If nationalized health care is soooooo bad...

What do we have here? Another KenH drive by thread?

 

He has been real quiet since starting this thread hasn't he?

"Most "solutions" coming from Washington have very little to do with actually" solving any problem; mostly they just exacerbate whatever they "SAY" they are correcting.

At least those in the "non-constitutional" endeavors of our esteemed "leadership"(?)!!

 

Nationalized health care is one of the most important needs we have in our country.

 

Only if you have a death wish!

 

So the quality of the health care doesn't matter... just so long as it't nationalized health care?

Isn't good quality health care more important than just nationalized health care?

 

If we get nationalized health care we will get euthanasia which may be poetic justice for the generation that sat silently by as 50 million unborn babies were slaughtered.

 

In this country if you fall and break your hip in most cases you will have surgery to have it repaired at most with in a week barring any extra health complications. I have a friend in Europe that her father is a boat captain. He fell, broke his hip and he waited two years to have it repaired. He had to sell his boat and his company because he could not get down onto his boat.

Are you willing to wait two years for your medical care? If you talk to people in Europe you will find many people hate the healthcare system they have.

What needs to be fixed more than the healthcare system, and it needs work too, is the insurance racket in this country. If people could/would get health insurance, that would go a long way in solving the healthcare issue.

93% of the bad debt in the hospital I work in is found in the ER. People know that clinics can deny services to folks with out insurance or those who already owe money. But ER's cannot refuse service to anyone. So folks go for non-emergency things rack up huge bills and never pay that’s why your bills are so high. Hospitals will get their money. This is a business not a ministry.

This country needs to realize you cannot want Neiman Marcus services and products and expect to only pay wal-mart prices. There is a price tag for having the best medical care in the world.

Nationalized healthcare is not the solution needed in this country. It would only hurt the people not help them.

I am not saying the system does not need attention, we could always make things better. But this is not the way.

You have not heard about how bad it is from Europe and other places because you have not asked.

 

I don't believe that persuading you to quit your support for nationalized health care is the topic of this thread.

I don't believe that you asked for any such evidence in the OP.

You don't seem to understand what the topic is so I will quote the OP here:

"If nationalized health care is sooooooo bad - as conservatives claim- then why don't we see a popular uprising in all of these industrialized countries with representative democratic forms of government that have had nationalized health care for years and years and years - such as Canada and Great Britain????"

So again: Please prove your supposition that the only possible response to a poor national health care system in an industrialized country with a representative democratic form of government is a popular uprising.

If there are other possible responses, then any one offered here is as valid as the one that you are speculating.

 

Then you're not reading my posts.

If it's the best thing since sliced bread...then simply answer my question. So far no one has...

I eagerly await your reply.​

 

rbell, let me take a quick crack at your question from my viewpoint. Quick synopsis is as follows:

• Current system is badly broken. People lose health insurance if they get laid off from their jobs. Many cannot afford insurance, even if they are employed. The current economy is exacerbating the problem.
• Presently, HMO & PPO bean counters are dictating medical treatment...no different than a government bureaucrat doing so. Their interest isn't your care...it is profit for the company.
• We already spend enough to insure all are covered. Costs are way up, partly because people put off treatment until they have an emergency. The ER becomes the doctors office of last resort, driving up costs to all of us when those without insurance canot pay the tab.
• I think treatment should be between the physician and his or her patient.
• Government can take over administrative functions and see that all are covered. They should not dictate treatment.
• We have 50 live laboratories to trial different ideas. These are called state governments. Let's figure out how to get this done and run some trials. Take the best outcomes and roll it out nationwide.
• In essence, we become one large insured group. Rather than employees of XYZ Company, the group policy is on US Citizens.

 

How about you guys do your healthcare experiments with the uninsured or those that want to volunteer and leave the rest of us out of it?

I am very happy with my current healthcare, thank you very much.

 

Good for you. But you are part of a bigger society. If you get laid off, come back and let's talk.

 

Kudos for addressing it. Others (such as KenH) won't.

Believe it or not...I've never been a fan of our health insurance being tied to our work. It's the tax policies that forced it that direction years ago. Bad idea. I mean, we don't expect our employers to provide our auto insurance...

I would disagree. Bean-counting bureaucrats are not desirable...but they are likely to be more competent that government bureaucrats (see: FEMA, etc.). Also...the government's interest isn't in our care, either...it's in retaining power (see: Congress, etc.).

Agreed...but we've already seen from Daschle the idea that doctors will be "urged" to give certain care. Government will circumvent this relationship, because they will have too much power...and power corrupts. Gov't shouldn't dictate treatment...but they will.

First...let's keep in mind that the Feds can only supercede states' authorities where it's specifically spelled out in the Constitution (not that they follow that law much). That's there for a reason, and I'm not willing to throw it out. Furthermore...who's to say that the best plan will rise to the top? Maybe the most powerful legislators/states simply will impose their way. We might end up with California's system...which, legislatively, is the rectum of the United States (sorry for being so picturesque, but sometimes you gotta call 'em like you see 'em ).

And the results...

• Eventually, we lose the freedom to "opt out" of what will be a bad system. Anti-liberty is anti-American, in my book.
• We will see a mess like the housing crisis...there will be a population who get a "free ride" and show no sense of responsibility...we will pay even more for these people's lack of initiative.
• With no competition, there will be no alternative to bad service (see: Your local DMV).
• You will have no recourse when you are mistreated. (See: suing the IRS...also see: Contacting one's "representative.").
• Freedoms will be eroded like crazy...because the mindset will be: "No, you can't eat those chips...because I'm paying for your healthcare, and so I can rightfully dictate how you live your life." Those of you who are worried about our civil liberties being eroded (JustChristian comes to mind) ain't seen nothing yet...when the "lifestyle police" get through with us, under the auspices of "government healthcare," you will have precious few choices left as to how to conduct your "free time."

MP, I see many more problems than solutions with a government-run healthcare.