I'm just curious. Personally I'm all for it.

because it's a beaureacratic nightmare of an answer to a very real economic problem.

Increases taxes.

Define the system and then I will tear the proposal apart.

Seriously, there are so many proposals floating around that will never see the light of a Congressional hearing -- you need to be more precise in what you are supporting. It also helpd to explain why it is a good proposal as well.

We already have a form of socialized medicine with immediate emergancy care open to all, provisions of the tax code, Veteran's benefits, Medicaid, and Medicare. There are many aspects to a social safety net. The majority of citizens do not wany people to lack for needed medical care due to poverty. this does not mean that any proposal is desired or even helpful to solve the issues of financing such care.

Health Insurance is a bureaucratic nightmare. The US spends mmore than twice as much per person on health care than any other country and is ranked 37th in the world according to the World Health Organization. America is against 'socialized health care' because of the AMA and insurance company lobbyists.

For people who actually work, they get taxed alot more. I don't know about you, but I don't like people in my pockets. The health care is ONLY FREE TO SOME PEOPLE, the others pay for it.

Socialized medicine will result in a huge bureaucracy, intrusion into every aspect of the individual's life, and the government deciding who will live and die. All of this, along with the destruction of the American economy, and the virtual annihilation of the private insurance sector.

well, dunno abt USA, over here in malaysia, we pay rm1(rm3.50=1usd) for general treatment/consultation, and most treatments in government hospitals are heavily subsidized, although the wait time can be a lil long. Here, both the private hospitals are triving, well partly due to the general mindset of private hospitals being better than govt ones.

The French and Scandinavian systems are the best in the world, whereas the US system is down behind whole bunch of third world countries. Tell me, why should you hold dear dogma instead of taking a pragmatic approach to seeing why those systems are so good and attempt to change it?

Viking the emergency care may be open to all but your be smacked with a huge bill afterwards. Plus if you ever fall down at work and require an ambulance ride expect to pay 2-5k for a couple mile ride. Even if you have insurance you have to pay the private ambulances, that is pathetic. Necessary medical operations should be subsidized by the government.

When i lived in the states, I would be sick very often due to me having bad health when i was young and would have to frequently have to visit the doctors or go to the hospital, but i was lucky since my dad received health insurance. I don't know to what extent it covered or if it was 100% free but i never recalled him complaining about any bills, i should ask him about it.

Rome Kb8 said:

The French and Scandinavian systems are the best in the world, whereas the US system is down behind whole bunch of third world countries. Tell me, why should you hold dear dogma instead of taking a pragmatic approach to seeing why those systems are so good and attempt to change it?

Click to expand...

Too bad Canada's healthcare isn't as good as theirs, although we may have free health care ours is pretty crappy. My mom rather pay in the states to receive good medical help then go to some free clinic and receive crappy health care here.

Oldgamer said:

Socialized medicine will result in a huge bureaucracy, intrusion into every aspect of the individual's life, and the government deciding who will live and die. All of this, along with the destruction of the American economy, and the virtual annihilation of the private insurance sector.

Click to expand...

Christ, exaggerate much?

Bureaucracy is unavoidable in the medical profession, and it happens in the current US system and private hospitals too. It is minimised because not as many people use private hospitals as public ones. In effect it is the result of exclusion which lowers the bureaucracy as opposed to superior techniques. It does intrude in anyone's life whatsoever. The government doesn't have to decide anything. The UK NHS is not ran by the government, and certainly they do not choose who lives and who dies. That is overly melodramatic. I also cannot see how it would destroy the American economy. That is a completely dishonest assertion.

Darkside said:

I'm just curious. Personally I'm all for it.

Click to expand...

I'm not an American but I will tell you the real answer:

During the Cold War, Americans have learned to associate the word "social" with "evil".
Anything with the word "socialized" in it will be shot down without even investigating it.

lol

Яome kb8;5420629 said:

Christ, exaggerate much?

