Universal Health Care

[Donald Trump]

Right...
However, by default, all citizens should be offered state healthcare. Foreigners, no matter what they're here for, should only be offered emergency care, or otherwise left to go private~ with exceptions. I'm afraid that's how it has to be, at the moment people come from developing countries to get treatment free of charge, which has to stop, as it is putting a huge, unneccessary burden on the system. NHS= National, not International.

That's just racist, you're 17 right? You are hardly paying a lot of tax. Also you fail to mention that smokers probably cost the most, more than 'foreigners', as do people who drink heavily and drug users, who are all convienently not mentioned. By foreigners, do you mean tourists or people who have immigrated? If tourists, that's okay, just expect other countries to do the same. If its immigrants, then that's just stupid, because it appears as if you are under the misaprehension that immigrants don't pay tax, they do. As i said before it's racist, people aren't allowed access to healthcare because they are black/asian/ any other ethnic group.

but everyone should have access to the treatments that they need.

That depends, say a very old man needs a extemely expensive operation, it simply isn't worth it.
Governments have budgets, by spending vast amounts of money on healthcare.
Education, roading, infrastructure all receives less money. It's a balancing act.

I think that UH would work in the US if it just gave it a chance. At the moment in the US, if you're severely ill with an illness which is quite expensive to treat, you're broke either way. I know the NHS sometimes refuses to treat due to expense, though sometimes that expense is purely because the treatment is new, and offered by a private company. If the company were government-run, then the treatment wouldn't need to be nearly as expensive.

It's highly unlikely that UH would work in America, they have a huge gap in wealth distribution, I heard once that 10% live below the poverty line, key word there, being think. Regardless, it's still huge. Also Neither the Democrats or the Republicans like taxes, so that's even more unlikely. Now back to the wealth gap, UH would rely on the rich paying for majority of this. Which simply won't happen, because they don't need it, so it relies on them being willing to pay for the healthcare of the Hispanic, Black and Poor white communities. Which considering that you don't want to pay for the healthcare of 'foreigners'. Why would they want to pay?
It's unrealistic

 

[Soul Saver]

Come on now, I'm saying that people who don't have UK citizenship or a visa, etc, should only be given NHS care in an emergency. It's not racist, it would apply to everyone not eligible. I mention "foreigners", and that triggers an automatic response of "racist"? It's common sense. I am by no means racist... perhaps "foreigners" was an ill-chosen word, though. Apologies if anyone was offended.
No, I don't pay tax, but I will do pretty soon.
Someone may be old, but they still have a family. However, if someone is so old or so ill that they're going to die very soon anyway, they're more likely to give up and just decline the operation, or something.

Yes, the US has some way to go, especially with there being a huge gap between rich and poor, but it's still possible to implement. Makes you wonder why it has such a big gap in the first place.

I know full well how public services are funded. There are other ways of raising money for the treasury than official government revenues, too. For another thread.

As for people who abuse themselves, naturally, government policy should include initiatives to cut down on that sort of crap. However, I don't think that people should be denied healthcare because of their lifestyle choices. That said, there could be some sort of national health insurance system for the UK to help reduce the tax burden.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Poll: Socialized Medicine

I hope nobody did a thread about this D:, I don't want the same thing happening to this thread.

Anyway, I have a mixed opinion on this topic, which I will get into once i see what some of my fellow peers think ^^.

Feel free to speak your mind within reason, and note I won't try and change your opinion on this topic, or condemn you in any way, as im accepting of all opinions. Explain your point I dont wanna hear "Becuz then every 1 gets healthcare", if thats a reason why you support it, explain what the truth behind it.

- Kuja

 

[Ajora]

I think any government has a categorical imperative to respect and uphold the rights of its populous, which includes everything from respecting their privacy to providing them with means of alimentation and protection (social contracts, etc). The government's role is ideally one of careful support. It varies in equity, though. Depending on the needs and abilities of the people.

 

[Bambi]

Erm, call me stupid but what is socialized healthcare.....?

 

[Soul Saver]

Erm, call me stupid but what is socialized healthcare.....?

A term used by American conservatives to associate Universal Healthcare with Socialism.

