Universal Healthcare. Good Idea or Commie Plot?

[griff61]

I've lived under at leat 4 different health care systems.
US
US Military
US Vet System
Canadian Single payer system.

For the best return on investment, I think the Canuckistan version is the best.

Discuss?

[flew-da-coup]

What was wrong with your US private health care insurance? Was it the premiums? Is that your responsibility or the tax payers as a whole? Do you believe in personal responsibility or does saving a buck seem to be more important to you? The health care in Canada is not better so I know that is not the reason for your "best return on investment" statement. It is clear that it is just about the money. As I posted in the previous thread, I think that my families care is my sole responsibility and not the rest of the tax payers.

It is not a commie plot, just a system for people who want a cheap ride and avoid their own responsibility. It is also socialist by definition, and we know where socialism leads.

[flew-da-coup]

Here is an article written by a guy who previously supported Canadian Health care until he examined it.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

And here is one from a liberal website and even they are saying it is failing! These are the guys that support universal health care.
http://www.progressiveu.org/071855-health-care-problems-in-canada

And here is a story from many I have found of a man dying waiting to be seen in the emergency room for 3 DAYS!!!
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/man-dies-winnipeg-emergency-room-after-waiting-34-hours

Here is a nice article from the Canadian Medical Association. From the horses mouth.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/160/10/1469.pdf

[clacoste]

Like I said universal healthcare isn't perfect....but it is considerably better than no care at all, or financially devastating care (particularly for those without resources - ie the tens of millions working at $10-15 an hour with little, or more likely, no insurance).  Sorry, I think society has an obligation to maintain the health of its citizens.  For those who can afford the luxury of private care I think they're perfectly entitled to it.  For the rest of us - I don't have a problem paying higher taxes to ensure we get good quality care when we need it.  It's only fair.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

[flew-da-coup]

Like I said universal healthcare isn't perfect....but it is considerably better than no care at all, or financially devastating care (particularly for those without resources - ie the tens of millions working at $10-15 an hour with little, or more likely, no insurance).  Sorry, I think society has an obligation to maintain the health of its citizens.  For those who can afford the luxury of private care I think they're perfectly entitled to it.  For the rest of us - I don't have a problem paying higher taxes to ensure we get good quality care when we need it.  It's only fair.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Fair? It is fair for someone who makes more money to take care of someone who doesn't? We already have free healthcare for the lazy in this country paid for by those who are "fortunate" . It's called medicade. So why again would we need Universal health care?

[OlDave]

Coup,

I really can't say that I am an advocate for universal, government run health care, but I DO feel that everyone is entitled to affordable health care.

I think this discussion all started from the meager health and welfare benefits that were being paid for the Maxwell job that was listed here. In some cases that amount would be sufficient to obtain health insurance, if you are young, in good health, maybe single. But would it allow you to purchase individual health insurance if you had a pre-existing condition or were in some other high risk group?

Would your son be able to purchase health insurance with that much per month Coup since he is a diabetic? I doubt it. What about situations like that? How do you want your son to obtain health care when he is an adult?

The erosion of benefits that is being offered by companies, especially government contractors, is very disturbing. Do I have an answer? No. But I do have kids, and I do have grandkids. I sincerely hope that they have a better life than I did. And mine has really been pretty damn good overall.

[clacoste]

Fair? It is fair for someone who makes more money to take care of someone who doesn't? We already have free healthcare for the lazy in this country paid for by those who are "fortunate" . It's called medicade. So why again would we need Universal health care?

It's not only fair.....it's moral.  I hear it every Sunday morning....most people would.  Anyway, I'm not fully up to speed on Medicaid over there - only know half my relatives make enough not to qualify, and not enough to be able to get decent health insurance and eat as well.  Seems it varies from state to state - and the general rule is you get it if you're impoverished.  Otherwise, don't get sick.....

[flew-da-coup]

Fair? It is fair for someone who makes more money to take care of someone who doesn't? We already have free healthcare for the lazy in this country paid for by those who are "fortunate" . It's called medicade. So why again would we need Universal health care?

