free health care

[Bob Blaylock]

Left and right have been blaming each other way before Obama entertained the thought of being president..

I suppose, then, that you can give some examples of conservative plans authored by Republicans, pushed through both houses of Congress by Republican majorities over the unanimous objection of all Democrats in Congress, signed into law by a Republican President; which failed as catastrophically as the ObamaCare scam is failing, whereupon Republicans made a concerted effort to blame Democrats for the consequences of the failed plans?

 

[copestag]

I suppose, then, that you can give some examples of conservative plans authored by Republicans, pushed through both houses of Congress by Republican majorities over the unanimous objection of all Democrats in Congress, signed into law by a Republican President; which failed as catastrophically as the ObamaCare scam is failing, whereupon Republicans made a concerted effort to blame Democrats for the consequences of the failed plans?

that is quite unfair of you..... they havent written those talking points for the lemmings yet

 

[Thatdad]

I suppose, then, that you can give some examples of conservative plans authored by Republicans, pushed through both houses of Congress by Republican majorities over the unanimous objection of all Democrats in Congress, signed into law by a Republican President; which failed as catastrophically as the ObamaCare scam is failing, whereupon Republicans made a concerted effort to blame Democrats for the consequences of the failed plans?

I hope you're being sarcastic..

 

[pckarma112]

Romney is hardly a conservative. That one plan was supported by a RINO such as Romney is no basis to characterize a badly bloated and distorted version thereof as a

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Have to admit. Very clever use of a phrase to define the opposite of the word right. So, if I am left handed. Im wrong handed?
Back to the Affordable care act. Both partys had a hand in writing it. For either one to lay the entire blame on the other is ridiculous. It was and is politics as usual. Its about as clear as the Mississippi. Take a read at the wiki. Its sad..

Republicans had no role in writing the ObamaCare scam. The Democratic majority completely rejected any and all input offered from outside their party. Republicans unanimously voted against this scam in both houses of Congress. Republicans did everything they could to stop this disaster, but it was at a time when the Democrats were solidly enough in power to act unilaterally against any opposition from outside their party.

Democrats alone are responsible for this mess and for all of the consequences thereof. Of course, as I have already pointed out, it has especially been their method during the Obama Administration to put firth what should obviously be very bad policies and then try to blame their opposition for the results.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Republicans had no role in writing the ObamaCare scam. The Democratic majority completely rejected any and all input offered from outside their party

So .. those years of non-stop negotiation with the Republicans to try to get a non-partisan agreement - the negotiations that completely changed the bill - they didn't happen?

Strange that every single news channel kept on reporting them

Democrats alone are responsible for this mess and for all of the consequences thereof

Apparently, it's now real and far from being the total disaster detractors predicted (well, not so much predicted as fought hard to ensure), after a few minor teething troubles, it's apparently working OK and more and more people are deciding they actually kinda like it.

 

[pckarma112]

Republicans had no role in writing the ObamaCare scam. The Democratic majority completely rejected any and all input offered from outside their party. Republicans unanimously voted against this scam in both houses of Congress. Republicans did everything they could to stop this disaster, but it was at a time when the Democrats were solidly enough in power to act unilaterally against any opposition from outside their party.

Democrats alone are responsible for this mess and for all of the consequences thereof. Of course, as I have already pointed out, it has especially been their method during the Obama Administration to put firth what should obviously be very bad policies and then try to blame their opposition for the results.

I tried to meet you halfway on this. I can see that wont happen. Your response did however prove my point about politics as usual. The fact you will not at least admit there was stupid extremist politics from both party's is proof. Im so tired of it. It's no wonder we can not get anything done that is positive for the people it effects the most. The voters.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I tried to meet you halfway on this. I can see that wont happen. Your response did however prove my point about politics as usual. The fact you will not at least admit there was stupid extremist politics from both party's is proof.

There is no

 

[pckarma112]

My side? How much manning up does it take for your side to stay in denial? At this point and from your opinions expressed. I take it you believe that you are representing for a entire party. Your not. Unless, it begins wifh tea? If so. Then its the lunatic fringe of that party. Debate is pointless. I suppose you might begin to read something from Dr Seuss next....or wait...that didnt happen did it?

 

[jajrussel]

The problem is left wing or right wing no one fixes the problems. They posture, they stand there beating on their chest shouting to the world why they are best. Then they sit down on their ass long enough for someone else to do the same.
Then they cash their checks.