I fully support Universal Healthcare, so long as a regulated private sector is allowed to run as well.
Not only should it be a staple of any developed state to provide affordable healthcare to its citizens in some form, but it is also more efficient and cheaper anyway, so long as it is not a crude system which only pays private companies, which are out for profit. That is why the US spends a larger percentage of its overall budget on healthcare than anywhere else.
Overall costs here are much lower for public health trusts at least, as they don't need to make a profit.
As for those who aren't insured in the US, and are slowly dying of some horrible terminal illness, they'll only be given emergency treatment.
I don't buy the "natural selection" crap, either. It is anti-human to deny someone healthcare because they cannot afford it.
If their healthcare costs too much for the state, why does it cost so much? Probably because either the ingredients to a particular medicine are rare, or because a company is keeping its price high. To do away with such extra costs, medical research and development companies should be paid fees for their patented medicines to be produced by a much cheaper public medical company. If ingredients are rare, if they are plants, they can be grown in the lab. Frankly, the economic arguments against universal healthcare are laughable.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

A term used by American conservatives to associate Universal Healthcare with Socialism.

I fully support Universal Healthcare, so long as a regulated private sector is allowed to run as well.
Not only should it be a staple of any developed state to provide affordable healthcare to its citizens in some form, but it is also more efficient and cheaper anyway, so long as it is not a crude system which only pays private companies, which are out for profit. That is why the US spends a larger percentage of its overall budget on healthcare than anywhere else.
Overall costs here are much lower for public health trusts at least, as they don't need to make a profit.
As for those who aren't insured in the US, and are slowly dying of some horrible terminal illness, they'll only be given emergency treatment.
I don't buy the "natural selection" crap, either. It is anti-human to deny someone healthcare because they cannot afford it.
If their healthcare costs too much for the state, why does it cost so much? Probably because either the ingredients to a particular medicine are rare, or because a company is keeping its price high. To do away with such extra costs, medical research and development companies should be paid fees for their patented medicines to be produced by a much cheaper public medical company. If ingredients are rare, if they are plants, they can be grown in the lab. Frankly, the economic arguments against universal healthcare are laughable.

Im against Socialized Healthcare(as of now) in Puerto Rico, I pay enough taxes as it is right now, and the system wouldn't work, at least not here. In the U.S its my understanding some citizins face the same problem, while i agree natural selection doesnt apply to this matter, I think we should change the tax system.

Australia has a flat tax system in which everyone pays a flat rate, 1% of everyones income goes to healthcare, and hey thats fine. Why? Because they all pay less in taxes. The question truly remains is the quality of the healthcare good? Free isn't an excuse for good, some nations with healthcare thats socialized like France ,(which ill get into later) are going bankrupt supporting this system, and as such they do whatever they can to save $$, some canadians escape to the U.S to be treated since the waiting lists dont allow them to get healthcare right away(although these canadians fall into the minority). I wouldn't say Cuba has better healthcare than the U.S just because its "free" and because Micheal Moore said so, in fact one of the things i found incredolous is the choices of word these people use to describe it "Under this system the government pays for your medical coverage", such language deceives some into thinking "yay I don't have to pay for it" when in reality the government has no money...That being said I saw his movie, and will list some of the lies or exaggerations told by him:

1. Most european citizens pay for health care coverage every week, some require people to buy coverage in health care insurance similiar to what we have here in Puerto Rico. Moore claimed it was done like Canadas Single Payer system, which is lies.

2. Every European nation has a different healthcare system, as such to round them all up and say they all use a Single Payer system is either misleading or a big fat lie.

3. Coverage in Europe isn't free either, again its either missleading or a lie.

For example: Switzerland has no health care program, instead everyone must purchase healh care insurance from one of 100's competeting companies.

4. Micheal Moore described France as the "eden" of healthcare, again this is a lie, as France can only afford health-coverage for only 80% of its citizens, the other 20 are forced to buy private insurance, in either case its not free, and isnt handled through a single payer system, again misleading or a lie?

5. Mr Moore claims the canadians handle drug coverage better, which again is false, about 7/8 provinces do not cover non-hospital drug coverage for low income seniors, the federal government in fact doesn't cover anyone, I'm not saying canadian Socialized healthcare sucks, im merely stating Michael Moore has again either tried to mislead us or lied completely.

6. Michael Moore offered $10,000 to whoever could prove him wrong, rumors say quite a few have done so, and Mr Moore has not paid them. Again pure speculation

Simply put Socialized Healthcare is free in the sense that when you go into the emergency room you dont pay, its naive to think its free all over and out. Besides costs, it also doesn't guarantee you get healthcare when you need it most.

In the end such a system isn't realistic, but it does warm your heart, and mine also to know that everyone around you is getting healthcare. Note, I'm not claiming countries with socialized healthcare suck, or are hellholes to live in.

