Healthcare Poll

[Archbob]

For one thing, it's a hypothetical, as the OP clearly states, meaning this problem does not arise. For another thing, no, it wouldn't. You'd be giving them enough for free that they can stay alive, but that doesn't seem like a very happy existence, does it? Most people want more than that. They want luxuries, they want better food than soup and bread, they want to go on vacations, they want a cool car, they want to buy expensive things. You can't do that if you're not working.

Besides, if this was true, European countries should have huge numbers of people not working. They can get everything they need for free, right? And yet, most of them have lower unempoyment rates than the US does.

Actually, its just during this recession that some European countries have lower un-employment rates. Historically, countries like France have always had a higher average Unemployment rate than the United States. But now Europe's being hit hard with the reality of those problems as people now riot if the government can't "guarantee" them their jobs or actually make it possible to fire someone.

 

[kochman]

It is hardly Cuba's fault America has an embargo against them, preventing them from stowing away or getting boat tickets like most other expats.

Uh, they could go elsewhere brother, around the US embargo? I mean, we are the only nation that has an embargo with them...
But they are choosing to risk their lives to come to this crappy country, despite such an amazing system of HC. Says a lot.

 

[Arakhor]

The French have always enjoyed civil demonstrations on a wide scale. That isn't really saying a lot.

 

[choxorn]

Uh, they could go elsewhere brother, around the US embargo? I mean, we are the only nation that has an embargo with them...
But they are choosing to risk their lives to come to this crappy country, despite such an amazing system of HC. Says a lot.

Because we're close to Cuba. Is it easier to paddle 2000 miles to Canada, or 100 to Florida?

 

[amadeus]

Because we're close to Cuba. Is it easier to paddle 2000 miles to Canada, or 100 to Florida?

The point is that Cuba's government wouldn't let them go even if they were going to China.

 

[Cutlass]

Broad generalizations such as this are not very enlightening. We've already had this little discussion on this thread, but I think we all should be able & willing to use verifiable facts/studies to validate our statements.

What are you trying to say? It's not really a disputable point that US Health care costs as much as twice as much as that of nations that have better health care outcomes than the US. The best you can say about the US system is that we spend twice as much money to get outcomes that are probably worse, but close enough to the statistical margin of error that we can't prove just how much worse the US is.

I can't take this seriously enough to even consider responding...



As for the rest, you are taking things out of context, because you seem to think that you are debating someone on the far right regarding HC. That's not accurate.

I don't think the more money, for one, would equal better HC. I believe that making it UHC would result in us spending yet more money on yet worse HC.

Other nations have demonstrated it paying for itself have they?
Most of the nations that I am aware of, that have UHC, are having HUGE budgetary issues... and it is part of the reason.
We are having huge budgetary issues also (we spend more on HC at the federal level than we do on DEFENSE already)... Expansion of HC benefits has to be done very carefully, but should certainly be done, after massive reform has taken place.

Actually, he's right. The thing that you have to keep in mind is that the UNC proposals are Universal Health Insurance, not Universal Health Provision. No one is talking about making every doctor a government employee and every hospital a government institution. What some people, and it really isn't all that many people, are talking about is Single Payer. Just cut out the insurance companies. That, in and of itself, will lower the nation's health care bill at least 15%. And have no effect at all on the quality of the services provided.

 

[Ajidica]

Uh, they could go elsewhere brother, around the US embargo? I mean, we are the only nation that has an embargo with them...
But they are choosing to risk their lives to come to this crappy country, despite such an amazing system of HC. Says a lot.

Where else would they go? If you were trying to leave Cuba on dubious modes of transportation, would you rather go Florida (where even if you are arrested, you get a very nice prison cell) or Mexico, where you will likely be found murdered.

 

[warpus]

Or Liberia, where Liberty awaits?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Would you live in a house that had bad wiring, leaky plumbing, nails sticking out, obsolete appliances, ugly wallpaper, faulty smoke alarms, and broken windows but was completely safe against earthquakes?

If it were next to the San Andreas fault I would.

Assuming Cuba's health system is as good as the numbers say, that's what Cuba is. It's a place that has everything else wrong with it and only one redeeming feature, and that feature isn't enough to get people to want to live there.

Seems alright to me, for having been under the American thumb for so long before its transformation.

In Cuba, they say "socialismo o muerte," socialism or death.

And rightly so. It is a life and death struggle for all proletarians.

And more than enough Cubans seem to be willing to risk muerte to escape the socialismo.

Well there are idiots everywhere. Big surprise.

 

[amadeus]

Well there are idiots everywhere. Big surprise.

You think the people fleeing Cuba for America are idiots?

Thank you for posting something I can refer back to later.

 

[Luckymoose]

I voted No because I dislike giving money to people I don't know, especially lazy, unemployed or uneducated ones.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I voted No because I dislike giving money to people I don't know, especially lazy, unemployed or uneducated ones.

Hi. I work 50 hours a week at an active and physically strenuous job, and I have four college degrees, magna cum laude. Can I have a tiny, tiny, fraction of your income because I can't afford anything but extremely stripped-down health insurance (I get two doctor visits a year and an insanely high deductible)?

 

[Flying Pig]

Hi. I work 50 hours a week at an active and physically strenuous job, and I have four college degrees, magna cum laude. Can I have a tiny, tiny, fraction of your income because I can't afford anything but extremely stripped-down health insurance (I get two doctor visits a year and an insanely high deductible)?