I rest my case...

 

[jajrussel]

The original question was basically what is wrong with the idea of free health care?
The only things wrong that I can see is first the framing of the question. It is not free. The social systems used by various countries have economic infrastructures that have to support the health care system, through taxes, and, or state owned entities that are capable of generating lots if capital.
They tend to be led politically, and have a working bureaucracy.
They are subject to mismanagement, and corruption.
None of these reasons are valid reasons to say no to social medicine.
Individually there is little difference between the cost of insurance, and out of pocket cost, when compared to a tax. It already effects my income.
I am labeled a liberal and a leftist, but my life is so conservative that it puzzles me why anyone would label any politician a conservative? The only application that I can find is that they tend to be resistant to change.
So, in that regard moving from a quasi capitalist system to a full socialist system might be viewed as too large a change.
Mismanagement, and corruption exist in any system. At best we can only hope to control it. A social medical system would localize both mismanagement and corruption making them easier to deal with. It would also make dealing with them more cost effective.
Bureaucracies, tend to stabilize a system, and in my opinion theirs is the only resistance to change that we should have to deal with.
Effective social change is too difficult to accomplish politically. Politically the only thing resistant to change should be the laws that they enact. When they effect social change effort should be made to accomplish the goal, but all there is, is resistance.
We shouldn't still be fighting over is the health care plan right or wrong. It was voted on and said to be constitutional. We should be figuring out what problems it does not solve, which problems it causes, and fix them.
Not one corporation would have achieved the success they enjoy if every time they made a decision their competition were allowed to second guess their decisions, and interfere.
Personally, I would prefer a social medical care system, but this quasi capitalist system is what we have. I don't like having to constantly live conservatively, but it is my nature to do so. It is my not having a choice that bothers me.
And that is the answer to the original question. It is not that we wouldn't preferer free medicine it is that we don't have that choice. We have to choose from the choices we are given. It is not a matter of preference.

 

[SiempreTuna]

A social medical system would localize both mismanagement and corruption making them easier to deal with. It would also make dealing with them more cost effective

It would also appear to make healthcare quite a bit cheaper, too: prior to Obamacare, the US spent around 17% of GDP on healthcare (the largest proportion of GDP of any developed country, by some way) while the UK spent around 10% and also covered a larger proportion of the population than the US.

 

[Bootlegger]

This whole "Free Healthcare System" has screwed me over royally, I have been receiving R.S.D.I. (Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) for 8 years now and since this whole crap...my income dramatically decreases and or fluctuates in which has caused me to become homeless on/off. Obamacare has screwed me over more then it has helped, when I move...I move a lot, I try so hard to not transfer my benefits over to the new State/County...fear that my benefits will be altered and possibly become homeless again since it's difficult to pay rent when at times I will merely get $500 for a month or less. I can't work due to doctor/court order and liability for said companies insurance program. Unfortunately I am dependent on Social Security Income for the remainder of my life and no I didn't get on it to be fat and lazy...I shouldn't have to defend myself whenever I bring this up but if I have to I will!

Anyways, I have been to 33 States so far and out of them all...my benefits still get altered and messed up. Before anyone says "well, you move a lot so that is probably what is going on."...nope, I am allowed to freely move about and continue to receive my benefits. It is only till I transfer my benefits from one State/County to another due to every state having different "Healthcare Plans" for that State/County.

I am one of those individuals who's getting hurt by this clusterpuck in which is attempting to mimic what Canada has...they do it best (50% of your earnings goes towards taxes...everyone's) and that is not only how they do it but yeah.

I rarely admit to this online forums but this community seems mature enough to speak (well...type) freely without the possibility of public flaming and what not.

It's not free, nothing in life is ever free!

*I feel like I am going to regret posting this but oh well, I am an open book to begin with...it's not shame I am afraid of, it's the uncalled for backlash that involves individuals political beliefs.

 

[jajrussel]

Usually when one hears of Canadians paying 50% of their income in taxes the method of calculation includes all taxes out of pocket, not just payroll deductions.

Buy a car pay a tax it is counted. Buy a hotdog pay a tax it is counted. Buy fuel pay a tax it is counted. Pay your phone bill pay a tax it is counted, and so on and so on.