It's not only fair.....it's moral.  I hear it every Sunday morning....most people would.  Anyway, I'm not fully up to speed on Medicaid over there - only know half my relatives make enough not to qualify, and not enough to be able to get decent health insurance and eat as well.  Seems it varies from state to state - and the general rule is you get it if you're impoverished.  Otherwise, don't get sick.....

I guess with that logic then we need to pay the utility bills for those who can't afford it too. We have a moral obligation not to let them freeze. We could go on and on. Why do I have a moral obligation to support those who refused to prepare themselves for life as an adult? It is not my responsibility to pay for those who failed to take life seriously. Hell, even Mcdonalds has health insurance benifits. They even get a low premium due to the size of the company. So how is it my responibility to pay for those that played instead of preparing for life as a teen and young adult? The fact is it is not. I have no moral obligation to pay for those who failed to ready themselves for life! Exactly what kind of lesson will the young of this nation out of this. Go ahead and play and party, you will be taken care of by the ones who prepared themselves.

[metrologygeek]

With the economy shedding > 600,000 jobs a month, I think it may be somewhat disingenious to state that everyone who doesn't have health insurance didn't take life seriously and played rather than preparing themselves for the responsibilities of life.    Do you really think that everyone who is unemployed or working at a low wage or no-benefit job "refused to prepare themselves for life as an adult"? And further, let's consider:

I think that my families care is my sole responsibility and not the rest of the tax payers

So, what you're saying is that your health insurance is NOT subsidized by your employer and you're footing the whole bill yourself.    I'm glad you can afford that, 'cause I certainly can't afford the whole cost of insuring myself and my wife, being as we're both over 50 with no preexisting conditions.    My point is that you seem to be neglecting the fact that health insurance in this country is by and large subsidized to a certain extent already, and that it's employers that are doing the subsidizing.    This creates a system where healthcare is provided in a very inconsistent manner depending on whether you're employed and who your employer is, and puts American companies at a severe competitive disadvantage compared to European or Asian competitors.    Remember, we are the only developed nation that does not provide its citizens with guaranteed access to healthcare.    

[Duckbutta]

A little something from Walter E. Williams:

Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing? Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights? In order to have any hope of coherently answering these questions, we have to decide what is a right. The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.

Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights. If it is said that a person has rights to medical care, food and housing, and has no means of paying, how does he enjoy them? There's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy who provides them. You say, "The Congress provides for those rights." Not quite. Congress does not have any resources of its very own. The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American. So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.

If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.

The real tragedy for our nation is that any politician who holds the values of liberty that our founders held would be soundly defeated in today's political arena.

Dr. William's brilliance on display. The logic is flawless.

[metrologygeek]

If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone.  My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.

Lemme see here, where to start? This is too easy.  OK, speech.  Freedom of speech, as defined by Article 1 of the Consistution, is confined to political speech.  The Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are in fact a form of political speech.  So, the extent that you can exercise effective political speech is limited only by the amount of money you have to back that speech up.  The more money you have, the more your speech "counts".  And travel.  So where do you think the Interstate Highway system came from? An ancient relic of pre-history? The Interstate Highway System was built with tax dollars from people who may not have ever driven on an Interstate in their life.  It is generally accepted that there is a role for Government to provide infrastructure, and one could say that the healthcare system is a form of social infrastructure. 

[griff61]

What was wrong with your US private health care insurance? Was it the premiums? Is that your responsibility or the tax payers as a whole? Do you believe in personal responsibility or does saving a buck seem to be more important to you? The health care in Canada is not better so I know that is not the reason for your "best return on investment" statement. It is clear that it is just about the money. As I posted in the previous thread, I think that my families care is my sole responsibility and not the rest of the tax payers.

It is not a commie plot, just a system for people who want a cheap ride and avoid their own responsibility. It is also socialist by definition, and we know where socialism leads.

