Should america have socialized medicine?

[vopohame]

Facts are we pay more per person than any other country and we are no where near the top on quality health care measurements like life expectancy, infant mortality etc.
Secondly expenses from health care is one of the most damaging problems in resulting bankruptcy for americans. I am one it cost me 100,000 american dollars after what insurance paid for my son to be born.

Thirdly there are more americans without insurance than most countries have people.

Fourthly The vast majority of americans with insurance barely have any especially if you read the find print and find out what diseases and conditions do not apply to your overall plan. For me I found out my wife's condition does not apply and nor did my premature birth of my infant son apply. For most americans health care drops when you lose your job even if its because of the disease. Sure you can pay double the premiums but most americans cannot without a job. Such as my mom who is dying of cancer without insurance.

I am also a conservative. So this is not a liberal rant.

[JP226]

I think the problem with helathcare is too much of it is socialized.

[Bwaho]

I would have to say I'm in favor nationalized healthcare. The thought of a human (doctor in this case) refusing to take care of another human in need because his credit card doesn't work kind of puts me off.

I am one it cost me 100,000 american dollars after what insurance paid for my son to be born.

wow... I hope he was worth it! (kidding!!!)

[Sidmen]

I'd have to say that I'm for nationalized health care as well. Insurance companies just don't care enough to actually work, and the fact that they will take care of this disease but not that one kinda makes me mad. At the very least we need to regulate the industry so those kinds of loopholes no longer exist.

Basic health care and life saving surgery should be a necessity not a luxury for the rich. I would say more but I have to go...

[Bwaho]

Insurance companies just don't care enough to actually work, and the fact that they will take care of this disease but not that one kinda makes me mad. At the very least we need to regulate the industry so those kinds of loopholes no longer exist.

and insurance companies are not big fans of preventative health care.

[Last Roman]

I'm usually against nationalization, but in the case of the health of a person, they shouldn't be denied because they don't have insurance or otherwise can't afford it. I'm for it, but at a state, not federal, level.

[Freddie]

Perhaps you could have a basic level of free/socialised healthcare, whereby consultations are paid for. I'm just thinking out loud here, there are a lot of countries that do state run healthcare to a good standard such as German, Canada and Sweden, sadly the UK isn't one of them.

[Denny Crane!]

State healthcare is the only way to go up to a certain point. You can't refuse life saving treatments based on what premium you pay. Anything else though should be privatised. No way should people get cosmetic or unneccesary treatment for nothing.

Peter

[Freddie]

State healthcare is the only way to go up to a certain point. You can't refuse life saving treatments based on what premium you pay. Anything else though should be privatised. No way should people get cosmetic or unneccesary treatment for nothing.

Peter

But then if you lost half your face in a road accident shouldn't state healthcare extend to that person?

[Denny Crane!]

But then if you lost half your face in a road accident shouldn't state healthcare extend to that person?

Hmmm Thinking more unnecessary cosmetic, people can get nose resculpturing in our current system. Was the person getting a sex change and urban myth? Supposedly on our NHS.

I would argue that from a government POV a person losing his face getting cosmetic surgery works in a cost benefit analysis since that person would be incapable or working lest, and probably spend a lifetime in therapy.

Peter

[Freddie]

Hmmm Thinking more unnecessary cosmetic, people can get nose resculpturing in our current system. Was the person getting a sex change and urban myth? Supposedly on our NHS.

I would argue that from a government POV a person losing his face getting cosmetic surgery works in a cost benefit analysis since that person would be incapable or working lest, and probably spend a lifetime in therapy.

Peter

No I agree if it's purely for people who are not happy about the way they look they should be refused surgery or have their case taken to a panel of doctors to see if it's necessary or not.

To be honest in my opinion if you feel the need to have plastic surgery you are in more need of councillor then a surgeon, the way I see it you must be very shallow or vein or have an extremely low self-esteem to be able to go through with this.

[Erik]

Hmmm Thinking more unnecessary cosmetic, people can get nose resculpturing in our current system. Was the person getting a sex change and urban myth? Supposedly on our NHS.

