Logic,reasoning, and universal health care

[otago]

There seems to be a lack of both logic and reasoning when it comes to universal health care in the US by some.
The argument that universal health care is socialism, both your medicaid and your medic care are socialistic systems, yet I do not hear conservative types calling for them both to be dumped, why not ?

I see people stating how bad the Canadian system is, how many of those people would have lived in Canada for any time to see how universal health care works ?

And the amusing one, the US military who not only cover military people but their families as well, if that is not socialism I do not know what is.

 

[Turner]

The argument that universal health care is socialism, both your medicaid and your medic care are socialistic systems, yet I do not hear conservative types calling for them both to be dumped, why not ?

Because Medicaid and Medicare cover a smaller portion of the population. The majority of the people in this country have some kind of private health care.

 

[Cutlass]

yet I do not hear conservative types calling for them both to be dumped, why not ?

Sometimes you do.

 

[amadeus]

And the amusing one, the US military who not only cover military people but their families as well, if that is not socialism I do not know what is.

Then the answer is clear; you don't know what socialism is.

 

[Cutlass]

Then the answer is clear; you don't know what socialism is.

Neither do you

 

[Berzerker]

those programs have too much support from the elderly, and the elderly vote

1) portability (McCain ran on that), gotta be able to take your coverage with you or we end up becoming prisoners in our own states once we're old enough to have a pre-existing condition

2) crackdown on these damn insurance companies that start looking for ways to dump people once they get sick. I consider that fraud and to hell with the politicians who protect the practice

3) allow a "public option" for people who just cant get insurance privately

The potential problem with 3 is insurance companies will drop or refuse service to higher risks burdening the govts public option with higher costs that'll be rationed back into the overall system. Thats the problem with Medicare now, the govt program's cost shifting screws up the marketplace for private health care.

We have non-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield here and its a good system, they dont drop people when they get sick and they help alleviate the cost of catastrophic care costs, the whole reason for insurance in the fist place.

4) frankly having a health care system thru employment is a disaster. Thats the main reason I see for a single payer system. American business has a hard enough time competing with 3rd world standards without shouldering the burden of our health care.

as for socialism, I dont know if that term really applies. Owning the means of production aint the same as some 3rd party (private insurance or the govt) using bargaining power to lower prices being charged by private health care providers. If it were socialism health care providers would become employees of the state and no private care would be allowed.

 

[Berzerker]

Because Medicaid and Medicare cover a smaller portion of the population. The majority of the people in this country have some kind of private health care.

Not sure about that, when you count up all the people with a govt plan its close to 50/50. Military, govt employees, Medicare (and thats where most of our health care $$$ are spent), Medicaid... And the cost shifting really messes up the private system. Hell, I'll pay more with cash for service than I would with either private of public insurance. Thats ridiculous, partly from increased "bargaining" power, partly from the cost shifting - 2 sides of the same coin.

 

[tonberry]

One of the thing that I don't understand about people who oppose universal healthcare is that they find perfectly acceptable that police forces are public.

What I mean is, police could work like the healthcare in the US. You got robbed, you go to the police and pay them to solve the case. This can be covered by insurance just like healthcare.

They are obvious reasons that nobody want it to work that way but why private healthcare is ok then?

 

[Cutlass]

There's a guy here called xarax that follows that line of reasoning.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

There seems to be a lack of both logic and reasoning when it comes to universal health care in the US by some.
The argument that universal health care is socialism, both your medicaid and your medic care are socialistic systems, yet I do not hear conservative types calling for them both to be dumped, why not ?

Two reasons:

1. A regime can remain in power so long as it does not take away something that everyone already has. Medicare has been around for 40 years, and millions of old people have come to expect it. To take it away would piss them off and cause the Republican party to be removed from office by the next election. Even though it is a socialist system, which violates everything that Republicans stand for, no one is dumb enough to suggest it be repealed.

2. "Socialism" is a catchy political insult that the Republicans can use to put down almost anything. Americans tend to see anything that is remotely socialist as a betrayal of American values, which won the Cold War against those damned communists. The Republican party is exploiting this. Never mind that it is a contradiction of already well established socialist programs.

 

[Adria]

I see people stating how bad the Canadian system is, how many of those people would have lived in Canada for any time to see how universal health care works ?

Canadian healthcare really isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Sure, everyone "knows" someone who had a bad experience, but they generally haven't had a bad experience themselves.* Everyone complains about the wait times, but with current staffing levels that can't be helped.

In general, healthcare here is pretty good. It could always be better, but it really isn't as horrible as some people would have you believe. Yes, you might have to wait a while for a non-essential surgery (ie hip replacement), but that's so people with more serious issues (ie cancer) can get into surgery sooner. And, of course, no one has to take out a mortgage to cover necessary medical treatment.

*This was actually covered in a conference I'm currently in the middle of. Someone who was conducting opinion polls said that with greater than 90% of the people he spoke to, they said (paraphrasing here) "Someone I know had a bad experience, but my GP is great and I've never had any problems."

 

[BasketCase]

The argument that universal health care is socialism, both your medicaid and your medic care are socialistic systems, yet I do not hear conservative types calling for them both to be dumped, why not ?

Because Medicaid and Medicare are not socialist systems. Neither is the U.S. military.

Equality is not exclusive to socialism. Equality is a concept shared by many different political philosophies--including fascism.

