Universal Health Care - Page 4

July 5, 2008, 7:08 AM

Hey Placebo whats up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Placebo

The benefits of a healthcare system run by the government outweigh the negatives.

There are two main arguements for it.
The first being that it is morally right.
As we all know 'Socialised Medicine' isn't exactly free. It's paid for with taxes. Now some people would complain that it is unfair to tax them to pay for other people's healthcare. These people are rich, and as such can't comprehend what it is like to not have enough money to afford to pay for healthcare.
We SHOULD be obligated to help the less fortunate, if we don't fund healthcare, they die. It is that simple.
The reason why America's healthcare is so bad is because it doesn't have a party for the poor/lower middle classes.
The Democrats are center right.
And until the poor get a voice the healthcare system will continue to be crap. As politicians have no incentive to fix it.

What you say is true, no system is perfect. I disgagree with you in the sense that theres no party for the poor, its quite clear Republicans are the party of the poor ^^. Democrats, and I'm not saying this to piss anyone off, claim to do anything for the kids, but in reality, they would rather take pictures with them, rather then feed them. Of course the same can be said about Republicans as well. But meh unemployment is lower then when Clinton was president. And no I'm not using these examples to support my claim. Now you claim the rich pay for it in taxes, Not in America! If you've looked at how things are the middle class carry the weight of the rich who use loopholes, and the poor on their hard-working backs. This is why im pushing for a new tax system. The rich simply wouldn't pay for the coverage for everybody, that in itself is not fair, and is completly different from your situation.

Quote:

That's because it's underfunded. Here we have a good national health service and there aren't problems like that.

I was merely providing an example, What you say is correct.

Quote:

The difference between private doctors and public doctors is that private doctors are paid more and national doctors are paid less. So logically the public doctors are doing it to help people.
So they work harder, and everyone needs a break, I'm sure there were plently of other places you could have gone to see a doctor.

Yep, In Europe the ideaology is you shouldn't be a slave to your job, Here in Puerto Rico, im lucky if I get a day off >.>. I don't know why you added the section I bolded, as I was just saying I passed by a doctors office =/. Nor was I describing the situation as a negative.

Quote:

Flat tax rates simply don't work.
Firstly it is the government's role to allocate money equally. This is done by a proportional tax rate.
Secondly having a flat tax will lower the government's revenue. Which means that healthcare will be underfunded as well as schooling, roadworks etc.

That's all I've got to say for now.

No offense but I'd like to know where your basing this off of. Look at Russia for example they had a increase in revenue by 20% since switching and a 15% increase two years ago. If anything an increase in taxes lowers revenue, not a flat rate, and if you add restrictions placed by a bigger government, things only get worse, which is why I'm in favor of a smaller government. The only other taxing system I can see working is being taxed on what you consume, I'd like to know what you think about that.

In the end, It all comes down to opinion. Socialized Medicine works for you guys because your system allows it to work, In the United States it would not work. I don't think the system is entirely bad, but i think with some adjustments it could work . By the way its colour, and not color?

- Kuja

July 5, 2008, 8:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by δ Kuja Ω

No offense but I'd like to know where your basing this off of. Look at Russia for example they had a increase in revenue by 20% since switching and a 15% increase two years ago. If anything an increase in taxes lowers revenue, not a flat rate, and if you add restrictions placed by a bigger government, things only get worse, which is why I'm in favor of a smaller government. The only other taxing system I can see working is being taxed on what you consume, I'd like to know what you think about that.

No offense but Russia is a not a good example. When they switched from their communist system to a mixed economy, Yeltsin let all the assets be bought by a few rich people. He basically turned it into an oligarchy.

It's true that a flat tax would raise revenue if you taxed everyone at say 40%. But most people can't afford that. That's why proportional taxes are the best, economically and in terms of equal distribution of wealth.

I'm not sure what the tax ranges are in the US, but here the more you earn the more you pay. If, as you say, the rich pay less than everyone else then it needs to be reformed. However that is unlikely.

Also we do pay tax on what we consume, here it's called GST and in the UK it's VAT. It's when the government adds 12.5%(those this may vary depending on the country) to the price of everything. There are may be some things it doesn't include.

Quote:

What you say is true, no system is perfect. I disgagree with you in the sense that theres no party for the poor, its quite clear Republicans are the party of the poor ^^. Democrats, and I'm not saying this to piss anyone off, claim to do anything for the kids, but in reality, they would rather take pictures with them, rather then feed them. Of course the same can be said about Republicans as well. But meh unemployment is lower then when Clinton was president. And no I'm not using these examples to support my claim. Now you claim the rich pay for it in taxes, Not in America! If you've looked at how things are the middle class carry the weight of the rich who use loopholes, and the poor on their hard-working backs. This is why im pushing for a new tax system. The rich simply wouldn't pay for the coverage for everybody, that in itself is not fair, and is completly different from your situation.

That thing about the children is true. Politicians like photo opportunities. Tony Blair was talking about some peace settlement with the IRA(or something like that) he said it was not a time for sound bites, then he delivered a speech that he wanted everyone to use as a quote.
But that kind of thing is a price of democracy.

