Debaser:
You beat me to it. With a fundamental disagreement over the purpose of gov’t, the likelihood of agreeing on a particular policy is pretty low.
The best situation to be in is mine, comprehensive private insurance through the company plus the whole expensive disorganized (many friends work in the NHS, but just IMO) socialized system to fall back on so I don’t get a bill for A+E related stuff.
Fully socialized healthcare means politicians run things and they are, in my mind, the very worst people bar none to run any institution.
Fully privatised means many of the poorest and neediest get inadequate care.
Perhaps the solution is to give allow tax free contributions to private health care for those who can afford it and require them to use it over the centrally provided care where and when possible.
The “everybody-deserve-basic-healthcare” and “each-man-for-himself” arguments aside, I notice in this thread what to me seems like a misunderstanding of how macro economy in a modern society function.
First of all, in every developed nation the foundation for increased economic growth is an economy where as many citiziens as possible are able to participate in the creation of values = workforce. The higher percentage of poor, sick and elderly citiziens a society has to deal with, the more difficult is it to achieve such growth (welfare aside, these people will still live off the expensive infrastructure).
Thus, an important task for political leaders should be to keep the population healthy. Healthy people can apply for jobs, and a huge workforce keeps wages down, - and the economy remains competitive. It’s interesting to witness that those who praise the power of capitalism and an investment-driven economy, fail to see the importance in investing in having a healthy workforce.
Secondly, it’s incorrect that politicians will have to “run” a national healthcare system. Allow me to cite one of my previous posts in this thread: “Doctors … can choose to join the national health care system if they want, or not. If they join, the pasient pay a fixed fee to the doctor, and the doctor sends a bill to the government asking for another fixed fee. … If the doctor chooses not to join the national health care system, they charge whatever they like … none of the doctors are employed by the state, or the government.” (This is the way it works in several European countries.)
So it’s not like the government/politicians are running the healthcare system, they simply put a price on treatments, then it’s the doctors choice if they want to join such a system or not.
The trend toward gov’t intervention in the health care industry seems pretty much a given, even in the US. If it must be, then I’d like to see the feds stay out of it and leave it up to the states to administer. Smaller states could band toghether if they need more critical mass. To parphrase that great libertarian philospher, Deng Xiao Ping: “Let 50 flowers blooms”.
i agree with that. we definitley seem to have differing opinions about goverment’s role.
well jeese if your going to make me agree with you so much today in this thread. you gonna slip another one i agree with in there while i am typing this response too?
a state run health care system would be more taliored to each region’s needs.
Er, no. This would raise the average but the median would be lower than the average.
And where does the insurance company get the money from? Ultimately, the entire cost is paid by we, the people. There are just many different routes the money can take to get from us to health-care provider:
-> direct payment
-> insurance company
-> medicare deductions
-> taxes -> local/fed government -> medicaid/government-funded hospitals
-> employer -> insurance company
Even money that the employer pays to the insurance company direct as an employee benefit is merely diverting money that would otherwise have been paid as wages.
So the best way to work out the cost per person is to take the total cost and divide by the number of people. Having said that, 26% sounds too high. I’ve seen a figure of 15% for the US. Sorry - no cite.
You know, something that many people seem to be missing on this thread is that fact that the vast majority of Americans can afford good health insurance and get the health care they need in the current private system. Setting up a program to take care of the poor is one thing. Lumping everyone in the country into the same category is simply not needed.
Absolutely, John Mace. I am not against the poor having health care as much as I am against me having poor health care.
I like my HMO. When I get sick, they help me. The government interfering with this can only make it worse, IMO.
Chill, gex gex.
Somebody said that health care is “essential to life” and therefore the government owed it to everyone, even those that couldn’t pay for it. My response was valid. Food and shelter are certainly as essential to life as healthcare is, actually more so. It would be reasonable to assume that these things would be guaranteed to all as well under this philosophy. It just points out the absurdity of this position.
If it’s gonna happen, I would prefer it be run by the states also. Of course, it would be better if it didn’t happen at all. But, thats not gonna happen. 
Oh, well fuck the rest of the world, eh? Next time I have a sinus infection that I can’t see a doctor for or buy antibiotics for (like today) I’ll keep in mind that your happy with your healthcare so our system must work A-Ok.
I’m genuinely sorry that you can’t afford insurance. However, I fail to see why this is any different than the way that everything else in our society works. It’s no different than someone who wants a car to drive or a meal to eat or a house to live in. If you want it then you have to buy it. Welcome to capitalism.
I am supportive of the idea that even those with no insurance and no money can still get treatment for thier illnesses. However, you can’t expect to get the same quality of treatment when it’s for free that I am getting that I am paying for.
John Mace in the UK and here if you’ve got insurance or can afford it you can go private if you want. It’s your decision. Do you think that the government is forcing people to go National Health if the UK. It’s not jackbooted oppression you know. It’s about choice and if you can’t afford that choice you get looked after.
And any decent government would be doing things to ensure that its citizens aren’t starving or living on the streets. In fact, governments do these things! I’m not saying that food and shelter provisions in most countries are satisfactory, but governments actually do help people get these things. Surely you’ve heard of (the woefully inadequate) public housing or the dole (or whatever you guys call it - welfare?).
Heard of it? Yes.
Like it? No.
See, if the government provides my medical care, pays my mortgage, and puts food on my table, why do I have to work?
The government providing temporary assistance to those in need of food (welfare or dole) is one thing. We certainly don’t expect them to pay those that don’t work the same salary as those that do.
The government providing a shelter for the homeless or for battered women is one thing. We certainly don’t expect the government to provide a house in the suburbs for those that don’t work like a working, middle class family would have.
The government providing emergency medical care to those without insurance or money is one thing. We certainly don’t expect that those who don’t pay a cent (or pound) should have access to the same quality health care as those who pay for insurance.
For what it’s worth, I agree that it’s proper for government to help poor folks with food, shelter and medical care, assuming that we don’t go overboard.
But that’s different from socializing such services – i.e. setting up a system where the vast majority of people will use government food, shelter, or health care. Socializing such services is a drastic step and (IMHO) we should be very careful in doing so.
Q: At what point does it become the government’s obligation to provide health care for all of its citizens?
A: When a majority of the citizens want it to.
(and it doesn’t violat the Constitution,m natch)
Something to keep in mind while we’re all debating what the government is and is not obligated to provide for the citizenry. If enough voters insist that the government provide an accordian-playing monkey for every child in the United States, it’s time to start buying stock in accordian companies.
RJUNG: I don’t usually agree with you on politcal matters, but I do in this case. Actually, I’ve pretty much said that in a few posts in this thread. However, one further point I’ve made is that I’d prefer to keep the feds completely out of it and have it done at the state level (if it has to be done). I’m curious to see what you think about that. I actually believe that the constitution does not allow the feds to run something like this, but it’s clear that the Supreme Court does , otherwise they’d’ve dismanteled dozens of federal programs along the same lines.
I’m going to weigh in with something that’s very unscientific, but possibly appropriate that a friend mentioned when we were discussing socialized medicine:
He posited that one reason that many people were against the system was that they envisioned it as the government running hospitals, clinics, and the like. Therefore, in the minds of many, socialized medicine will only lead to terribly inefficient DMV-esque bureaucracies – and we’re talking about people’s health!
Instead, the government would simply be providing health insurance its citizens – they would not be in the business of providing healthcare, but of paying for it.
Not necessarily saying that socialized medicine would be a workable system, but it was food for thought.