WHY NOT A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SERVICE FOR EVERYBODY?

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

  1. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    99,213
    Likes Received:
    32,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the US model wants private healthcare providers to handle healthcare
    and the government to handle the insuring - best of both worlds

    the real problem is processed food seems to be causing more metabolic disease and is gonna cost either system too much

    governments are trying to determine how to handle that without upsetting the mega corps by telling them these products are harmful to their health

    "Trump Official Says Diabetes a Preexisting Condition Not Worthy of Coverage"

    https://insulinnation.com/living/tr...t-a-preexisting-condition-worthy-of-coverage/
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2020
  2. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,403
    Likes Received:
    2,513
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WHY NOT A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SERVICE FOR EVERYBODY?
    I agree. Several other members have submitted detailed lists of the advantages of such a system, so there's no need to repeat them here. But I wanted to add my voice to those in support. Our current system is filled with deficiencies that a National Healthcare System could eliminate. In my mind the most disturbing of these are, lack of universal coverage or access to healthcare, the unnecessarily high cost of healthcare, the question of treating pre-existing conditions, and the intolerable reality that our & our family's healthcare access depends upon being employed first. Everyone experiences episodes of unemployment sometime in their lives, & it's incredibly unfair to lose healthcare during those trying times for oneself & one's family--who become innocent victims. Another point, which most of us never thought of before the current Covid pandemic was national scale health emergencies, which a National Healthcare Service would be more adept at dealing with than our 50 separate states have been.
     
  3. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    21,261
    Likes Received:
    5,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bunk. "Taxpayer funded" means anyone with income (which is most adults) chips in.

    Most of these problems, if not all, would be solvable if we in fact had a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". Why don't we go for that?
     
  4. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,186
    Likes Received:
    2,233
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is the amount "chipped in" the same amount for all adults, or do some get to "chip in" very little, while others have to "chip in" large amounts? Does an illegal drug dealer who has no traceable income "chip in" the same amount as a rich lawyer with a large income? Considering that a person with many children would be a larger burden on the medical system than a person with no kids, would a poor janitor with ten kids have to "chip in" more than an upper middle class couple with no kids? Or would it be the other way around?

    As for "of the people, by the people, for the people," lots of people don't want the kind of system that you want. Sorry.

    And of course, there is that Earned Income Credit problem where some adults get back more than they paid in taxes, and you can't "chip in" negative amounts of money.

    But, I am definitely interested in hearing your solution of how all this healthcare would get paid for. So what would determine how much each of us pays?
     
  5. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    21,261
    Likes Received:
    5,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Aren't you familiar with how our tax system works?

    You don't want a system that is "of the people, by the people, for the people"? What is the alternative? "Of the multinational corporations, by the multinational corporations, for the multinational corporations"?
     
    clennan likes this.
  6. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    21,261
    Likes Received:
    5,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is Trump's healthcare plan! It was finally published late yesterday.
    https://trumpcovidplan.com/
     
  7. clennan

    clennan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    930
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Your argument here is contradicted by the fact that the US system - which according to you encourages people to be healthy - has the lowest life expectancy compared to countries with universal healthcare. Clearly, universal healthcare has not encouraged "irresponsible unhealthy behavior".
    This is one big slippery slope fallacy.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020 at 11:57 AM
  8. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,186
    Likes Received:
    2,233
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What you are advocating is that the cost of goods and services be based on the income level of each individual consumer. People with more money necessarily pay more for something than people with less money. That just isn't how things work, nor should it be. A system like that totally negates work ethic, good decisions, self responsibility, and self reliance.

    The system I desire is one where self reliance, intelligence, work ethic, self responsibility, and making good decisions is rewarded, not washed aside and everyone is rewarded the same regardless of their contributions to the system.

    Example:

    Rich Guy: "Hey Mr. Butcher, I want to buy a 5 pound pork roast."
    Butcher: "How much do you make each year?"
    Rich Guy: "$200,000 a year."
    Butcher: "Okay, the pork roast costs $200."

    Poor Guy: "Hey Mr. Butcher, I want to buy a 5 pound pork roast."
    Butcher: "How much do you make each year?"
    Rich Guy: "$10,000 a year."
    Butcher: "Okay, the pork roast costs $10."

    Not the system I want to live in.

    Now, there is nothing stopping private businesses from doing exactly that though. If a liberal butcher wants to charge rich people more than poor people, he is well within his rights to do that.

    And, if an insurance company wants to charge people for their coverage based on how much money they make, they can do that. Liberals should start a national health insurance company and base the cost on the insured's income. No need for government to force this on the people.
     
    joesnagg likes this.
  9. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    21,261
    Likes Received:
    5,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you feel an irresistible need to put words in my mouth so you can oppose supporting government of, by, and for the PEOPLE rather than just answer the question? wow. That is very revealing.
     