As I was saying, in America there is no party for poor people. Republicans get votes from the conservatives, and the democrats from the middle classes, but there is no party for the poor. Which is why healthcare is so bad, if the poor where to have a party and politicians who represented their views then healthcare would improve.

Quote:

In the end, It all comes down to opinion. Socialized Medicine works for you guys because your system allows it to work, In the United States it would not work. I don't think the system is entirely bad, but i think with some adjustments it could work . By the way its colour, and not color?

Like Piedmon said, it's called socialised healthcare in America to associate it with socialism. America has this irrational fear of socialism, or even economically liberal policies. FDR got death threats and a more liberal rival, Huey Long got assainated. America has had McCarthy, it really hates socialism. I've read conservatives call the UN a 'worldwide socialist organisation' because said conservative didn't like UNCLOS.
If America got over its hatred it could work, until then, meh.
It is colour, but IN AMERICA it's spelt color.

July 5, 2008, 5:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Placebo

No offense but Russia is a not a good example. When they switched from their communist system to a mixed economy, Yeltsin let all the assets be bought by a few rich people. He basically turned it into an oligarchy.

It's true that a flat tax would raise revenue if you taxed everyone at say 40%. But most people can't afford that. That's why proportional taxes are the best, economically and in terms of equal distribution of wealth.

I'm not sure what the tax ranges are in the US, but here the more you earn the more you pay. If, as you say, the rich pay less than everyone else then it needs to be reformed. However that is unlikely.

Also we do pay tax on what we consume, here it's called GST and in the UK it's VAT. It's when the government adds 12.5%(those this may vary depending on the country) to the price of everything. There are may be some things it doesn't include.

That thing about the children is true. Politicians like photo opportunities. Tony Blair was talking about some peace settlement with the IRA(or something like that) he said it was not a time for sound bites, then he delivered a speech that he wanted everyone to use as a quote.
But that kind of thing is a price of democracy.

As I was saying, in America there is no party for poor people. Republicans get votes from the conservatives, and the democrats from the middle classes, but there is no party for the poor. Which is why healthcare is so bad, if the poor where to have a party and politicians who represented their views then healthcare would improve.

Middle-class vote for democrats.....no...not....true. At least not here. The poor mostly vote democrat, the middle class mostly vote republican, why? Becuase the Republicans favor their cause. The reallly rich is a mixed vote of both parties. People who for whoever thinks similiar to them. Not based on their social status =P.

How do taxes work in the U.S? Allow me to explain. Here in Puerto Rico(or in Florida for example) Your legally considered Rich if you make $200,000 or more, as such your better off making that less than that amount. When Clinton was president some people would pay as high as 65% which is pure drudgery >.>. I know Russia isn't the best example I was merely providing a counter-arguement, so yEs flat tax does work(technically ). My understanding is a flat rate of 15-20% would work just fine, and if you make $60,000 or less your exempt from paying taxes. All those rich people like Al Gore, or Ted Kennedy do not I repeat DO NOT pay taxes, answering your question, because they use loopholes in the tax code, which was obviously made to favor the rich. If this continues people are just going to retire early, because working is too much. Will this change soon? No probably not because we have corrupt people who like it the way it is. As such if this system were implemented they would pay taxes, and most likely invest in things, helping us to advance technologically. So yes, we need a damn change here! My dad for example whos a doctor/bussiness owner works harder than Al Gore, makes less, but pays more than him. In fact a middle-class family example: A commercial banker pays more than Al Gore in taxes. Hardly sounds fair.

Quote:

Like Piedmon said, it's called socialised healthcare in America to associate it with socialism. America has this irrational fear of socialism, or even economically liberal policies. FDR got death threats and a more liberal rival, Huey Long got assainated. America has had McCarthy, it really hates socialism. I've read conservatives call the UN a 'worldwide socialist organisation' because said conservative didn't like UNCLOS.
If America got over its hatred it could work, until then, meh.
It is colour, but in America it's spelt color.

McCarthy , I learned about him in history, he led a Communist Witch-Hunt, but in all honesty the guy was a lunitic. I personally don't associate SHC with being socialism. However when you want everyone to drive the same car, or have the same house thats...socialism! Obama made a mention of that in one of his speeches, although I heard it, and didn't get that whole thing out of it. I put the "IN AMERICA" part in lowercase, because... , i was merely asking if over there thats how it was =P, i know its spelled "color" here.

Until next time,

- Kuja

July 6, 2008, 12:41 AM

Look...I don't know much about the technical side of this issue, so I'm just going to speak from the emotional stand point.

I have heard that there are issues with true universal healthcare not being that great. This may be true, but something has to be done to improve health care in this country. It is becoming far too expensive and it screws over a lot of people.

You can say you're against universal healthcare, but try telling a family with a member who is dying because they can't afford treatment that well they just don't deserve to live because they don't have money.

