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

[Darkside]

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

[JP226]

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

[nopasties]

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.

[Oldgamer]

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.

[Каие]

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.

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.

[Oldgamer]

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.

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?

[mrmouth]

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.

The problem with the WHO study, is the problem with any global study. It doesn't take into account multiple factors, that really cannot be factored into the equation. It is just like calling people in the US fat, by the numbers. But the numbers are different in every country. What classifies me as overweight in the US, would not, in Europe.

The number that is actually calculable, and means anything to me, is the number that shows that in the USA, you are more likley to survive potentially deadly diseases, when compared to the rest of the world. And in the end, although there is a lot of waste, the money we do spend per person, is really just a drop in the bucket, given our budget.

There needs to be reform, but we will continue to spend more than everyone else in a perfect, non government regulated, system.

[ShADoW]

Increases taxes.

[2-D Ron]

Increases taxes.

Then decrease Defence Spending, America spends more on Military than any Country on the Planet.
People inevitably come first.

Oldgamer > You dont think it is bad that a nations economy is solely dependant on being at war?

You're right, how do you fight Al Quieda with an Air Craft Carrier?

[Lord Wiffleby]

Then decrease Defence Spending, America spends more on Military than any Country on the Planet.
People inevitably come first.

Then we shouldn't leave it to the government, the most inept of all institutions. You are being intolerant of individuals who don't give a **** about other peoples problems. If we really cared, we would voluntarily contribute money. You might want to consider the fact that America provides more economic, medical, etc. aid to foreign countries than any other in the world.

Furthermore, I have read countless stories by Christian ministers who have gone to foreign countries to deliver aid. Often, the people they aid urge the missionaries to leave afterward. This is because local forces often slaughter the people, and take the aid. The Armed Forces are supposed to defend the helpless, but it seems like we don't want them to. We'd rather the innocent continue to be slaughtered than do anything about it. Remember, we have an all volunteer army. These individuals, in theory, offered their bodies and lives to the government to do whatever it sees fit (as long as it is legal, mind you). They have, in short, volunteered to give their lives to defend the innocent. Instead, we call it a "local problem," or say that it will cost too much. Since when has a persons life been given a dollar value? The problem is, people don't come first. Idealism does. Thats why instead of giving part of their copious sallery or benefits, politicians decide it is the duty of the taxpayer to aid the sick. I say it is the duty of the individual to follow their moral convictions.

You're right, how do you fight Al Quieda with an Air Craft Carrier?

Let me paint a picture for you. Armed troops are under attack from Al Queada forces, which use guerilla tactics. Once they appear and start attacking, the first thing you do is call in air support. At this point their are two distinct possibilities: 1. the planes are on a nearby Carrier, and succesfully blow the enemeies into teeny peices. 2. the planes take off from the U.S., and don't reach the zone in time. More Americans lives are lost than necessary. Understand?

[Viking Prince]

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.

[Imperator Romani]

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.

[Valiant Champion]

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.

Yes but the health care that the wealthy pay is higher quality while those who can't afford good health care are given horse pills and euthanized care. This is going on in the US right now.

A socialized health care system would allow the poor to recieve the same level of care that only the wealthy can now afford.

In the real world Doctors will turn a cancer patient away or give hime second rate care ,if he can't afford the better treatments.

The Socialized healthcare=euthanasia propaganda is a fallacy.

[Eien]

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.

[Каие]

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?

[S.L.I.G]

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?

I think the debt of Europe [and indeed, north america] has proven that anything to do with big government and regulation is the exact opposite of pragmatic. Universal healthcare is a luxury we can no longer afford. We could never afford. It was a deluded fantasy.

Edit: As for America, the FCC pumps up the prices of drugs, increasing health care costs. Ultimately if you go down the line, its all bureaucratic crap that has ruined the American system.

No as the Athenian Democracy proved it can also be predicated on the consent of the governed.

Thats a complete manipulation of the truth. Athenian democracy was extremely limited in its scope. Those that were governed by and far outweighed those that had franchisement, and doubtlessly would have been butchered had they attempted to change Athens strict social hierarchy. Beyond the fact that Direct Democracy is inherently limited to, well, city states. It's an infeasible system.

Edit: And what of the Tyrants of Athens? These were common as hell in Athenian politics.

[justicar5]

I think the debt of Europe [and indeed, north america] has proven that anything to do with big government and regulation is the exact opposite of pragmatic. Universal healthcare is a luxury we can no longer afford. We could never afford. It was a deluded fantasy.

I call BS, the wars and greedy selfsih idiot banks got us into this mess, The bankers who needed the bailout should be tried for treason.

[S.L.I.G]

I call BS, the wars and greedy selfsih idiot banks got us into this mess, The bankers who needed the bailout should be tried for treason.

The bankers got us into the mess because of Government regulation forcing them to do it through necessity. Beyond that, do you have any idea what a demographic time bomb is? How big the one we are facing? Maybe if we had actual wealth at our disposal we could ride that out with only a major depression, but considering the sorry state of current affairs...back to basics or starve to death. What one do you want?

[justicar5]

The bankers got us into the mess because of Government regulation forcing them to do it through necessity. Beyond that, do you have any idea what a demographic time bomb is? How big the one we are facing? Maybe if we had actual wealth at our disposal we could ride that out with only a major depression, but considering the sorry state of current affairs...back to basics or starve to death. What one do you want?

your the one advocating letting people die needlessly not me, what next work camps and ovens for the old and ill? and on the regulation forcing tha banks to lend I will ask the same question I ask every time I see it stated:SOURCE!

[Holger Danske]

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?

Oh dear no. Then they would become something too close to Socialism which in American terms = Communism.