Bureaucracy is unavoidable in the medical profession, and it happens in the current US system and private hospitals too. It is minimised because not as many people use private hospitals as public ones. In effect it is the result of exclusion which lowers the bureaucracy as opposed to superior techniques. It does intrude in anyone's life whatsoever. The government doesn't have to decide anything. The UK NHS is not ran by the government, and certainly they do not choose who lives and who dies. That is overly melodramatic. I also cannot see how it would destroy the American economy. That is a completely dishonest assertion.

Click to expand...

77% of the American people are content with their medical system. It isn't broke. Why break it?

Note that I don't make dishonest assertions, when I am convinced of the truth of something. Once again, a personal friend at the Treasury Dept. is convinced that 100 million people will get rid of their private systems ... which they have to pay for ... and go "public". Can you possibly imagine what that will cost?

However, let's take a look at the UK's NHS. Gordon Brown is not standing in a ward and saying, "Let that one die, and that one lives," and so on. However, there are laws governing the dispersal of life-saving treatment, and if the choice is between an otherwise healthy 25-year old, and a 70-year old, you know what the government's physicians will do, don't you?

The NHS is not run by the government? Now, who's being dishonest?

@Erik
Like us social conservatives?

MathiasOfAthens said:

Viking the emergency care may be open to all but your be smacked with a huge bill afterwards. Plus if you ever fall down at work and require an ambulance ride expect to pay 2-5k for a couple mile ride. Even if you have insurance you have to pay the private ambulances, that is pathetic. Necessary medical operations should be subsidized by the government.

Click to expand...

First -- if you are injured at work -- the ambulance is billed to your employer.

The fact that you are billied does not mean that you will ulimately be required to pay. It depends on personal finances, circumstances around the reason the emergancy care wasw provided, and other factors.

If you are financially able to pay, you should pay. Any other system encourages abuse and middleman padding of costs.

Also, I have no idea where you are getting the "2-5k for a couple mile ride".

Oldgamer said:

@Erik
Like us social conservatives?

Click to expand...

Your State hasn't been in the union as long as the other 50, so there are still some cultural deviations.

Why do my fellow Americans hate the idea of socialized health care?

Click to expand...

Because, they were told to hate it?

Because, the insurance companies fear it?

Because, to change would mean upsetting things, and change is scary...? The US the very last nation on earth to embrace the Metric System and Evolutionary Theory, what did you expect...?

The metric system is aloooot better than the damn Imperial system and much easier to follow.

You know the interesting thing is going to be how they set this up so you can still sue.

You see lawyers give 100's of millions to the democrat party (and very very little to republicans) in order to maintain the lawsuit culture in the US. They have bought the democratic party, and this goes largely unreported. Its makes things like 'big tobacco' seem like a bake sale in terms of campaign funds.

The problem with government run care is who pays for the lawsuits?

They will NOT give those up. In my state, Obamas 'home' state, they even talked about the government picking up the tab for malpractice pay outs rather than even look at the unrealistic pay outs, meanwhile doctors flee the state for happier places.

I can see that being part of the national plan. Lawyers getting rich of taxpayer money on the frivolous lawsuit bandwagon.

Oldgamer said:

77% of the American people are content with their medical system. It isn't broke. Why break it?

Note that I don't make dishonest assertions, when I am convinced of the truth of something. Once again, a personal friend at the Treasury Dept. is convinced that 100 million people will get rid of their private systems ... which they have to pay for ... and go "public". Can you possibly imagine what that will cost?

Click to expand...

You're acting as if the personal insurance system works already. If it did, those people wouldn't get rid of it, and stay in the private hospitals. But as people have said, the American system of insurance means people still have to pay more on top for ambulances beds and all kinds of nonsense. How on earth is that evidence of efficiency? If the health insurance itself doesn't pay for everything and hospitals must maximise profits elsewhere?