I would argue that from a government POV a person losing his face getting cosmetic surgery works in a cost benefit analysis since that person would be incapable or working lest, and probably spend a lifetime in therapy.

Peter

I think the argument to pay for a sex change is that people who are "born in a wrong body" can suffer emotionally and get very depressed and unable to function properly.
I'm not sure if I support this argument though.

To be honest in my opinion if you feel the need to have plastic surgery you are in more need of councillor then a surgeon, the way I see it you must be very shallow or vein or have an extremely low self-esteem to be able to go through with this.

Or they just want to look a little better?
I know several people who had plastic surgery, and none of them seemed different from "all-natural" people to me.
It depends on the kind of plastic surgery though.

[Denny Crane!]

I think the argument to pay for a sex change is that people who are "born in a wrong body" can suffer emotionally and get very depressed and unable to function properly.
I'm not sure if I support this argument though.



Or they just want to look a little better?
I know several people who had plastic surgery, and none of them seemed different from "all-natural" people to me.
It depends on the kind of plastic surgery though.

The line has to be drawn somewhere though. You could just as easily argue that a persons nose shape causes them immense psycological damage. I am unsure as to the merits of that arguement in the case of the sex change.

It has to go on a utiliterian POV. There are not unlimited resources and if those resources only stretch to the point of saving peoples whose lives are in danger and providing the best medical care for them then another alternative has to be found for the other treatments.

Peter

[JP226]

The only thing I want is the deregulation of insurance companies, a basic catastrophic government coverage and the removal of third party payment plans. That simple.

[JP226]

Are low prices with healthcare the most desirable outcome?

[ErikinWest]

Half of all expenditure on health care in America is paid by the government. It's a very socialized system.

Secondly, Bush's new reform is a step in the right direction. The problem with it is that people get health care from their employer. We need more individual health care.

Erik

[Sétanta]

Every person should have the chance to get healthcare, if they can pay for it or not. It is the responsibility of a nation to provide its citizens with basic rights like that. People who are wealthier should be able to pay for *better* healthcare, but the fact that insurance companies are money grubbing, corrupt, jokes needs to be addressed. That should not extend to health care covering anything but life threatening viruses, infectious diseases, cancer, birth of children, AIDS, and other routine, but still very important medical coverages.

Abortion, sex changes and stuff like this should never be paid for by the government.

[ErikinWest]

Every person should have the chance to get healthcare, if they can pay for it or not. It is the responsibility of a nation to provide its citizens with basic rights like that.

Why? Shouldn't it also be their responsibility to provide them food then also?

Erik

[Ulyaoth]

I remember reading a study saying that Canadian healthcare was horrid, having to wait weeks for procedures, the quality being bad, them not giving care for certain things if you're over certain ages. If the US had Canada's system, my grandfather would have died more than 12 years earlier most likely.

[Aristophanes]

I remember reading a study saying that Canadian healthcare was horrid, having to wait weeks for procedures, the quality being bad, them not giving care for certain things if you're over certain ages. If the US had Canada's system, my grandfather would have died more than 12 years earlier most likely.

Each year it gets a little worse. A little worse, a little worse. It's like a nursery rhyme, but all grown up.

My bet is that infectious diseases are going to radically change the way we think about medical care over the next few decades. You see, they're making a comeback: general bacterial resistance to antibiotics is growing far faster than our ability to innovate new drugs, and, likewise, we are beginning to see viruses, such as the HIV, increasingly resistant to anti-retrovirals. At the same time, the pace of centralization of medical services, particularly in those places with nationalized care, is creating hot-houses, petri dishes in which new resistant strains of bacteria spring up overnight. Hospitals, previously considered sterile environments are now the locus in quo for infections.
Quebec, for example, is reporting more than 3000 hospital deaths a year to the previously tameable gastro-intestinal pathogen, C. Difficile. Saskatchewan has seen incidence of multiple-resistance staph aureus [is there any other kind these days] and enterococcus double in the span of a couple years. These incidents are not isolated to Canada.