You already are paying for anyone who doesn't have health insurance. That's a fact.
As far as the health care in Canada, what you didn't say, was that it is worse. Because the fact is that is isn't, so good for you in recognizing that.
Why is it that you're ok with being overcharged by health insurance companies but get consumed with righteous indignation if the government is involved? The average American pays $9000 a year between employer & employee contributions. The next closest OECD country citizen to that pays only $5000.
Looks like a savings of over 40% and that's good for business...except insurance...

Oh, and please explain where socialism leads. Because at this time, there isn't a commie country that started out socialist. They pretty much started out as aristocracies or dictatorships that ignored the needs of the average person...so I guess we know where those lead...

[flew-da-coup]

What was wrong with your US private health care insurance? Was it the premiums? Is that your responsibility or the tax payers as a whole? Do you believe in personal responsibility or does saving a buck seem to be more important to you? The health care in Canada is not better so I know that is not the reason for your "best return on investment" statement. It is clear that it is just about the money. As I posted in the previous thread, I think that my families care is my sole responsibility and not the rest of the tax payers.

It is not a commie plot, just a system for people who want a cheap ride and avoid their own responsibility. It is also socialist by definition, and we know where socialism leads.

You already are paying for anyone who doesn't have health insurance. That's a fact.
As far as the health care in Canada, what you didn't say, was that it is worse. Because the fact is that is isn't, so good for you in recognizing that.
Why is it that you're ok with being overcharged by health insurance companies but get consumed with righteous indignation if the government is involved? The average American pays $9000 a year between employer & employee contributions. The next closest OECD country citizen to that pays only $5000.
Looks like a savings of over 40% and that's good for business...except insurance...

Oh, and please explain where socialism leads. Because at this time, there isn't a commie country that started out socialist. They pretty much started out as aristocracies or dictatorships that ignored the needs of the average person...so I guess we know where those lead...

Yes I would rather pay more and get the healthcare when needed rather than taking a chance of dying in a Canadian Emergency room after waiting 34 hrs. 2+2 does = 4. Sounds logical to me.

As for where Socialism it leads to weak countries like France, Canada, Sweden etc...... These countries never lead they just follow or whine about the US. I don't want the US to become a nanny country. Socialism is for those who could never grow up and get off the tit. I am a man and a big boy, I don't need anyone to help me. I never mentioned communism so try not putting words into my mouth or assume you know my train of thought.

[griff61]

Yes I would rather pay more and get the healthcare when needed rather than taking a chance of dying in a Canadian Emergency room after waiting 34 hrs. 2+2 does = 4. Sounds logical to me.

As for where Socialism it leads to weak countries like France, Canada, Sweden etc...... These countries never lead they just follow or whine about the US. I don't want the US to become a nanny country. Socialism is for those who could never grow up and get off the tit. I am a man and a big boy, I don't need anyone to help me. I never mentioned communism so try not putting words into my mouth or assume you know my train of thought.

In the Canadian system, you still have the option to purchase additional insurance above government coverage. So you are free to spend all day if you wish. You are aware that there is a big difference between the Canadian systems and the UK, French or Swedish programs, right?

Right now you are paying about $1000 per year in surcharges to pay for the uninsured/underinsured. Whether you like it or not, it just goes to a corporation.

My bad, the US spent $6713 per capita in 2006, Canada spent $3578, so it's only a $47% savings.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf

Of course they covered EVERYONE and we only covered 70%, Not bad for 15% of our GDP...

I won't put words in your mouth. Please tell me where socialism leads.

Did you notice that in your citation, the same thing happened in Dallas? The original story is here http://winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080923/wpg_brian_sinclair_erdeath_092308/20080923/?hub=WinnipegHome
What that has to do with a single payer system is beyond me, many hospitals, doctor offices, etc are privately run in Canada.

And you have the time, please define 'weak'. Considering that the US and Canada are each others largest trading partners, and the canuck buck is almost on par with the dollar, AND that Canada is laying its troops on the line with us in Afghanistan...that's an interesting statement.

[flew-da-coup]

Umm, what claim?