As for the cost of the system. One abolish the Federal government, it cannot do anything and is criminally inefficient. Leave this universal healthcare to the States and districts to manage. Secondly, trim the military budget and all the other nonsense government wastes money on, The amount of waste in the US budget is unbelievable. Obama's ''stimulus'' bill I heard had some half a billion dollars of spending on condoms and contraceptives a tragic failure of the ''ear marks'' culture in American government spending. I suggest you adopt the methods of fiscal conservatism, finding qualitative methods to deal with thing and not solely quantitative solutions.

However, let's take a look at the UK's NHS. Gordon Brown is not standing in a ward and saying, "Let that one die, and that one lives," and so on. However, there are laws governing the dispersal of life-saving treatment, and if the choice is between an otherwise healthy 25-year old, and a 70-year old, you know what the government's physicians will do, don't you?

Click to expand...

There aren't laws governing that all. No idea where you got that from. There are NHS trusts, independent from the government completely, which choose how to use and allocate the available resources. I believe some of them are even elected. Individual doctors choose who to treat based on age or condition. At least study the system you wish to bash before saying it is awful and doesn't work.

The NHS is not run by the government? Now, who's being dishonest?

Click to expand...

So, the secretary of State for Health literally runs the hospitals does he?

Яome kb8;5421312 said:

You're acting as if the personal insurance system works already.

Click to expand...

It works just fine, and it covers things like ambulances and the like just fine. Being many ambulances are run by private companies the billing would be separate. Woopdido. Playing a football game in college two of the players got hurt enough to need an ambulance. In a small town of about 40k residents and 30k students we had an ambulance show up in about 5 minutes. After they took them away we had 2 other ambulances show up (private again) in the next 10 minutes. This sort of thing is inefficient to people who can't see how having 3 show up in a total of 15 minutes is better for the patient than one show up in 40. The same applies to hospitals. They compete for patients, which means they offer more services then they have to, and they have redundancy with each other. 'Efficient' to the bureaucrat, hell no, but its awesome if you have to go.

The reason of course people would DROP their insurance is who would want to keep paying if the magic government said they would foot the bill?

Phier said:

In a small town of about 40k residents and 30k students we had an ambulance show up in about 5 minutes. After they took them away we had 2 other ambulances show up (private again) in the next 10 minutes. This sort of thing is inefficient to people who can't see how having 3 show up in a total of 15 minutes is better for the patient than one show up in 40.

Click to expand...

Huh?

Are you implying countries with socialized health care have slower ambulances?

And 3 showing up instead of 1 IS inefficient, no matter how you look at it.

because they have never been on their ass with nobody to turn too and needing medical care?

Socialized health care is 1. inefficient, 2. wasteful, 3. removes choice between different coverage and providers, 4. will increase our national debt by trillions, 5. will make most insurance companies go out of business (not very smart to bankrupt a whole division of the economy in a recession), 6. stifle innovation, 7. stifle cost-cutting, and I could keep going on. It would be great to get everyone insurance, but its much better to do it through the private sector, not via the government. The government is the problem, not the answer to most situations.

you know that right now our PRIVATE health care system is costing us more than a public one would?

What this country needs is a clean up of the health care system, and new laws to regulate it. The amount of corruption in health care in America is staggering. It is a business, making money off the sick, just like the pharmaceutical companies.

Phier said:

It works just fine, and it covers things like ambulances and the like just fine. Being many ambulances are run by private companies the billing would be separate. Woopdido. Playing a football game in college two of the players got hurt enough to need an ambulance. In a small town of about 40k residents and 30k students we had an ambulance show up in about 5 minutes. After they took them away we had 2 other ambulances show up (private again) in the next 10 minutes. This sort of thing is inefficient to people who can't see how having 3 show up in a total of 15 minutes is better for the patient than one show up in 40. The same applies to hospitals. They compete for patients, which means they offer more services then they have to, and they have redundancy with each other. 'Efficient' to the bureaucrat, hell no, but its awesome if you have to go.

