Socialized Healthcare?

1…34689…18

Comments

  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    JOEJOEJOE wrote:
    I disagree....the fact that UHC would require 1000s and 1000s of physical structures, a new computer system and new employees does make it seem like a great leap into the future.

    Think of how few govt departments serve a huge chunk of our population...IRS and SSA are all that come to mind, and they don't require local physical locations everywhere in order to carry out their functions.
    UHC works in many countries. What, we are 20 something on the rankings list. It doesn't take too many resources to make UHC to work. Other's are doing it, why shouldn't we, with our wealth?
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    JOEJOEJOE wrote:
    Of course we have the resources, but if it costs the govt $50 to provide the same medical services that a private company can provide for $12, we need to fix the gap before UHC can be possible.
    Why should anyone profit from health coverage? That's where this gap stems from. Its lives we are saving, it shouldn't be about the cost.
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    GTFLYGIRL wrote:
    Dude... You think it's cool to see sick kids without healthcare?

    You think it's fine that in one of the richest nations in the world there are over 40 million people that have no healthcare and others... like myself that go to work everyday and let someone else raise my child...just so I can pay for healthcare?

    You don't see that so much of it is just about the bank accounts of the wealthy and those who are trying to have power and control??? ...Without the people's best interests ever being taken into account.

    Or...that's right... Why should the best interests of anyone other than yourself (Not to mention that everyone having healthcare and kids being raised by their parents if the parent chooses to do so IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF EVERYONE) be taken into account? Why should you care to put forth a dime so the kid standing next to you in the supermarket doesn't cough some TB into the air and make you sick. Hmmmm......

    You don't see the need for and the benefit to all of us working together? One people?

    Ugh. People like you make me so sick I need to use my $800/month healthcare.

    I'd be for a children's UNC plan. what I'm not for is people like commy who openly admit to not paying taxes and then turn around and ask me to pay for his healthcare. why should I?

    I had a job many years back. I worked there for 10 years. great pay but they provided no health insurance. as I got older I realized I should find a job that offers those benefits. you know what I did? I worked my ass off and got my masters and was able to find a great employer who pays 100% of my healthcare. I didnt ask for a handout. I worked hard and made it happen for myself.

    people are fucking lazy, thats what makes me sick.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    I'd be for a children's UNC plan. what I'm not for is people like commy who openly admit to not paying taxes and then turn around and ask me to pay for his healthcare. why should I?
    .
    I've paid plenty of taxes in my time, as have most working class americans. We've paid our dues, to get some of it back is not negative, but only what we are due.

    Or do you prefer corporate welfare?
  • JOEJOEJOE
    JOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,822
    Commy wrote:
    I've paid plenty of taxes in my time, as have most working class americans. We've paid our dues, to get some of it back is not negative, but only what we are due.

    Or do you prefer corporate welfare?

    Paying taxes is an ongoing duty. Have you not utilized any govt services in the past?
  • JOEJOEJOE
    JOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,822
    Commy wrote:
    Why should anyone profit from health coverage? That's where this gap stems from. Its lives we are saving, it shouldn't be about the cost.

    If a pvt company can provide service for 1/4 of what it would cost the govt, the gap is due to inefficiency, not profit.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    JOEJOEJOE wrote:
    If a pvt company can provide service for 1/4 of what it would cost the govt, the gap is due to inefficiency, not profit.
    Why are private companies making profit off of Human misery?>
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    JOEJOEJOE wrote:
    Paying taxes is an ongoing duty. Have you not utilized any govt services in the past?
    I've used roads. But I have paid for them. And continue to pay for them. As I have, and continue, to pay for income tax, sales tax, etc.
  • potluck
    potluck Posts: 170
    so i started this thread for some free advice about a paper i just finished an hour ago.

    Let me start by saying that there is nothing i hold in higher regard than the free market. with that said, what ive learned from real research is that the problem cant be fixed without some sort of governmental management.

    What ive come up with for my public admin course is this.

    Mandate universal healthcare at a federal level but create individual state agencies that oversee their own medical practices. The funds would come from state revenues chosen by state officials or the people. Every state can do things the way they want as long as everybody has access to basic health care.
    Meanwhile, we could offer tax subsidies to employers and individuals who choose to remain in the private sector of medical insurance. This way there is still relevant competition in the market. The new federal agency's major function would be to work with the FDA and insure that doctors knew what to prescribe and at what rates. There would be massive oversight at both levels.

    The proposition I made in my paper is much more extensive but I think it speaks to both conservative and liberal ideals. If u would like I can post a link to my myspace page where I post most of my papers.

    some of your posts gave me good ideas and leads and i thank those who posted thoughtful genuine ideas.
    06/24/1998 SD
    10/12/2000 KS
    06/13/2003 IA
    06/15/2003 ND
    06/16/2003 Mn
    06/21/2003 WI
    10/05/2004 MO
    10/08/2004 FL
    09/08/2005 MB
    09/09/2005 ON
    05/17/2006 IL
    05/19/2006 MI
    07/02/2006 CO
    08/05/2007 Lolla
    06/14/2008 B'roo

    Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    fanch75 wrote:
    What does health insurance have to do with knocking up a chick? I don't think you need an HMO ID card to tap/not tap some ass.

