For those of you that think that a comprehensive national health system will bring about the total destruction of life in America as we know it, I'd like your opinions on these other institutions. One of them is actually a national health system, one of them is a direct transfer of wealth, and one is simply charity, right?
I believe there should be basic medicare, but that that should come via free enterprise. I.e. when you work, there should be a system of your employer contracted to a Medical Aid Care System, to which both of your are contributing. For those who are unemployed, public hospitals can be sponsored via the federal Governement for basic medical care. Regarding social security, I think that is a good system where those who are working or self-employed get to contribute to it on a compulsory basis, and if there should be a problem, that they can get unemployment insurance. I do believe in free schools and I believe it should be completely free including provision of text books on a loan basis.
Since Medicare in the US is only for those 65 or older, predicating it on being employed would be a bit strange.
What do you consider basic? Heart bypass surgery? Or antibiotics for pneumonia?
Antibiotics for pneumonia. Although I guess when you have pneumonia you would need to be hospitalized, especially if you are over 65.
So you would provide antibiotics, and maybe hospitalization for pneumonia, but wouldn't do a bypass? Where do you draw the line? How do you say that the government should keep people alive if they get pnewmonia, but let them die if they have lung cancer or a heart attack?
Where are you from, originally? Do you have any comprehension of how expensive health care is now in the US? Do you know that you can't even go into a doctor's office for less than $100? That one of the most commonly prescribed diabetic medicines costs, depending on the dosage, either $4 or $8 per day, and that's at the cheapest pharmacy around (Walmart)?
Where are you from, originally? Do you have any comprehension of how expensive health care is now in the US? Do you know that you can't even go into a doctor's office for less than $100? That one of the most commonly prescribed diabetic medicines costs, depending on the dosage, either $4 or $8 per day, and that's at the cheapest pharmacy around (Walmart)?
Last edited:
It is expensive anywhere in the world. Not only in the United States. Problem is United States will have to totally change its health care system, and before that its economic system to meet your demands. It will have to become a socialist country first. Sort of a radical change. Do you think anyone can do that?
Why does having universal health care make a country socialist? Do you think of Switzerland as socialist? And why is socialism so bad, anyway? It isn't communism. It doesn't mean you have a dictatorship. It means you have social programs to care for the people in your country.
I thought you might find this interesting, fromt the New York Times.
Last edited:
Switzerland has to be one of the most expensive countries in the world. A nice country to visit, but definitely not my cup of tea to live in. Socialism is not bad, but the part that will be bad is changing from capitalism to socialism. Who knows, maybe the US already has a form of socialism, and it is only pretending capitalism? All one has to do is look at its enormous debts. And its heavy Government.
It can go too far. England handicapped itself for years with state-run industries and financial controls left over from the war. Thatcher got rid of much of that, and it was a wrenching transition. They had gone too far the other way. I think we've gone too far with free-wheeling capitalism. There has to be something in it that makes everyone's lives better, and I don't see that happening in the US.
As far as Switzerland being expensive, if being an inexpensive place to live is the goal, perhaps the Indian model, with most of the population having absolutely nothing, would be good? We can start maiming our children so they will have a good chance of earning a living as a beggar?
Kids that are home schooled are way better educated then kids that go to public schools because who can better take care of these kids and educate them to their best abilities than their own parents.
Hope you didn't hurt yourself pulling that one out. Either that or it was brilliant satire.
Home schooling can theorhetically be successful. It can also fail horribly, hide abuse, allow parents to isolate and indoctrinate their children (why do you think its popular with fundies and cults), make it impossible to have a true standard of education, force the poor into a vicious cycle of poor education, etc.
What benefit is there to it?
---
Curious
The only problem that I'd see with socialized healthcare is its sustainability (similar to most socialist-esque programs). I know that Sweden, who has one of the best functioning socialized healthcare programs, is struggling with what they see as a skyrocketing obesity rate (wasn't that high if I remember correctly...at least compared to many other countries). It seems that some of these countries with socialized healthcare just can't handle a lot of sick people. Making it cost people is a good way to force people to prioritize...with a lot of collateral damage unfortunately.
I think your points are the most important. The arguments always turn to the extremes. A look at the ones in place would suggest that a little bit of both is a good way to do it. Moderation in everything.
Hmm, maybe you should look at Curious' post again. Here you go:
That having been said, communism doesn't necessarily imply a dictatorship either. Look at libertarian socialists, for example. Or even me. I despise big Government but that doesn't keep me from being socialist.
Here's a shocker - Switzerland isn't socialist. In fact, the capitalists love their little tax haven, where they can store wheelbarrow-loads of their freshly-exploited dosh.