I am sure that should we use the same method of calculation here in America we would blow Canada out of the water.

The calculation method is interesting, but appears to be a favored method when presenting a con, not necessarily an illegal con, but still a con.

I would liken it to someone saying that the average pay in a country is 70$ a week compared to another country where the average pay a week is 500$. We are expected to believe that 70$ is bad, and 500$ is good.

The truth is that money is worth what it will buy. The average standard of living in both countries is going to be about the same. They both buy cars, have cell phones, pay their rent, and so on.

I once saw a video where the speaker was trying to convince me just how pour a country was compared to mine. I might have been convinced if he hadn't chosen to make his statement on a street circle in heavy non stop traffic. Not a single car, and there were a lot of them, that went by looked any where near as beat up as the twenty year old wreck I was driving at the time.

If what we are expected to believe was actually true. Americans would not be retiring in America. We would head some place where our retirement incomes would allow us to live like kings, and queens, and everyone would have their own Brooklyn bridge.

 

[sntaylor]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-s--...untries-in-health-care-quality-162331309.html

Think this is what seimpre is getting at.

USA finished last while UK finished first, I believe in my op I mentioned that it is not free as it's paid for by taxes, but it, as proven, is a damn site better than the alternative insurance based options!

So again, why won't America copy this model? Too many people would lose out on cash! From the top down, from an outside view American politics is one of the most corrupt, essentially being paid off by companies, but this is legitimized by calling it (ok I have a mind blank, but you know what I'm taking about....) and then there are too many others involved in squeezing money out the system, coming from you, the people paying, to line everyone else's pockets!

At least over here we pay the tax to government and it goes more or less directly to the healthcare system.No insurance companies taking their cuts(well, far fewer!) the next people getting money is the hospital staff/equipment!

 

[SiempreTuna]

It's not free, nothing in life is ever free

No argument there: this entire discussion is about how you pay for healthcare - and in particular, how you help the less well off afford healthcare at all.

Usually when one hears of Canadians paying 50% of their income in taxes the method of calculation includes all taxes out of pocket, not just payroll deductions

Sounds like you're referring to comparing tax burdens as a %age of GDP.

Using those figures, it's true that the UK and Canada pay more than the US:

Canada 32%
UK 39%
US 27%

What that completely fails to take into account though, is that tax in the UK and Canada pays for a lot of things Americans have to pay for out of their own pockets - like healthcare.

It's like comparing each country's shopping bill at the Wholefoods but ignoring the fact that the UK and Canada get everything there while the US also has to buy a bunch of additional stuff at Kroger and Safeway.

 

[dynomot]

I am an advocate for our NHS service in the UK. A statement that more than 95% of the UK population could probably associate with. The politician who wanted to cut it's funding, alter it's "free at the point of need" ethos would never get elected if they so much as hinted at this.

It is not "free" , not by any stretch of the imagination, it is however "free at the point of need", meaning if I break my leg it is repaired and all surgeries, hospital admissions and stays, diagnosis, physiotherapy etc. Don't cost a penny beyond what I have contributed from my income tax. It is free to use for any body in the UK (not just tax payers or even British citizens although foreign nationals are meant to repay the cost of treatment, they seldom do). My broken leg would be restored to the best standard of any health care system in the world, and indeed my left leg has been.

My take on heath care in a modern democratic society is one where everyone contributes through taxes and is free at the point of need for all should be the norm. While our NHS is far from perfect I belive it is the best solution to healthcare in a (relatively) rich democracy. Having said all this I an not naive enough to blissfully believe our UK system can go on providing what it does without an increase in taxes, and a big increase at that. We are all living longer, treatments are getting more and more complicated, effective and expensive. The people that would have died under any healthcare system just a decade ago now live happy lives for much longer with expensive therapies.

So what do I say to the politicians in the UK with six months to go to a general election? I say be honest with us, level with us. If our NHS needs more funds and resources and we are all going to have to pay more for it, so be it. Don't tinker with "efficiency measures" and "cost cutting" it doesn't work and costs more than it saves to implement and stokes the creation of extra bureaucracy anyway. Any politician who actually tells the electorate how it is and how much they would need to raise taxes to keep the NHS "free" and world class would have nothing to fear, but I'm asking for an honest politician here, and to the detriment of the NHS and politics and society in general I'm not going to get one.