WHY NOT A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SERVICE FOR EVERYBODY?

Discussion in 'Health Care' started by LafayetteBis, Oct 20, 2019.

  1. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Damn right it is. Glad to see some folks are still pro choice.
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  2. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,138
    Likes Received:
    7,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Anyone who objects to spending taxpayer money on healthcare is a selfish bastard who cares nothing about this country. For the simple reason that if you want a happy prosperous country, one of the basic requirements for that is that its citizens are as healthy as possible. Its just common sense.
     
    LafayetteBis likes this.
  3. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How much taxpayer money should we spend on healthcare? Is there a limit? Is there a point at which we can say 'you have to start paying yourself'?

    At what point can we stop covering this guy?

    If theres no limit, we'll all eventually go bankrupt trying to keep morons alive. Then no one will be healthy. So where's the limit?

    0c67a422c7103c46.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2020
    Richard The Last and James Knapp like this.
  4. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,138
    Likes Received:
    7,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Yep there's a limit, that's one of the things that needs to be worked out.
     
  5. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    US HAS LOWEST LIFE-EXPECTANCY

    When the process is in place, from birth, the limit does not become a problem. That is, one's access immediately to medical-care allows one to live a fine lifestyle - unless there is accidental harm involved.

    There is not such thing as an "ER" in Europe. Yes, there are wait-lines in some high-population cities, but one is attended to properly. Just two weeks ago, a friend had one of her eye's shut-down. She called an eye-doctor who said she needed immediate surgery. Which she obtained within a few days.

    The eye is now repaired and she is well on her way to seeing through it again. All of which is "normal practice" here in France.

    As I keep saying, the link between lifespan and national healthcare is real and definitive - which is why Europeans live on average four years more than Americans.

    If you don't believe that then see graphic comparison Health Systems Tracker: The U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth among comparable countries
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2020
  6. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes,the Democrats promise to provide free healthcare to everyone in the world. Anyone anywhere in the world can travel here, get all their medical care for free - heart transplant, open heart surgery, any medical care no matter how many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs - and then just go back home. They can not be stopped from coming nor made to leave. Every American then gets in line with and behind 7,400,000,000 other people waiting for their free medical care.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  7. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Democratic Party does insist that the WalMart heirs at over $100 billion and Jeff Bezos at about $70 billion are WAY TOO POOR to provide medical care to their employees and instead demand the employees and other blue collar workers pay for everyone's medical insurance.

    The Democratic Party's economic plan REALLY is WELFARE FOR THE RICH at the expense of working people and demand the government pay for their employees - meaning demanding YOU finance Jeff Bezos and WalMart employees.

    Most Democrats sob at how poor Jeff Bezos, the WalMart heirs and other super rich are.
     
  8. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bollocks! All of it.

    You're feeding off the BS that infests your skulls since birth! Such as, "All is fine in America, we're the Greatest Country on Earth!"

    Well, that GCoE has an average lifespan that is four years less than those poor-slobs over in the European Union (which all have a National Healthcare System).

    As well, how about the country/countries that have statistically the Highest Poverty levels? See this graphic here. Which country is next-to-last with the highest percentage of people living below the Poverty Threshold? Uncle Sam's!

    Eat your heart out! Literally ... !
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  9. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Really stoopid response!

    The NHS (National Healthcare System) hospitals in Europe allow only country nationals in!

    You see, we have something called a National Identity Card that one carries for life. Without that card, you get no national-service attention whatsoever? Not even a permit-to-work ...
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
    clennan likes this.
  10. Lee S

    Lee S Moderator Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,636
    Likes Received:
    2,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The graphic you chose is grossly misleading. The whole picture of health care spending can be found here:

    https://www.nationalpriorities.org/...cal year 2015, the,child in the United States.

    Why is the graphic misleading? Because it is only looking at discretionary spending and not total spending. Mandatory spending is more than two times greater than discretionary spending and the largest chunk of healthcare spending (Medicare and Medicaid) is in the mandatory spending category. The graphic is deceptive in that it leads to the mis-informed narrative that the military eats up more than half of all tax dollars when it only uses 15.88% of the total Federal budget.

    One could honestly make a case that 15.88% of our federal budget is too much to spend to keep us safe in a world where the likes of North Korea and possibly Iran have nuclear weapons and Canada is looming over us like a snow lynx, ready to pounce the moment we let down our guard. but if that is one's attention, then let us talk about real numbers based upon actual real spending and not the mythical 52% based on cherry picking categories.
     
    modernpaladin and roorooroo like this.
  11. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A FAR BETTER NATION

    Deceptive, me arse:
    [​IMG]

    And another thing:

    [​IMG]


    As I never tire of saying: We'd be better off as a nation to reduce drastically DoD-spending and put the money into National Healthcare and Post-secondary education for our kids ... !
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  12. Lee S

    Lee S Moderator Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,636
    Likes Received:
    2,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Defense spending is 1/6th of the total Federal Government spending budget according to the non-partisan CBO.

    https://www.cbo.gov/topics/defense-and-national-security

    Defense spending is not 52% of the total Federal budget. To say that you are talking about 52% discretionary spending leads the gullible to the impression that the Federal Government is spending half of all tax dollars on the military which simply isn't true. Why don't you simply state that the military consumes 100% of the defense budget? It is about as informative as the 52% figure.
     