Click to expand...

So, 3 ambulances showing up in a small town is evidence of efficiency? As I said before the American system works on exclusion. It;s easier to be efficient if less people use it. The costs will be lower when less people use it. We tried the competition thing in England, the internal market, it was a disaster which resulted in doctors and hospitals, competing for patients and working according to results which resulted in firstly a fall in standards and an increase in deaths and ill-health. Genius isn't it.

Your system is riddled with poor standards and problems. This of course is blamed on other things like sub standard doctors, and other problems. Furthermore in the UK have now privatised many of the health cares systems which results in them having to watch the budget and their is a direct correlation between poorer health standards and the increase in super bugs and hospitals paying more attention to money, PFI and contracts then care. The fact is your system is not great. Far far from it. The best systems are here in Europe. For every 'good' anecdote you give me, there is an awful one. For every bad one you give about the NHS and Europe, there is a brilliant one.

The point of health care is to...look after people and keep people healthy and alive. Not to make a buck. It's simply a fact. Your system discriminates against people who are genuinely ill. I've read the list of how you are unable to get insurance if you are actually ill already, I.e. have a condition. As insurance works, the aim is not to cover people, but cover as least amount of people as possible and then of those you've covered actually pay as little as possible or if possible none at all. Any loophole or gap in the law or contract to avoid paying.

The best way to run health care is the government primarily funds it, out of general taxation, but the actual system is managed by the doctors and professionals themselves. That has the dual effect of eliminating the pathetic insurance system and of eliminating bureaucracy, inefficiency and improving standards. In other words Conservative Party policy. You;re going to pay out of your salary anyway, might as well be from general tax at about 2%-3% of your salary goes to health care, than to give about 10-15% to private companies plus pay more for everything on top like ambulances and beds.

The reason of course people would DROP their insurance is who would want to keep paying if the magic government said they would foot the bill?

Click to expand...

Well no. We have health insurance and private care in the UK too. Plenty of people use it as sometimes it is better. If the American private insurance system and hospitals are as good as you say, why wouldn't people use it?Why would they opt for the evil bureaucratic and inefficient public ones? Ah, yes, that's because the difference between public and private isn't standards, it's price. So by making that point you concede actually your system is bad, so bad in fact, that people would abandon it to go to the public ones. They'd rather go to a rubbish one paid from their salaries in tax, then one paid in insurance and even more.

CtrlAltDe1337 said:

Socialized health care is 1. inefficient, 2. wasteful, 3. removes choice between different coverage and providers, 4. will increase our national debt by trillions, 5. will make most insurance companies go out of business (not very smart to bankrupt a whole division of the economy in a recession), 6. stifle innovation, 7. stifle cost-cutting, and I could keep going on. It would be great to get everyone insurance, but its much better to do it through the private sector, not via the government. The government is the problem, not the answer to most situations.

Click to expand...

Keep watching Fox news.

Яome kb8;5421964 said:

Well no. We have health insurance and private care in the UK too. Plenty of people use it as sometimes it is better. If the American private insurance system and hospitals are as good as you say, why wouldn't people use it?Why would they opt for the evil bureaucratic and inefficient public ones? Ah, yes, that's because the difference between public and private isn't standards, it's price. So by making that point you concede actually your system is bad, so bad in fact, that people would abandon it to go to the public ones. They'd rather go to a rubbish one paid from their salaries in tax, then one paid in insurance and even more.

Click to expand...

No one, unless they are upper middle class or rich, will keep their private coverage if the government taxes them more to pay for socialized insurance, as they won't have enough money in their budget to pay for their regular insurance. If the government can magically institute socialized medicine without raising the cost to taxpayers at all, then they can go ahead. But I don't want to pay extra taxes to give health insurance to some poor bum, and get worse coverage myself.

Keep watching Fox news.

Click to expand...

Fallacies don't help your position very much, sorry