Against Universal healthcare, why ?

[Zelig]

How about government is already big enough and feeding billions or trillions more to it will only make it larger?

It also wont be only "rich" peoples money either. If you're going to supply healthcare to everyone in the country, you will have to tax more than just the rich and corporations.

Again, I feel the need to point out that in countries with universal healthcare, which are very similar to the US (Canada), the government spends less tax revenue per capita on healthcare.

With universal healthcare, you could lower taxes!

 

[capslock]

You are against people getting some form of health care/insurance because you don't want to miss a Carolina Panthers game?

I'm not against people getting healthcare.

 

[Godwynn]

I'm not against people getting healthcare.

What if there was a clause that allowed you to keep the medical coverage you have now, would that satisfy you?

 

[capslock]

Negative.

I'm not depriving people of healthcare here, people. Stop acting like I'm trying to keep people from getting coverage.

 

[BasketCase]

Again, I feel the need to point out that in countries with universal healthcare, which are very similar to the US (Canada), the government spends less tax revenue per capita on healthcare.

Did you see "Beverly Hills Cop"?

Same thing. "I'm driving, Foley--I've SEEN your car." I've heard a few nasty things about the Canadian health care system, and I want no part of it.

 

[sp1023]

Yes, the Australian system is supposed to suck too.

And don't get me started about Bangladesh.

 

[Zelig]

Did you see "Beverly Hills Cop"?

Same thing. "I'm driving, Foley--I've SEEN your car." I've heard a few nasty things about the Canadian health care system, and I want no part of it.

Haven't seen it.

But that's okay, I've heard nasty things about the American health care system, and I want no part in it, regardless of statistics that show it to be largely comparable, for those who get healthcare.

 

[CCA]

Then, CCA, I'll ask you the same question I asked Cheezy: if somebody in New Zealand needs medical care and goes outside the government-sponsored UHC program to get it....what happens?

Tell ya what, I'm not gonna wait for either of you two lazy slowpokes to answer that. I'll take a potshot and assume that in Scotland, Sweden, Iceland, France, and New Zealand, nothing happens to you when you go to an independent doctor. If that's true, then none of these countries actually have universal health care.


How many homeless people are you sheltering in your house/apartment right now, Bill?

Probably none.

Yeah, yeah, you've probably got a bunch of excuses lined up. Maybe you're still in high school and it's not your house. Doesn't matter--hide some homeless people in your basement and don't let your parents find out, these people don't have a freaking roof over their heads, for God's sake!! I think that's more important than your parents' stupid rules. Or maybe you have your own house and a job, and you donate money to the local homeless shelter. Also doesn't matter. You've got plenty of space in your house that you're not using, and in addition to your donations, you could still shelter a few more needy people.

But you choose not to.

It's the old "Schindler's List" conundrum. No matter how much charity you give, you can always give more--until you give up everything and become a charity case yourself. There is no moral obligation to be charitable to those less fortunate--it's nice if you do, but you're not a bad person if you don't.

Universal Health Care doesn't mean the COMPLETE elimination of private healthcare.

It means providing a basic safety net that all citizens are entitled to.

 

[Kennigit]

Alright, look at this for some quick charts and such- basically it shows that the quality of care of the U.S. is no better (usually worse) and is obviously much more expensive (privately and our U.S. govt spends as much as the govt of other countries). Just copied that earlier slide show into a word doc really quickly

edit- as masquerougue (sp.) might realize, I stole most of it from his stuff in an old tread

 

[Cutlass]

How about government is already big enough and feeding billions or trillions more to it will only make it larger?

It also wont be only "rich" peoples money either. If you're going to supply healthcare to everyone in the country, you will have to tax more than just the rich and corporations.

But in the end they'll all end up paying about 1/2 as much. So why does it matter where the money runs through.


To the OP, the answer is ignorance and fear mongering. By raising the specter of socialism and counting on people not having the facts, the people who benefit at the expense of others by the current system have prevented a reform that most Americans want.

 

[Shylock]

I am not against people getting healthcare, nor am I against poor people.

I am against the government taking money by force to give people healthcare. If anything else they do is an indicator they will tons of waste and graft and unlike a private entity the government has no real incentive to stop any of it. Plus you will be sacrificing efficiency for "equality", and you won't even get equality either. The rich will still come before the poor just like in everything else.

I wish everyone could get healthcare literally for free. But the reality is someone has to pay for it and I see no reason why it has to be single person whether they want to or not.