    One of the primary reasons "chicks" get "knocked up" unintentionally is due to lack of access to reliable birth control (i.e. healthcare). This is why so many more poor women face unintended pregnancy than wealthier women.

    And please don't say they shouldn't have had sex because:
    A. That's a whole conversation that would need its own thread, and
    B. That doesn't account for married women, women who are left with no choice but to use less reliable birth control, women who get raped or have birth control failures and can't afford emergency contraception, etc.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    potluck wrote:
    Mandate universal healthcare at a federal level but create individual state agencies that oversee their own medical practices. The funds would come from state revenues chosen by state officials or the people. Every state can do things the way they want as long as everybody has access to basic health care.
    Meanwhile, we could offer tax subsidies to employers and individuals who choose to remain in the private sector of medical insurance. This way there is still relevant competition in the market. The new federal agency's major function would be to work with the FDA and insure that doctors knew what to prescribe and at what rates. There would be massive oversight at both levels.

    Sounds quite similar to American's Health Insurance Plans' "Vision for Reform," no?
  • JOEJOEJOE
    JOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,822
    Does anyone fear that the govt may impose morality choices when deciding what sort of healthcare to provide?

    Imagine if the current administration, or one with similar values, refused to allow UHC providers to perform abortions!

    What if the govt refused UHC providers funding for birth control pills or methadone?
  • potluck
    potluck Posts: 170
    scb wrote:
    Sounds quite similar to American's Health Insurance Plans' "Vision for Reform," no?

    I guess Im not familiar with that. I just researched raw numbers in America and compared those with Canada, GB, France and Germany. I came up with my proposition using logic not anyone elses ideas.
    06/24/1998 SD
    10/12/2000 KS
    06/13/2003 IA
    06/15/2003 ND
    06/16/2003 Mn
    06/21/2003 WI
    10/05/2004 MO
    10/08/2004 FL
    09/08/2005 MB
    09/09/2005 ON
    05/17/2006 IL
    05/19/2006 MI
    07/02/2006 CO
    08/05/2007 Lolla
    06/14/2008 B'roo

    Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
  • JOEJOEJOE
    JOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,822
    Commy wrote:
    Why are private companies making profit off of Human misery?>

    If companies didn't profit, they'd lose investors, etc.

    Plenty of hospitals are non-profit organizations.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    JOEJOEJOE wrote:
    If companies didn't profit, they'd lose investors, etc.

    Plenty of hospitals are non-profit organizations.
    That's the idea.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    JOEJOEJOE wrote:
    Does anyone fear that the govt may impose morality choices when deciding what sort of healthcare to provide?

    Imagine if the current administration, or one with similar values, refused to allow UHC providers to perform abortions!

    What if the govt refused UHC providers funding for birth control pills or methadone?

    That is a really good question that I've often pondered as well. We already have the Hyde Amendment, which says federal funds can't be used to pay for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. My only consolation has been that if the new system is anything like the current Medicaid one, states would also contribute and could use their part of the funds to pay for abortions, etc. if they want to. Plus, right now it's primarily the poor people (and Native Americans and people who work for the federal government) who are screwed. If the wealthier people got this option taken away as well they probably wouldn't stand for it (I hope).
  • JOEJOEJOE
    JOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,822
    Commy wrote:
    That's the idea.

    We could go round and round for hours on this, my friend.
  • JOEJOEJOE
    JOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,822
    scb wrote:
    That is a really good question that I've often pondered as well. We already have the Hyde Amendment, which says federal funds can't be used to pay for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. My only consolation has been that if the new system is anything like the current Medicaid one, states would also contribute and could use their part of the funds to pay for abortions, etc. if they want to. Plus, right now it's primarily the poor people (and Native Americans and people who work for the federal government) who are screwed. If the wealthier people got this option taken away as well they probably wouldn't stand for it (I hope).

    To play devils advocate, what if the Fed Govt refuses to fund a state's UHC if they perform abortions in that state?

    Many years ago, the Fed strong-armed several states into raising their drinking age from 18 to 21 by threatening to hold back funding for highways if the states refused.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    JOEJOEJOE wrote:
    To play devils advocate, what if the Fed Govt refuses to fund a state's UHC if they perform abortions in that state?

    I don't think they can do that. Plus, seems like it would violate Roe v. Wade.
  • JOEJOEJOE
    JOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,822
    scb wrote:
    I don't think they can do that. Plus, seems like it would violate Roe v. Wade.

    imho, they wouldn't be violating roe/wade because abortions would still be legal, just not free.

Categories