I recently dated a man who was a type one diabetic since he was four so he had a lot of health problems. He worked his whole life from the point that he was sixteen until he was thirty, but for the past five years has owned his own business. Health insurance for a diabetic who has already gone mostly blind is insanely high, and recently his kidneys failed. Now...I don't know all the details of his financial situation, but I do know how unfair it seems that there's a possibility he wont be able to get a kind a surgery that could potentially cure his diabetes because of money problems. His kidneys recently failed so that has put a huge financial burden on his family.

Perhaps one could argue that if he has been this sick his whole life, he is a burden on society. But let's look at this statement in another way. He has never stolen anything, he rarely drinks, he has never seriously injured anyone, or used drugs (and indirectly supported organized crime), for years he worked with disabled children, and I have never seen him act destructively towards any piece of public property. He doesn't drive so there is no chance of him destroying something with a vehicle. And he's not lazy.

All I'm saying is that people get screwed over in the current system a lot. Granted, no system will be perfect, but it seems unfair to me to argue that poor people deserve less care because they are lazy and its not our responsibility to help them. Even if it were a matter of laziness (which its not in most cases), how can you expect someone in worse health to be more active than someone in better health?

Now...these universal healthcare style programs can be really abused. I have known of comfortable middle-class kids becoming hardcore drug addicts and messing up their health and then getting money from the government to function while they don't work or do anything. But then again, how do you put a value on a human life? I'm saying this, but i have an uncle who is kind of a waste of space because he ruined his life but he is my cousin's father and he is everything to him. I think this makes health insurance and health care issues so hard to talk about and morally gray.

It sucks, but I could sacrifice helping a few more awful people if we could do more for people who really deserve it.

I don't think we will have universal healthcare no matter who gets elected, but I do think that democrats are more likely to attempt to change it.

Anyway...I don't know if this contributed anything because I don't know enough about the issue. Heh ;p

July 6, 2008, 3:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerocrystal

Look...I don't know much about the technical side of this issue, so I'm just going to speak from the emotional stand point.

I have heard that there are issues with true universal healthcare not being that great. This may be true, but something has to be done to improve health care in this country. It is becoming far too expensive and it screws over a lot of people.

You can say you're against universal healthcare, but try telling a family with a member who is dying because they can't afford treatment that well they just don't deserve to live because they don't have money.

I recently dated a man who was a type one diabetic since he was four so he had a lot of health problems. He worked his whole life from the point that he was sixteen until he was thirty, but for the past five years has owned his own business. Health insurance for a diabetic who has already gone mostly blind is insanely high, and recently his kidneys failed. Now...I don't know all the details of his financial situation, but I do know how unfair it seems that there's a possibility he wont be able to get a kind a surgery that could potentially cure his diabetes because of money problems. His kidneys recently failed so that has put a huge financial burden on his family.

Perhaps one could argue that if he has been this sick his whole life, he is a burden on society. But let's look at this statement in another way. He has never stolen anything, he rarely drinks, he has never seriously injured anyone, or used drugs (and indirectly supported organized crime), for years he worked with disabled children, and I have never seen him act destructively towards any piece of public property. He doesn't drive so there is no chance of him destroying something with a vehicle. And he's not lazy.

All I'm saying is that people get screwed over in the current system a lot. Granted, no system will be perfect, but it seems unfair to me to argue that poor people deserve less care because they are lazy and its not our responsibility to help them. Even if it were a matter of laziness (which its not in most cases), how can you expect someone in worse health to be more active than someone in better health?

Now...these universal healthcare style programs can be really abused. I have known of comfortable middle-class kids becoming hardcore drug addicts and messing up their health and then getting money from the government to function while they don't work or do anything. But then again, how do you put a value on a human life? I'm saying this, but i have an uncle who is kind of a waste of space because he ruined his life but he is my cousin's father and he is everything to him. I think this makes health insurance and health care issues so hard to talk about and morally gray.

It sucks, but I could sacrifice helping a few more awful people if we could do more for people who really deserve it.

I don't think we will have universal healthcare no matter who gets elected, but I do think that democrats are more likely to attempt to change it.

Anyway...I don't know if this contributed anything because I don't know enough about the issue. Heh ;p

Thanks for sharing your opinion, although after reading it, I can only conclude you have mixed feeling about it like me.

- Kuja

July 8, 2008, 11:47 AM

http://www.finalfantasyforums.net/bo...are-14016.html

Similar thread already exists.

Mod Edit: Thanks Sarah! Thread has been merged.

July 11, 2008, 8:05 PM

I don't like universal health care. I'm in the UK and I'd much prefer the American system. Of course eveyone has the right to health care, that's a given. However, I don't think it's fair that people who work hard have to pay for other people's health care via tax.

It annoys me greatly that I work full time and a fair bit of my salary goes towards paying for people on the dole to laze about and get free health care. What's worse is that when I try to get an appointment at the surgery I'm registered with I can't get in because all appointments have been filled up by about 8am. Now, I'm not saying that only unemployed, lazy people are there and they are the only people in the country going to the doctor's, but they take up a fair portion.

Everyone having equal rights to stuff works in theory but, like many things, when put into practice there are immense difficulties and inequalities involved.

July 12, 2008, 2:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

I don't like universal health care. I'm in the UK and I'd much prefer the American system. Of course eveyone has the right to health care, t