Last edited:
OK, if we would like to get literal and play symantics, let's change from calling it socialism to large Government. The market in Switzerland is obviously a capitalist one, but the Government is large and some of the services that you would not find in the United States, such as Medical Insurance for all, is available to citizens of Switzerland, but usually has a price tag attached to it which is higher taxes. I'm not an expert on Switzerland, but I think in addition to taxes to the Government they also pay local taxes? Bottomline though, it is quite expensive to live in Switzerland.
I imagine Switzerland has some of the same in Canada. People also do a lot of voluntary work, there is a much more generous culture in people being educated at schools to look after those who do not have. In addition to a much larger Government, to provide for many social programmes, you would find many more charities for those people who are disadvantaged. Also, there seems to be a greater balance in rich and poor in these countries. As compared with the United States where there is quite a large gap between the poor and rich. So in order for the United States to have the same benefits as in Switzerland and Canada, it would have to change its culture in a radical way, pay more taxes, have a bigger Government, and find out ways to redistribute wealth so that there is a narrower gap between the rich and poor.
Last edited:
The thing about free healthcare - yes, there are higher taxes. But it caters for those who wouldn't normally be able to afford it. So if i have to pay a few more euros (in Germany, we have a similar system) to save a few lives, i'm quite happy to do so. I don't practice social darwinism.
Universal health care doesn't mean that people who can afford it don't pay. Health insurance for a Swiss person costs about (if I remember what I was told correctly) $300-400 per month. The difference is that everybody has it, and if you can't afford to pay, there is a sliding scale and ultimately free care.
I think most of it should come out of taxes, but the private/government combination seems to work well.
I don't have any problem with private insurance providing more comfort (private rooms, luxury rooms), or extras like some elective surgeries, but I do think that everyone who needs a knee replacement should get a knee replacement.
I think most of it should come out of taxes, but the private/government combination seems to work well.
I don't have any problem with private insurance providing more comfort (private rooms, luxury rooms), or extras like some elective surgeries, but I do think that everyone who needs a knee replacement should get a knee replacement.
Home schooling in the US started out as a way to keep white children from having to sit next to black children in the classroom. That is when all the Christian acadamies started, too. They weren't concerned about their children's education, they were bigots, plain and simple.
I lived in Norfolk, Virginia when they integrated the schools. The white students who stayed in the public school system went on TV and radio and begged the adults to stay out of it, they were fine and would adjust. There was quite a bit of trouble on school buses, to the point where they had cops ride the buses. They arrested quite a few troublemakers. All of them were adults who looked young, hired by parents to enroll as fake students and cause problems. They thought, in spite of the fact that it hadn't happened anywhere else, that if things didn't go smoothly the US Supreme Court would excuse them from integration.
Parents who pulled their kids out and put them into hastily created Christian academies had a big shock a couple of years later. They were stunned to discover that universities and colleges did not think that unaccredited schools with no labs, unlicensed teachers, and biased books qualified their graduates to attend their institutions. Students who were targetting Harvard and Princeton were suddenly not able to get in anywhere but Christian fundamentalist schools.
So whenever I hear home-schooled or a school title with the word 'Christian' in it, I think bigot.
Also, how many parents do you know that can set up an adequate chemistry lab at home and are qualified to teach AP physics?
I hope this is not going to sound sarcastic, as it is not meant that way. It's sincere. If you are unhappy with the limited medical services in the United States, why do you not move to another country where you can get those services? Canada is quite close, and if you can afford it, Switzerland or Singapore, but I would imagine Canada would be less costly? I had a friend from Canada who needed a hip replacement and she could not find the right operation in Canada, eventually had a done in Belgium.
Are you really taking the stance, "if you don't like it, go away"? Ghandi said: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." For example, i joined CND because i think that Britain should undergo nuclear disarmament and because i think it should divorce the outdated imperialist group, NATO. I'm not going to go off to New Zealand.
I thoroughly believe in change and working towards change but we were discussing medical care in the United States specifically. In this specific instance i.e. medical care in the United States I'm being realistic. I can't see the US medical care system changing to a socialist one in our life time. I believe the needs that have been discussed are immediate ones. So either one has to conform to the present situation and work on long-term changes, accepting that it will take that long, or if one needs good medical care more immediately, and I imagine especially when one retires, find a place to retire to that has good social services.
Regarding the other issues that need change that is up to the person as well along the above lines. If you can't see change happening and it really upsets you, yes, one can move to another country. It's a personal decision.
Last edited:
Similar threads