Hate to ask, but why go to university four times and do anything other than a seriously intellectual job? But Cheezy's point is exactly why the British welfare state grew up; people before about 1900 thought that anyone who was unable to afford the basics must be lazy, or careless with money, but after actually looking at the problem they found this assumption to be completely wrong and decided that those who were working hard and still in poverty deserved support. Unfortunately since 1945, not helped by the fact that those most in need tend to be disproportionately immigrants, we've forgotten that somewhat.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I voted No because I dislike giving money to people I don't know, especially lazy, unemployed or uneducated ones.

Ironic coming from someone too lazy to read the OP

 

[kochman]

Hi. I work 50 hours a week at an active and physically strenuous job, and I have four college degrees, magna cum laude. Can I have a tiny, tiny, fraction of your income because I can't afford anything but extremely stripped-down health insurance (I get two doctor visits a year and an insanely high deductible)?

Then WHY the HELL do you only make $11/hour?
What are your degrees in? Underwater basketweaving, cross-stitching, snowman construction & muffin architecture?

You, sir, are underachieving.

 

[kochman]

Where else would they go? If you were trying to leave Cuba on dubious modes of transportation, would you rather go Florida (where even if you are arrested, you get a very nice prison cell) or Mexico, where you will likely be found murdered.

Where else would they go?
How about some of the islands? S. America maybe?

Oh, that's right... they have to use dubious modes of transport, because if they were allowed to travel freely the current population of Cuba, that paradise of socialism, would be about 17 people.

 

[Floating Pants]

Private healthcare to an individual person or family? Yes.

State-controlled healthcare in which the state provides equal healthcare benefits to everybody? Never.


Private healthcare is in all cases superior to government controlled healthcare. It allows the citizen to decide on their own their benefits, even if they don't want any. It allows competition between separate companies as well.

The only problem about that, is that the lower class can't afford healthcare all the time. Sure, there is reason for the government to support the lower class themselves, but not for the entire population. That's just silly. You can tell that private American healthcare companies do a better job that socialist ones as well. Read the quote below that I got from this site:

American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.
American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.

Europe: Socialist; lower survival rates
America: Capitalist; higher survival rates

You see, the government has a budget that they need to fulfill. Healthcare is a tiny portion of that. They will need to solve all their problems somehow, and once a big one arises, guess where the budget cut is going! They'll never be able to come close to the performance of a private company that only focuses on healthcare, and that alone.
And besides, if people support social healthcare because private rates are too expensive, there's just going to be a raise in our taxes. The government has to pay for it somehow, and the money isn't just going to come out of thin air. Taxes are going to be raised, and it'll be just like cheaping out of good healthcare to get worse healthcare.


What was with your assumption that young people are more socialist than the older generation? I'm 15. I know a lot of other people my age who are conservative as well, probably more conservatives than liberals. Well, then again, look at my location....

 

[downtown]

Hi. I work 50 hours a week at an active and physically strenuous job, and I have four college degrees, magna cum laude. Can I have a tiny, tiny, fraction of your income because I can't afford anything but extremely stripped-down health insurance (I get two doctor visits a year and an insanely high deductible)?

Your associates degrees don't count.

 

[timtofly]

What are you trying to say? It's not really a disputable point that US Health care costs as much as twice as much as that of nations that have better health care outcomes than the US. The best you can say about the US system is that we spend twice as much money to get outcomes that are probably worse, but close enough to the statistical margin of error that we can't prove just how much worse the US is.

Actually, he's right. The thing that you have to keep in mind is that the UNC proposals are Universal Health Insurance, not Universal Health Provision. No one is talking about making every doctor a government employee and every hospital a government institution. What some people, and it really isn't all that many people, are talking about is Single Payer. Just cut out the insurance companies. That, in and of itself, will lower the nation's health care bill at least 15%. And have no effect at all on the quality of the services provided.

I agree to a certain extent, however bills these days tend to have a lot of additives. It is these "sticking" points that ruin a good thing. Committees are formed to "produce" these things. I am to the point, that the representatives of these committees do not even "know" what they are producing and these bills either appear magically or the interns just start typing whatever comes into their heads.

 

[galdre]

Private healthcare to an individual person or family? Yes.

State-controlled healthcare in which the state provides equal healthcare benefits to everybody? Never.


Private healthcare is in all cases superior to government controlled healthcare. It allows the citizen to decide on their own their benefits, even if they don't want any. It allows competition between separate companies as well.

The only problem about that, is that the lower class can't afford healthcare all the time. Sure, there is reason for the government to support the lower class themselves, but not for the entire population. That's just silly. You can tell that private American healthcare companies do a better job that socialist ones as well. Read the quote below that I got from this site:



Europe: Socialist; lower survival rates
America: Capitalist; higher survival rates

You see, the government has a budget that they need to fulfill. Healthcare is a tiny portion of that. They will need to solve all their problems somehow, and once a big one arises, guess where the budget cut is going! They'll never be able to come close to the performance of a private company that only focuses on healthcare, and that alone.
And besides, if people support social healthcare because private rates are too expensive, there's just going to be a raise in our taxes. The government has to pay for it somehow, and the money isn't just going to come out of thin air. Taxes are going to be raised, and it'll be just like cheaping out of good healthcare to get worse healthcare.


What was with your assumption that young people are more socialist than the older generation? I'm 15. I know a lot of other people my age who are conservative as well, probably more conservatives than liberals. Well, then again, look at my location....

those numbers are put out by the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank. Sorry, but I don't trust them, especially since all the other numbers I've seen show better care for the average person in Europe.

as for raising taxes to pay for socialized health care; yes of course they would, but we would still pay less for our health care than we are now. What do I care if I pay for my health care through insurance premiums or taxes? If I can pay less for better care that doesn't exclude tens of millions, why would I not choose that?

and yes, young people aren't necessarily more socialist. I was very conservative in my late teens-early twenties, and have become increasingly more progressive as the years have passed.