  13. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    disagree, the CBO is never 'non-partisan'.

    secondly most tax dollars go to the military, it is expensive to be the world super power. private military contractors saved the taxpayer money in the iraq war.
     
  14. Lee S

    Lee S Moderator Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,636
    Likes Received:
    2,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most tax dollars go to Medicare and Social Security which combine for 39% of the federal Budget:

    https://www.fool.com/taxes/2017/04/06/where-do-your-tax-dollars-actually-go.aspx

    Military spending is less than half the combined cost of Medicare and Social Security.
     
  15. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    incorrect, President Trump abolished the payroll tax for entitlements through executive order.

    most tax dollars go to military spending because it can never be fully privatized.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2020
  16. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Interesting, I would not have described myself that way.... but OK.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  17. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    12,831
    Likes Received:
    5,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We've always had a national healthcare system which everyone is ignoring. It's called freedom. In general, the healthier you live, the healthier you are. And if you do not live healthy, then you will suffer the consequences of your unhealthy choices. Why should someone who makes the sacrifices to be healthy, be forced to pay for the medical care of someone who does not? And how can a system without regard for that basic principle of personal accountability be successful or sustainable. Without accountability, such a system will eventually encourage irresponsible unhealthy behavior from everyone. Then everyone will be in poor health and there will not be enough resources to support it. This will result in the forced micromanagement of every detail of everyone's life....what, when and how much to eat, sleep, exercise and so on. Life will be like a prison or a boot camp. Why commit to such an exercise in futility? So when you talk about a national healthcare system, why not be honest and say what you really mean. Say that you want to take away our rights and our constitution and to dictate each and every aspect of our lives, including our hobbies and leisure time and which task or job we have to fill to satisfy the collective. Also explain to us who is wise enough to know how to tailor guidelines to the needs of 330 million different individuals. We are not all the same. I'm all for safety nets. But collectivism is a trap, rather than a net.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2020
    roorooroo likes this.
  18. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,210
    Likes Received:
    3,844
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never understood why in this argument between liberals and conservatives in the USA over bringing in a universal single payer health care system, the point is never made by or to the conservatives that private businesses should not be held responsible for the cost of health care for their employees that isn't directly caused by the job itself (such as in hazardous workplaces). That sounds like a conservative argument for universal single payer. Why should the employer carry all this expense instead of everyone in society equally?
     
  19. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good point. No reason an employer should pay for an employee's health care. I'm thinking an employer should not pay for an employee's vacation time either, or for paid holidays or paternity leave or any sick leave unless the illness or injury was job related.

    There is always "over the counter" health insurance. I carried my own health coverage when I was self employed and when I worked for employers who did not offer insurance benefits.

    So bottom line there is no reason for a national health care for everybody. Health care for everyone already exists. All one has to do to have coverage is pay for it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2020
  20. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But it was suggested by some at this forum that the wealthy will just hide their money in off shore accounts or some other way.
     
  21. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,210
    Likes Received:
    3,844
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And therein lays the problem. Not everyone can afford it. And when it is tied to your job, you suddenly lose it when you can least afford to.

    The other problem with this insurance based health care is that it has led hospitals to vastly inflate prices for everything (since it is presumed insurance will pay for it). That racket not only drives up your premiums but also makes serious illness unaffordable to those who can’t afford or otherwise lack insurance.

    I suppose the root question is whether you think getting sick should possibly land you in bankruptcy or not.
     
  22. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The key problem is that the medical profession and the industry it operates in is not by definition a classic free market. It has high barriers to entry reducing competition and the demand demand is highly inelastic (almost vertical). In a classic market rising prices reduces demand this is NOT strictly the case in medicine.

    In a normal market environment the consumer has product choice and a price point at which they can afford enter the market i.e. make a purchase. This is not the case in medicine. In (very) simple terms if you need an tonsillectomy you need a tonsillectomy. The Doctor is not going to say 'well if you cant afford that surgery we have special going on colonoscopies. Would you like one of those instead.' Beyond the choice of generic vs brand name medications there very little leeway for product substitution.

    The end result is power is very much weighed towards the seller not the buyer in the health care industry and in such circumstances you always get distortions in pricing and service delivery that do not normally occur in 'normal' market places.

    This is also the reason most Western Nations have National Health Schemes, not because their still wedded to the concept of socialism (if they ever were) but because no-one, no-where where has ever found a means of letting the State step back from market intervention in the health system without service levels collapsing. And the only 'model' for a free enterprise health care delivery system they have as template is the US Health Care System - which fails against virtually every metric you can find in terms of cost, efficacy and coverage compared to what they already have.

    So all those market purists out there. Off you go, invent the perfect free market health care system that provides universal or near universal affordable national health care and a Nobel Prize in economics is in the offing. I won't hold my breath waiting though.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2020
  23. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Milton Friedman should get another Nobel then, since he already invented it.

    It requires, however, that Medical Licenses be awarded by test and internship entirely since it would remove any schooling whatsoever as a requirement.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2020
  24. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Friedman actually noted that the National Health Systems implemented by the UK, Australian and France etc produced superior outcomes to the the US model.
     
  25. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    as an example, without pre-existing conditions - anyone that caught covid could pay more in insurance for the rest of their lives
     

Share This Page