  10. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,186
    Likes Received:
    2,233
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If that is not what you are advocating, can you please describe exactly what you are advocating in more detail?

    Using "government of, by, and for the PEOPLE" is nothing but a subjective phrase that gives no meaning to what exactly you are advocating.

    Can you please give a little more depth to exactly what you are advocating? Because it sure seems that you are advocating that some individuals will pay very little for a certain amount of health insurance, while others will pay extremely high amounts for the exact same level of health insurance. Is that what you are supporting, or something different?
     
  11. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    39,901
    Likes Received:
    10,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While I'm 100% for public health (having enjoyed it most of my life), what you say is absolutely true. It definitely exploits the labour of workers.

    My hope is that we one day see public health delivered with conditions which prevent that exploitation. No obese people, no smokers, no drinkers, no drug users, no one with Type II diabetes, no long term unemployed, no non-citizens (this one already exists in my country), no high risk sports, etc etc. It should be managed the way private insurances are managed.

    You want free health care? Better take care of your health. Abuse of one's health will become a 'luxury' of the rich. I mean it already is, technically .. given the poor need to stay alive to 'feed their young' and pay off the house etc, but modern society has all that stuff bass ackwards. Hence the exploitation.
     
  12. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    39,901
    Likes Received:
    10,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Public health isn't about wants, it's about needs. Public health takes care of all your medical NEEDS, in a timely fashion. If you want more than that (private bathroom? fancier vending machines in the hospital lobby?) you can pay for it via private insurances.
     
  13. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    39,901
    Likes Received:
    10,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Of course, there is greater strength in numbers by far. Sharing is the way. Where your position is fundamentally wrong is in the following: Groups are ONLY beneficial to members when they're voluntary - and if they're voluntary they can never be larger than maybe a hundred people, at most. Suggesting that 'society' is your (general you/your) group is simply reinforcing your preference for individualism. That's precisely what individualists do ... abandon actual groups and expect to be able to lean on random strangers. Society is made up of groups who look after their own. They don't give a damn about individualists, and nor should they be expected to - they're already doing the right thing.

    2) Again, 'society' is not your group. A nation is not your group. A city is not your group. Even a Socialist State is nowhere near being a group .. it's merely a society of horribly selfish individualists, no longer capable of forming or keeping groups.

    3) I've been doing just that (growing food, off grid etc) for decades - and I do so in collective. Meantime, the 'support' you call socialism is nothing of the sort. It's simply the benefits of a capitalist democracy, which can afford to pay for first world stuff.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020 at 7:13 PM
    roorooroo likes this.
  14. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    39,901
    Likes Received:
    10,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BINGO!
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020 at 7:40 PM
    roorooroo likes this.
  15. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    39,901
    Likes Received:
    10,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's not forget about the far more numerous parasites .. those who lean on the working stiff by abusing tax-payer funded social programs.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  16. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    21,261
    Likes Received:
    5,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm advocating a government that actually acts for the wellbeing, benefit, and the needs of society as a whole.... --for the people. I'm advocating for the public to make their wishes known, democratically, and for a government that takes us in that direction of service to the people. I'm advocating that the USA be for the people first, . . . --for their wellbeing, and that the people be provided an effective and completely transparent means for making their wishes known as to what's to be done, how it's to be done, and when and where it's to be done, and then for government to transparently process that input and propose and popularize action and legislation to get there.

    Government of the people:
    All barriers to citizens' ability and right and opportunity to vote must be eliminated.

    Government by the people:
    Citizens have the means and opportunity to transparently provide welcomed input to the government

    Government for the people:
    The wellbeing, benefits, wishes and needs of citizens must be transparently addressed in an organized, intelligent, methodical manner to enhance said wellbeing, wishes, and needs.

    Unlike 240 years ago, today we have the means of making this possible.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020 at 10:25 PM
  17. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    21,261
    Likes Received:
    5,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    On what basis are you saying "it sure seems...."?
     
  18. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,186
    Likes Received:
    2,233
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This....
    Person A makes $500,000 a year and has no children... how much should he pay for his government mandated health insurance?
    Person B makes $30,000 a year and has 8 kids... how much should he pay for his family's government mandated health insurance?

    Are you not advocating that Person A should pay a much higher amount for his own insurance than Person B pays for his family of 9? And if you aren't, then what exactly are you advocating? Please explain how you would approach the costs of health insurance for Person A and Person B above. Pretty please, can you give us an actual explanation of what you think should be done for the concrete example I give above?
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020 at 10:45 PM
  19. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    21,261
    Likes Received:
    5,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No.
     

Share This Page