corrupt governments ... because of their own internal problems which are the same problems countries all over the world have had to deal with.

As for your 'blame america' crap ... get a new record, cause i just broke that one
We owe illegals NOTHING.

Public Housing:
Goal: To provide cheap housing to those that can't afford it at taxpayer expense.
Result: Sending in SWAT teams on a regular basis to clear out the drugs, gangs, and prostitutes. I'm not sure what the costs are, but I'm quite confident they've gone up, not down. And all we have to show for it is another generation of couch potatoes living off the government tit.

Public Retirement (aka Social Security)
Goal: To provide retirement for all the people
Result: This system will collapse(it's really a ponzi scheme), when, around 2020(the exact data isn't important) or something like that? Costs have skyrocketed, and services(and payments) are being cut.

Public Education
Goal: To provide education opportunities for all
Result: Costs(such as college tuition) ha ve skyrocketed and the standards have fallen apart. We spend more per student/per year than any other industrialized nation on earth yet....How many US students can't find Mexico on the map?

Public Health care(Medicare & Medicaid)
Goal: To provide health care to the poor and elderly
Result: Cost explosion and service are far below what would be considered adequate. Why are there so many "supplamental" insurance programs out there? To date Congress has never been able to rein in spending or accurately forecast costs of this program

This is just another way for the government to take control of everything.
The same way they bailed out financial institutions and some of the motor industry.
They want to control it all in order to bring about their plan for the hidden master.


-
- - - -
- @ -
------------

------------------
---------------------
------------------------
---------------------------
--------MDCCLXXVI-------