National Health Care Plan
It's one of the biggest parts of the coming U.S. election. Personally, I'm against it, mostly because the U.S. budget can't handle it. But I know people who believe there are national health plans out there that can operate under the same budget our present health care plan operates under. What does everyone think?
I think that people under the poverty line routinely can't survive because they lack health care of any sort. And the current economic/political system can do little else. In a country as developed as ours, I feel like no one should have to be deprived of basic needs.
I would try to solve the problem in a much different way. But under the current system I cautiously endorse national health care only because my way of solving it frankly won't happen in today's political environment with the parties thinking as they do, so I see no better way to provide everyone with at least modest care.
*Waits for Bardock's response*
Oh, but in case you were wondering, generally, I agree with this:
Most Western countries are in debt in proportion to their wealth anyway- it actually doesn't matter that much. Frankly, you cannot possibly advance the argument that in some way the US cannot afford it when it is the world's most affluent country.
It just needs an attitude shift, and thankfully it is at last happening because the lack of such a health care system is surprisingly backwards of the US, and something that other developed nations are rather amazed and shocked at.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Most Western countries are in debt in proportion to their wealth anyway- it actually doesn't matter that much. Frankly, you cannot possibly advance the argument that in some way the US cannot afford it when it is the world's most affluent country.It just needs an attirude shift, and thnakfully it is at last happening because the lack of such a health care system is surprisingly backwards of the US, and something that other developed nations are rather amazed and shocked at.
What about the failing currency?
Again, that doesn't matter. After the depression comes the boom. All countries have their cycles, yet the other western countries have run universal health care programmes during such cycles.
Stop fooling yourself. The problem is absolutely NOT that the US cannot do it. It is simply that the will has not before existed to do it. But finally the hideous immorality of a system that is not universal is becoming more and more clear to all; the failings of the system as is have been swept under the tug for ggenerations but it won't keep on like that any more.
It's not about whether they can afford it, but whether they should. Obviously they can afford it, but there are disadvantages too. I think it is clear to most people that the system in the US needs to be reformed, it is probably the worst in the Western World. But that you need National Health Care, does not follow from that, in fact I believe National Healthcare to be highly immoral, just like Ush seems to believe the opposite. A free market system, possiby with certain safety nets, would, in my opinion, be preferable. I think people need to take responsibility for their own lives and it is not acceptable that the upper middle and upper classes pay for the Health Care of the lower classes.
That being said, I would prefer a National Health Care syste readily over the system the United States have now, even though I find the idea as such pretty bad.
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
What about the failing currency?
irrelevant given that it's the US that is the major manufacturer of the drugs which are the biggest cost of a nationalised health care system...because the drugs will alter price relative to the currency anyway even through massive inflation
the biggest problem with any initially nationalised system is that it tends not to be subject to market forces of capitalism and thus wastes massive resources (something a commercial business wouldn't do as it would go bust) because effectively a government can tax to afford whatever its paying out...it takes time to subject these systems to market forces and the NHS in the UK still wastes huge resources despite being established in 1942
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not about whether they can afford it, but whether they should. Obviously they can afford it, but there are disadvantages too. I think it is clear to most people that the system in the US needs to be reformed, it is probably the worst in the Western World. But that you need National Health Care, does not follow from that, in fact I believe National Healthcare to be highly immoral, just like Ush seems to believe the opposite. A free market system, possiby with certain safety nets, would, in my opinion, be preferable. I think people need to take responsibility for their own lives and it is not acceptable that the upper middle and upper classes pay for the Health Care of the lower classes.That being said, I would prefer a National Health Care syste readily over the system the United States have now, even though I find the idea as such pretty bad.
Define "certain safety nets".
Like I said earlier, I wouldn't mind universal healthcare, as long as I don't have to pay for it when I am already paying for my own through my employer.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Define "certain safety nets".Like I said earlier, I wouldn't mind universal healthcare, as long as I don't have to pay for it when I am already paying for my own through my employer.
One could have a sort of welfare/healthcare plan for people that fall below the minimum. What you are for is not universal health care though, I wouldn't mind such a system either though I see no reason why the government has to be involved, a free market could offer such a service just as well.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I. I think people need to take responsibility for their own lives and it is not acceptable that the upper middle and upper classes pay for the Health Care of the lower classes.
There are several documented examples of how people with health insurance are ****ed over and over.
Insurance companies are not under any jurisdiction that will actaully force them to do right by the people under said policy.
Even Medicare is VERY restricting.
Originally posted by chithappens
There are several documented examples of how people with health insurance are ****ed over and over.Insurance companies are not under any jurisdiction that will actaully force them to do right by the people under said policy.
Even Medicare is VERY restricting.
Yes, we all know that the American system is ****ed beyond believe.
But generally insurance companies do have the obligation to stick to contracts they make.
Obligation, yes.
But they are not being punished for the bullshit they do pull. All these damn kickbacks.
As a result of insurance companies not doing as they should, hospitals will send people home before they need to leave, resulting in that person getting half-ass medical treatment. This has happened to three of my grandparents in the past two years.
The current system is just dumb.
Originally posted by chithappensWhich doesn't make the a UHC any better.
Obligation, yes.But they are not being punished for the bullshit they do pull. All these damn kickbacks.
As a result of insurance companies not doing as they should, hospitals will send people home before they need to leave, resulting in that person getting half-ass medical treatment. This has happened to three of my grandparents in the past two years.
The current system is just dumb.