Also if you want a taste of socialized healthcare, go to a free health clinic in the U.S, those places are packed almost everyday, and as such they can't see everyody whos in line, plus they refer most of the people there to a hospital anyway. I know my arguement isn't perfect but its just my opinion


Feel free to comment

Oh and Doctors work alot less, On my vacation to Spain i saw a sign that said in spanish to english "Were on vacation we'll be back in two months" I couldn't believe it, as such doctors are paid less under this system but don't have to work as hard.

I think any government has a categorical imperative to respect and uphold the rights of its populous, which includes everything from respecting their privacy to providing them with means of alimentation and protection (social contracts, etc). The government's role is ideally one of careful support. It varies in equity, though. Depending on the needs and abilities of the people.

Fair enough your beliefs are that of a liberal person, and hey thats fine! I believe people should be repsonsible for themselves, the goverment has no money anyway, and as such collects it from us, so I don't see how that works...thanks for sharing your opinion though.

I think the government should give coverage to whoever needs it most, the question is who qualifies for needing it most? Plus...oh...wait Medic-Aid!! I'm claiming medic-aid to be the solution to lifes problems, but its a step in the right direction, as medic-aid gives coverage(note i said IT GIVES coverage to those who qualify or it).

- Kuja

 

[Soul Saver]

Firstly, I have not watched Sicko, nor do I base my arguments on any such film.

Secondly, the NHS in the UK is top-rate. It does very well on its budget, though excessive bureaucracy should be removed to make it more efficient. Its service is normally excellent, bar the waiting lists, which are to be expected. Such can be reduced and prioritised. I can say that UK healthcare coverage is much better than in the US, in which an obscene amount of people are uninsured.

Naturally, the richest citizens can afford private healthcare, which will have shorter waiting lists as fewer people will be using it. Why pay for the richest 20% when they can easily afford their own private care?

Also, if there are problems with healthcare funding, a not-for-profit national health insurance system can be introduced.

As I have said, the US government actually pays a larger percentage of its budget on healthcare, as far as I am aware, meaning that you pay more taxes because of the way it pays for healthcare! Sure, if it didn't cover citizens at all, those expenses would be completely gone, but national health would go even further down the drain.

You're right, the tax system needs to change. Currently, the richest US citizens have lower tax rates than the middle-income citizens, I think. Insane. Gradually increasing tax rates would be much more logical.

Even compulsory health insurance is better than being refused health insurance.

Nothing's free. However, overheads are greatly reduced in a state-run, public healthcare system, as it won't be out to make a profit. A public healthcare system running alongside a private healthcare system is much more realistic.

I think that doctors here work just as much as US doctors, and local general practices(not hospitals) charge for certain services anyway.

Why don't YOU come to the UK and get a taste of our healthcare system?

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Firstly, I have not watched Sicko, nor do I base my arguments on any such film.

Secondly, the NHS in the UK is top-rate. It does very well on its budget, though excessive bureaucracy should be removed to make it more efficient. Its service is normally excellent, bar the waiting lists, which are to be expected. Such can be reduced and prioritised. I can say that UK healthcare coverage is much better than in the US, in which an obscene amount of people are uninsured.

Naturally, the richest citizens can afford private healthcare, which will have shorter waiting lists as fewer people will be using it. Why pay for the richest 20% when they can easily afford their own private care?

Also, if there are problems with healthcare funding, a not-for-profit national health insurance system can be introduced.

As I have said, the US government actually pays a larger percentage of its budget on healthcare, as far as I am aware, meaning that you pay more taxes because of the way it pays for healthcare! Sure, if it didn't cover citizens at all, those expenses would be completely gone, but national health would go even further down the drain.

You're right, the tax system needs to change. Currently, the richest US citizens have lower tax rates than the middle-income citizens, I think. Insane. Gradually increasing tax rates would be much more logical.

Even compulsory health insurance is better than being refused health insurance.

Nothing's free. However, overheads are greatly reduced in a state-run, public healthcare system, as it won't be out to make a profit. A public healthcare system running alongside a private healthcare system is much more realistic.

I think that doctors here work just as much as US doctors, and local general practices(not hospitals) charge for certain services anyway.

Why don't YOU come to the UK and get a taste of our healthcare system?

I'm glad we partially agree, I wasn't basing my argument on Sicko, just poiting out how some facts on NHS can twisted around ^^, and I don't think I mentioned anything of the UK's healthcare ever being bad, so I question why you included it there. And a non-profit organization was introducted in the U.S and its called Medic-Aid!

