Why do Democrats want universal healthcare so bad?

[Masquerouge]

I didn't.

I wouldn't discuss it if you, as in you people, wouldn't start threads about it!

I don't think that's true. (That universal healthcare is better) But who cares? No one is ever going to be convinced, because we're coming at this from such diametrically opposed sides.

Again, I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying it's cheaper, and that it delivers. I try to be very careful every time I speak about that.

 

[Mark1031]

So You just called me a free rider what free ride have I taken? Oh thats right I haven't and you were just talking out of your ass. Why would I waste a million dollars on treatment? Some of us can accept our mortality. So go stuff your free ride . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I pay for my own way.

You don't understand the idea of shared risk and what insurance is? apparently not.

 

[skadistic]

You don't understand the idea of shared risk and what insurance is? apparently not.

I understand it fine I also understand you were full of . .. .. .. . calling me a free rider. So again go stuff it.

 

[Elrohir]

I wouldn't discuss it if you, as in you people, wouldn't start threads about it!

"You people"?!

Again, I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying it's cheaper, and that it delivers. I try to be very careful every time I speak about that.

It seems to me that if something is cheaper, but is of equal or greater utility, then it is "better". I don't think either of those things would apply to a universal US system, though. (And of course, it really isn't relevant to why I oppose a national system, anyway - this is all just semantics)

Anyway - carry on everyone! Don't mind me. I'm sure this is all fun for everyone.

 

[lovett]

Why would I waste a million dollars on treatment? Some of us can accept our mortality. So go stuff your free ride . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I pay for my own way.

Im not sure I really understand this....Is your life not worth a million dollars?
Would this really be a 'waste'.

However it might not be your choice regardless. If you were in a PVS then I don't think you'd have much ability to argue the toss.

 

[Merkinball]

Government always less efficient than private sector. Total BS. Check out the overhead costs for social security vs a Fidelity bond fund. -
Mark

Oh yeah? Huh. What's the rate of return Mark? Fidelity funds probably pay out what...15% on average? Fidelity generally has solid funds.

What's the return on social security? Negative what?

 

[Zelig]

But I believe the core of the matter lies in a difference of attitudes and culture. The Canadian people have shown time and again to tolerate and embrace government authority unlike Americans. While our declaration of independence refers to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, the Canadian's founding documents call for peace, order, and a good government as their core values. The Canadians are the original anti-Americans: British colonists that would rather stay with an oppressive regime instead of joining the struggle for independence and freedom. Canadians prefer calm despotism instead of chaotic liberty.

Woe is us.

 

[Kozmos]

Ah, civ 2. Makes any bad news look bearable. Unless it's mongolians with cavalry.

 

[sysyphus]

I would suggest that examples for pro and con on universal healthcare that this thread move beyond Canada. While better than the US system, it's worse than the rest of the industrialised world.

It is right now anyway, it worked fine until the system was gutted a decade ago so that I could pay $10 less a year in tax.

 

[Shadylookin]

all those that hate the lazy worthless have nots of the US are failing to realize that they by and large are already getting free/subsidized healthcare. Essentially you're just boning the working/middle class because they have to pay for the subsidized care while not receiving it themselves(the upper class doesn't matter because they have evolved beyond sickness obviously). Why can't you all learn to rent seek like everyone else?

 

[Patroklos]

US healthcare is more expensive solely because Americans are unhealthy due to choices that they make independant of their health care system. You think just becasue someone has universal healthcare they will stop eating Bigmacs everyday for lunch?

And now, if that person was spending his money on Bigmacs instead of health insurance out of choice he STILL gets health care? That is supposed to lower health care costs?

As has been pointed out, most people in America without health insurance are in that situation out of choice and no other reason. The new HDTV was more important. I disagree, but I am willing to let them live their own lives. Most in this thread seem to want to send black clad feds repelling into their living rooms from black helicopters to repo their TV and shove a health insurance policy down their throught.

....wait...?

Actually, most of you guys here want to send black clad feds repelling out of black helicopters into MY living room to repo MY TV to pay for the heatlh insurance you want to force down someone elses throat while he keeps his TV. Awsome.

The lengths you guys will go to to a.) bribe the electorate or b.) steal money from others is hilarious.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

the government doesnt do a single thing right, why would health care be any different??

i hate the idea of universal health care, but the way the insurance premiums are going up at work i may not have a choice!

the good plan at work is $520 a month right now for family coverage. the cheap plan is $400! couple more years my insurance will cost more than my house and the crappy thing is that we hardly ever get sick or go to the doctor.

