If nationalized health care is soooooo bad...

[KenH]

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????

 

[canadyjd]

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????

We do, of a sorts.

Those who can afford it come to the United States for healthcare.

peace to youraying:

 

[OldRegular]

We do, of a sorts.

Those who can afford it come to the United States for healthcare.

peace to youraying:

SO TRUE!:thumbs:

 

[targus]

Because those who truly suffer from the slow and inadequate services are greatly out numbered by the relatively healthy who like to think that they are getting something for nothing.

 

[Steven2006]

The idea of national health care does scare me I admit it. Just look at everything the government get it's hand in and you see will inefficiency, waste, and many times if not outright incompetence at least a sub par performance.

That said something has to be done. It is horrible that people can work their entire lives and if they get seriously ill it can lead to the loss of everything they have. The price of health care is rising so dramatically that it is hard for many people to afford proper coverage. I always thought it was funny that when gas was going up everyone was so outraged, when in comparison the rise and cost in healthcare dwarfs that.Yet most of the same people outraged at paying thirty more dollars to fill up say little about the thousands of dollars it costs to insure ones family.

Another issue is in some regards we already have a national health care, for people who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid or aid from their local health departments. The only difference is everyone else is supporting those costs. My point is not that this is so wrong, only that many people are getting healthcare right now from the government, but many more are also left out. We have to ask is that the best system?

I don't pretend to know the answers, but I do think our system needs fixing.

 

[KenH]

1) That said something has to be done.

2) It is horrible that people can work their entire lives and if they get seriously ill it can lead to the loss of everything they have.

3) The price of health care is rising so dramatically that it is hard for many people to afford proper coverage.

4) Another issue is in some regards we already have a national health care

5) I do think our system needs fixing.

1) Bingo!

2) Bingo!

3) Bingo!

4) Bingo!

5) Bingo!

Thank you, Steven. :thumbs:

 

[KenH]

Those who can afford it come to the United States for healthcare.

That's the best you got???? That's weak. Really, really weak.

 

[KenH]

Because those who truly suffer from the slow and inadequate services are greatly out numbered by the relatively healthy who like to think that they are getting something for nothing.

That's the best you got???? That's weak. Really, really weak.

 

[targus]

That's the best you got???? That's weak. Really, really weak.

Thanks for the third grade reponse.

How about adressing my statement on a substantive basis?

 

[KenH]

Prove your statement, targus. Just because you make a statement doesn't mean it is true.

 

[rbell]

Prove your statement, targus. Just because you make a statement doesn't mean it is true.

And just because you refuse to address it doesn't make it invalid.

 

[Carolina Baptist]

I oppose the a government run health care system because I have seen that we get with the health care system that the government runs now: the VA Hospitals. The buildings are old and poorly maintained. If the plumbing is not working they don't seem to care. Housekeeping is clearly working "part time". If the hall in the clinic is filthy, what can we expect in the operating rooms? The wait for an appointment is unreasonable. The care is substandard. And it takes 2 weeks for a simple test that a civilian doctor can do at their office in 15 minutes. If they don't have the speciality that you need, they will send you to a facility 150 miles away.
The care is better than most "third world" countries but that's about I can say for it.

 

[Revmitchell]

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????

Here is what we do see:

* Nationalized health insurance does not insure equal access to the health care system. Elderly people in Canada and the United Kingdom report much more difficulty in obtaining health care than U.S. seniors. While New Zealand's guidelines for treatment of end state renal failure imply that age should not be the sole factor in determining eligibility, they state that "in usual circumstances, people over 75 should not be accepted." To the terminal misfortune of that nation's elderly renal failure patients, New Zealand has no private dialysis facilities.

* Removing the medical sector from the free enterprise system tends to reduce the overall quality of health care. Study-upon-study has shown the quality of health care is typically higher in the U.S. than in any other nation, including those with nationalized health insurance. The United States has lower breast and prostate cancer mortality rates than New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, France and Australia.

* Germany, Sweden and Australia are now establishing free-market alternatives in an attempt to alleviate problems caused by their nationalized health care systems. Indeed, these countries are learning that the best course for provision of quality health care is not more patient power rather than more government power.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/i/nathealthins_2.htm

Here's the other dirty little secret: National health insurance is going to cost Brandy and other taxpayers a whole lot more than either Hillary or Obama admits. Just ask Gov. Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, where just two years into operation, the state's mandatory health insurance plan is already costing $400 million more than budgeted.

Meanwhile we have a Medicare system that is going to go bankrupt.

Here's a question neither Hillary nor Barack will answer: How can we justify spending billions to insure the Brandys of the worlds, when we haven't yet secured the health care financing for our existing promises to senior citizens?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/truth_about_nationalized_healt.html

However, a closer look shows that nearly all health care systems worldwide are wrestling with problems of rising costs and lack of access to care. There is no single international model for national health care, of course. Countries vary dramatically in the degree of central control, regulation, and cost sharing they impose, and in the role of private insurance. Still, overall trends from national health care systems around the world suggest the following:

* Health insurance does not mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have long waiting lists for treatment.
* Rising health care costs are not a uniquely American phenomenon. Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, costs are rising almost everywhere, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and benefit reductions.
* In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.
* Countries with more effective national health care systems are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost sharing, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272

 

[Palatka51]

* Health insurance does not mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have long waiting lists for treatment.

In other words the patient dies while waiting for treatment. He/her has access but has a waiting period that will carry him/her past their survival date.

That's what I call "Culling the herd".

 

[targus]

Prove your statement, targus. Just because you make a statement doesn't mean it is true.

Yes, that is quite true. So let's start at the beginning shall we?

Since you started the conversation, 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.

 

[annsni]

That's the best you got???? That's weak. Really, really weak.

Nice.

One of my dear friends come from England. Her father was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He was too old to do the agressive treatment and he had to wait 9 months to begin the standard treatment. Instead he came to the US to be treated and he was in remission.

Another friend's mom died waiting for treatment for breast cancer.

Yeah - socialized medicine works GREAT.

 

[J.D.]

Not only is medical care in the U.S. the best in the world, but it would be the most affordable also, if tort reformed could ever be passed into law.

But that will never happen because:

1. The socialists are against it because it would take away one of their favorite "just" causes.

2. The average voter does not know what "tort reform" means thanks to the socialist big media.

3. The lawyers are against it because it would decrease their personal incomes.

4. The politicians are against because most of them are lawyers.

 

[rbell]

No one seems to ever deal with this point, so I'll post it again, and hope against hope it gets addressed...

The same entity (government) that brought us Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital, the IRS, FEMA, and the US Congress...we're supposed to trust them with our healthcare?

Many of these folks couldn't find their rear ends with both hands, a flashlight, a road map, a GPS device, and an electron microscope. Why should we trust them with something of such critical importance?

 

[Ps104_33]

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????

Nationized health care is bad because Ron Paul said it is.

 

[Palatka51]

Nice.

One of my dear friends come from England. Her father was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He was too old to do the agressive treatment and he had to wait 9 months to begin the standard treatment. Instead he came to the US to be treated and he was in remission.

Another friend's mom died waiting for treatment for breast cancer.

Yeah - socialized medicine works GREAT.

Yep, It works because you kill off the weak and infirm leaving a healthier herd. It is called culling, any other name would be "Socialized Health Care".