 

[boogaboo]

Well, I don't know why some regard socialism as a bad word.
Universal health care is a must. It's not for the ones who have money for more, but to the ones who don't and still deserve to be treated as human beings.

========= (my economic stance, you don't have to read it)
I personally like Josef Popper's economic system, made to give humans some humanity.
It divides basic needs and luxeries, and claim that every man has the right for those basic things, but someone has to actually manufacture at least most of them, so he proposes that... :

Some things should be given to ALL (health care, as well as housing, basic food and basic education).
OTOH, some duties should apply to ALL - a few years of service to the state in specific occupations in exchange for this lifetime of the basic stuff above.
This means you can choose what you do with your years... between driving the truck, harvesting some food, building a building, carpentaring, and other not so appealing stuff that must be done by some1 sometime to make houses and food for all.

BTW, after these few years you are able to WORK in the CAPITALISTIC market to gain money and thus luxeries IF you so wish

 

[civ_king]

Canadian Health Care (from Experience) is vastly better than American system (from experience)
(I have dealt with both systems before and prefer Canada's)

 

[BasketCase]

Universal health care is a must.

It's not.

Probably you saw, earlier on, the bit about long waits in the emergency room. The reason there's a long wait in the emergency room is because there are no doctors available. Yeah, it may sound like I'm merely pointing out the blindingly obvious, but that's simply because I had to point out the blindingly obvious.

You can't force a person to be a doctor (well, actually you can, but the political system within which that is permitted is known as "fascism", at which point you probably need no further explaination of why forcing people to be doctors would suck some serious ass). If you can't force people to be doctors, then it stands to reason that from time to time there won't be enough doctors. If there's no doctor available, you don't get health care, and there's simply nothing to be done about it. Do you see President Obama starting any programs to force people to be doctors? Nope.

There is a legitimate way to tempt more people to be doctors, and that is to offer more money to anyone who does. The political system that uses this method has a name. Anyone care to guess what it is? (Hint: starts with a C)

Canadian Health Care (from Experience) is vastly better than American system (from experience)
(I have dealt with both systems before and prefer Canada's)

The reason the Canadian system is better is because Canadians can head south to the U.S. whenever the Canadian system screws up (which, from what I've heard inside and outside CFC, is pretty frequent)

 

[emzie]

Canadian Health Care (from Experience) is vastly better than American system (from experience)
(I have dealt with both systems before and prefer Canada's)

QFT. While you might be able to find specific examples where I'd goto the US for treatment, when it comes to the vast majority of potential illness / injuries I could receive, I would, from a medical point of view, not care where it occurred. The care I've received in both countries has been excellent. I'm fine with either system.

From a personal financial point of view, I'm buying insurance to even travel in the US. From a general financial point of view, the US is headed towards a train wreck and I wouldn't trust the quality of care for even the insured to remain if nothing changes.

The reason the Canadian system is better is because Canadians can head south to the U.S. whenever the Canadian system screws up (which, from what I've heard inside and outside CFC, is pretty frequent)

Very very few people do that. We're talking a fraction of a percent of Canadians.

And that's really only an argument for Canada liberalizing the health care system and allowing private insurance to co-exist (something which is banned by law).

 

[Leonel]

It's interesting 'cause the assumption these naysayers have are that public services are worse than private. By this logic they shouldn't worry about insurance companies going out of business because free market principles will show that private insurance companies will prevail because they're better than the public sector in providing services.

Other than that, America is already marching towards socialism! How do you explain that it's against the law to NOT have car insurance if you have a car? It's an American right to choose not to have car insurance!

 

[boogaboo]

It's not.

Probably you saw, earlier on, the bit about long waits in the emergency room. The reason there's a long wait in the emergency room is because there are no doctors available. Yeah, it may sound like I'm merely pointing out the blindingly obvious, but that's simply because I had to point out the blindingly obvious.

You can't force a person to be a doctor (well, actually you can, but the political system within which that is permitted is known as "fascism", at which point you probably need no further explaination of why forcing people to be doctors would suck some serious ass). If you can't force people to be doctors, then it stands to reason that from time to time there won't be enough doctors. If there's no doctor available, you don't get health care, and there's simply nothing to be done about it. Do you see President Obama starting any programs to force people to be doctors? Nope.

There is a legitimate way to tempt more people to be doctors, and that is to offer more money to anyone who does. The political system that uses this method has a name. Anyone care to guess what it is? (Hint: starts with a C)

We almost agree, why yell? Almost only because there ARE doctors, but most of them work in private clinics that make more money, which is why I agree to your offer - doctors should be paid more.
Note that full blown capitalism grows next to my economic proposal, and I agree you can't make people become doctors, but you can reward them.

 

[civ_king]

It's interesting 'cause the assumption these naysayers have are that public services are worse than private. By this logic they shouldn't worry about insurance companies going out of business because free market principles will show that private insurance companies will prevail because they're better than the public sector in providing services.

Other than that, America is already marching towards socialism! How do you explain that it's against the law to NOT have car insurance if you have a car? It's an American right to choose not to have car insurance!

since when

 

[BasketCase]

Very very few people do that. We're talking a fraction of a percent of Canadians.

And the number of hospital beds in Canada is also a fraction of a percent of Canadians. About one third of a percent, to be precise. In fact, the number of hospital beds per capita in Canada is about the same as in the U.S.

Very few Canadians go to the U.S. because very few Canadians are actually looking for health care at any given time. The fancy term for what you typed out up there is the "semi-attached figure".