 

[Bamspeedy]

the good plan at work is $520 a month right now for family coverage.

I just increased my deductible so now I spend $520 a YEAR for my insurance ....This is one good thing about being single (for the moment).

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Is Obama's plan of forcing everyone to buy health care the right way to go, or is a single payer system advocated by Hillary Clinton going to do the job?

I have seen differently with Obama. His whole arguement is that he doesn't want to force every one to buy it. That's why he has a difference of opinion with Hillary's plan, as she does. So from listening to Obama, I see some inaccuracies in your question/statment.

But let's think about this for a second. Universal heath care. At first is sounds like a good idea. But do you really want the same people running the DMV running your health care? Do you really want to put the health of your family in the same hands of the people who forget when you're ticket number's turn is up and go off to a lunch break? I've even had an instance once where I unkowingly got a suspended liscense because I didn't respond to a letter I was suposed to get from the DMV, but I never knew it BECAUSE I never GOT any notices from the DMV! The way I found out was that someone hit me and I was in an accident and the pollice officer on the scene had told me. I was furious!

I wouldn't mind universal health care but I don't want it being run by the same incompetence that runs programs like the DMV.

 

[.Shane.]

I wouldn't mind universal health care but I don't want it being run by the same incompetence that runs programs like the DMV.

Hell no! I want it run by the same giants of industry who ran Enron!

Get it? I can cherry pick an obvious example too! WOOHOO....

Just as you can cite many corporations that are efficiently run, I can cite govt. offices to match... Look up what Cleo has said in this thread, he/she has it well-covered.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Society, more often than not, keeps me from being successful.

I love how people who've made a mint of the back of an advanced society complain that they would have been much more successful if their society hadn't existed in the first place and complain incessantly that society should not infringe on their wealth.

Without society we would be running around throwing sharp objects at animals and sleeping in dirt. Your gratitude is underwhelming.

 

[brennan]

I don't get it. You're talking about education. You're not talking about nationalized medicine or social security schemes.

They're all part of same deal in socialism Merkin.

I don't know if we are talking about the same place here. We're talking about America here. And in this country, these programs develop huge dependency factors. Which is basically the only explanation as to why Democrats get elected. They institute systems which foster dependency and kill education. And then they have a voter base.

No we're talking about an ideological objection to Nationalised social care.

"It doesn't work" - yes it does.
"It's too expensive" - it's cheaper than the way you do it and we're healthier.

and you've got down to "well it doesn't work here"...at which point you're not talking about fundamental flaws in the system (because they don't actually exist as shown by the European example), you are pointing out the flaws in the inferior system already in place in your country. Many of which are caused by your own ideological objections in the first place, which prevent it from running as efficiently and effectively as it could.

Sorry, i've missed out a couple of pages replying to this.

Edit: good posts by Cleo, Arwon, Enkidu and .Shane

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Medicare is more efficient than private insurers. Looking strictly at overhead, Medicare costs less than a private insurance company. And then you add profit for the private company. And then you add marketing for the private company. Medicare is way cheaper. That's a government-run program that's more efficient than the market-based solutions.

You can argue that the government taxing you and using the money to help poor people is a horrible intrusion into your liberty as an American. There's really no argument against that. You can also argue that programs like this cause dependency, and the government should teach poor people personal responsibiilty by allowing them to die from treatable illnesses. There's no real argument against that, either. But we can't each have our own facts.

Cleo

 

[Rhymes]

There is a pretty simple reason why universal healthcare costs less then a private insurance system:

Insurance companies make profits (around 5-10%).. governments don't.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

brennan,

I would think that perhaps as an Englishman, you're not as up on recent American political history as some of us on this side of The Pond. But this statement of yours caught my eye and suggested otherwise:

Many of which are caused by your own ideological objections in the first place, which prevent it from running as efficiently and effectively as it could.

In case you didn't know, about 15 years ago, Bill Kristol, a conservative ideologue (who now writes for the New York Times, which obviously has a liberal bias) wrote a strategy memo arguing that the reason the Republicans had to stop the Hillary Clinton healthcare plan was not because it wouldn't work, but because it would, and its success would spell electoral doom for the Republican party. From PBS.org (lieing librulz!!!!1!1!):

Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party.

As Paul Krugman wrote about Bush's opposition to S-CHIP:

And there you have the core of Mr. Bush’s philosophy. He wants the public to believe that government is always the problem, never the solution. But it’s hard to convince people that government is always bad when they see it doing good things. So his philosophy says that the government must be prevented from solving problems, even if it can. In fact, the more good a proposed government program would do, the more fiercely it must be opposed.

Cleo