I'm no fan of the current system either. I believe a lot of the problem associated with it are either going to carried over (human callousness etc.) to the new system or made worse because those problem were the government's fault in the first place.

The VA is an example of government healthcare. Most veterans I know don't want anything to do with it.

 

[Labtec600]

Our government already $2868 per capita, or 45.1% of expenditure on healthcare, whereas universal healthcare states such as france spend $3050 through the government to account for 79.9% of total expenditure, so our government (meaning the U.S.) already spends the money that other countries do. There need not be new feeding taxes into the government, and our expenditure on universal healthcare is 15.2% of our GDP while France has 11.2%. A universal healthcare system, which provides better results, is actually cheaper.

If all this money is already going to government healthcare, why do we need another system for those that can't afford healthcare?

The presentation in your latter post did not work. But I am curious to know how the money right now being spent on just those that dont have healthcare, which is so high, is going to suddenly come down once we start paying for healtcare for every citizen.

 

[Labtec600]

Also those that can't afford healthcare have access to medicaid. Seniors have medicare.

 

[Shylock]

But in the end they'll all end up paying about 1/2 as much. So why does it matter where the money runs through.

Yeah, the government really like lowering taxes

 

[Patroklos]

UH types are such complete hypocrites it is actually amazing to watch them at work. Things far more basic than health care that they don't support nationalizing:

Electricity
Water
Food
Shelter

Until they all get on the bandwagon for these handouts, they are intellectually masterbating proposing UH.

What if there was a clause that allowed you to keep the medical coverage you have now, would that satisfy you?

Did that really go so far your head?

 

[Cutlass]

I am not against people getting healthcare, nor am I against poor people.

I am against the government taking money by force to give people healthcare. If anything else they do is an indicator they will tons of waste and graft and unlike a private entity the government has no real incentive to stop any of it. Plus you will be sacrificing efficiency for "equality", and you won't even get equality either. The rich will still come before the poor just like in everything else.

I wish everyone could get healthcare literally for free. But the reality is someone has to pay for it and I see no reason why it has to be single person whether they want to or not.

I'm no fan of the current system either. I believe a lot of the problem associated with it are either going to carried over (human callousness etc.) to the new system or made worse because those problem were the government's fault in the first place.

The VA is an example of government healthcare. Most veterans I know don't want anything to do with it.

That's not accurate. First of all, the private providers have far more incentive to deny coverage and waste money. It works like cost plus contracting, and it's the most inefficient way to do business around.

The government, on the other hand, has much more incentive to be efficient. And is.

As for the other, nearly a 6th of the population of the nation cannot afford healthcare on their own, no matter how hard they try. And that number can grow by as much as a million people a year. The system is broken. In every respect. Universal health care is the only possibility of many people having health care. They have no other options.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

UH types are such complete hypocrites it is actually amazing to watch them at work. Things far more basic than health care that they don't support nationalizing:

Electricity
Water
Food
Shelter

Until they all get on the bandwagon for these handouts, they are intellectually masterbating proposing UH.

Hi, how you doing. My name is Cheezy. I'm a Socialist, and I support varying degrees of nationalization of these things.

 

[Bill3000]

UH types are such complete hypocrites it is actually amazing to watch them at work. Things far more basic than health care that they don't support nationalizing:

Electricity
Water
Food
Shelter

Until they all get on the bandwagon for these handouts, they are intellectually masterbating proposing UH.

Universal healthcare is not necessarily nationalization.

 

[Kennigit]

If all this money is already going to government healthcare, why do we need another system for those that can't afford healthcare?

The presentation in your latter post did not work. But I am curious to know how the money right now being spent on just those that dont have healthcare, which is so high, is going to suddenly come down once we start paying for healtcare for every citizen.

Well largely, I imagine that treatment for the uninsured is very sporadic- that we don't start treating them until they come into the emergency room and all. If we provided consistent preventive care, in the form of some mild medications, the cost of treating them overtime will go down.

edit- as for patroklos, that is probably true of the general population, but us cfc commie nazi socialists do support nationalization of those things (or atleast in part).

also part of edit- there is still some private enterprise in UH: I'm sure foreigners should answer better, but from my perspective of the statistics, the govt doesn't pick up everything. The stat I posted earlier from the world health organization noted that France govt picks up 79.9%, still leaving 20%.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, the government really like lowering taxes

1/2 the money is 1/2 the money. you can send $6k to a private insurer or $3k to the government. your call.