As far as going to the UK goes, I'll get my Passport , I've never been to the UK and I've always wanted to go, but your paying for my ticket, dont have enough $$? Perhaps the $$ you saved from NHS will cover it =P. We'll discuss this later over tea and crumpets(assuming you live in England).

You're right, the tax system needs to change. Currently, the richest US citizens have lower tax rates than the middle-income citizens, I think. Insane. Gradually increasing tax rates would be much more logical.

My proposal is a flat tax where everyone pays a flat rate, its ridicolous taxing people on their income, the poor hardly pay taxes, the very rich use loopholes, and the midde-class are stuck paying for everything. I propose again everyone pay a flat rate, if you make under $50,000 then your exempted from paying taxes. But rich liberals and conservatives alike who are happy not paying taxes wont approve of this, Al Gore i think mentioned this idea is not fair to the poor, and I fail to see how, he just doesn't wanna pay any taxes for his house which uses up th electricity of like 15-30 houses.
Here in Puerto Rico I live in a small apartment, and im fighting a corrupt system in which I have to pay for utilities I dont use, its worse here than it is in the U.S, but it is my homeland and I love it anyway ):

- Kuja

 

[Donald Trump]

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.

Also if you want a taste of socialized healthcare, go to a free health clinic in the U.S, those places are packed almost everyday, and as such they can't see everyody whos in line, plus they refer most of the people there to a hospital anyway

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

Oh and Doctors work alot less, On my vacation to Spain i saw a sign that said in spanish to english "Were on vacation we'll be back in two months" I couldn't believe it, as such doctors are paid less under this system but don't have to work as hard.

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.

The second arguement for National healthcare is economic.
By having a healthy population the GDP will be higher. That is the truth, but so many of the rich overlook that labour is a very necessary resource.

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.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Hey Placebo whats up?

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Donald Trump]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

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.

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

 

[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

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

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

 

[Erythritol]

http://www.finalfantasyforums.net/bone-village/universal-health-care-14016.html

Similar thread already exists.

Mod Edit: Thanks Sarah! Thread has been merged.

 

[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, 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.

 

[Donald Trump]

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.

Are you in the highest tax bracket?
Regardless, these taxes pay for the roads you drive on.
Also if you ever went to a 'state' school(which I think is the term in the UK) then these taxes paid for your education. Did you get a student loan, well thank taxes.
Either you accept the fact that you pay for the less fortunate, and stop being like scrooge, or you just ignore what else taxes pay for and wallow in your hypocracy.

 

[TheDoctor]

No I'm not in the highest tax bracket, I understand what taxes pay for, I've accepted that I have to pay for the less fortunate and I don't mind paying for the less fortunate. It's the lazy dole scum and the teenage mothers that got knocked up so that they can get council houses and child tax credit that I don't like paying for. Those people do exist and a lot of them live on an estate near my house.

And, through paying my taxes, I'm paying back what other people paid for for me, like school and whatever else (I don't drive), though the the issue here isn't tax in general, it's health care and the tax associated with that.

I don't see why it's a problem to keep what I worked for either. I shouldn't be under obligation to pay for others.

 

[Soul Saver]

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.

Yeah right. All sorts of people have to go to the doctors. A fair portion, my arse. The majority of people in this country get state healthcare. You might have worked very hard and exercised frequently, and yet . Genetics.
Hahaha.

Shouldn't be under obligation to pay for others?

Let's see... so you want a private education system? Private healthcare? Let's just do away with most of the state and turn the whole country into a free-for-all, by that logic.


The American system is bull****. A large amount of people are uninsured, through no fault of their own. American healthcare costs are inflated, much more expensive because companies need to turn a profit. Many hard-working people are excluded from healthcare,
through no fault of their own.

I must agree, however, that lazy people who don't want to work, but can, are paid too much in benefits. Thus, they should be given an incentive and push to work. Benefits should be just enough to get by on, and less than you'd earn from working at the minimum wage for say, 30 hours, after taxes. Removing benefits altogether would be counterproductive, and would cause crime levels and the suffering of children to skyrocket.
There should be plenty of jobs to ensure that everyone can get employment.

Granted, some people don't take enough responsibility for their own lives. So, perhaps the healthcare system does need to be reformed. However, it should not be privatised. Rather, perhaps a state health insurance system would work quite well. However, denying healthcare because they can't afford it is inhumane, even if they are on the dole. They still have families which will needlessly suffer.