Universal healthcare | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Universal healthcare

what? i'm not sure this even makes sense
do you actually know what our health system is like here or are you just speculating?

It's called "ex-Canadians", usually those who moved here to get those top-quality treatments. All it takes is simple deduction: Did you have to spend $20,000 out of your own pocket for testing, MRI's, X-Rays, ect? No. Did you have to spend $5,000 for a year's worth of medication while going through the testing? No. Were the doctors able to diagnose you, even if they wouldn't operate? Yes.

So now, vs. their American counterparts, they have an extra $25,000 free to spend on procedures their country's healthcare won't/can't cover. They took the free care their country provided and then used the savings to come here and buy their final treatment... meanwhile, the people in this country can't even afford the testing to see what their issues are in the first place.
 
I love how liberals always paint the world as them being liberators and conservatives greedy bastards.
 
Saru Inc

But in general, you wouldn't agree, conservatives aren't the champions for those that are in need? The ones that argue for social programs, for safety nets, for services to help those unable to help themselves.

When do conservatives do that.
This year conservatives take away collective bargaining rights, argue against women or people having the freedom to do what they want with their bodies. Seem to think what two people, consenting, regardless of sex, do behind closed doors is their business. They argue for government to get out of the way, but want to change the CONSTITUTION of all sacred documents to prohibit two loving same sex couples. Where is the conservative a useful function to anyone but themselves? Preaching god when they are so up on arms protecting constitutional freedoms, like the right to worship as you chose.
Conservative are a matter of convenience. They say what they want at the time that serves them best. Because it's all about them.
So yeah. They are greedy selfish bastards and are examples of all the things that are wrong with people, the world, and things that are wrong in general. Never met a conservative that had a social conscience or cared about anyone other than themselves.



---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?5ijdvh
 
It's called "ex-Canadians", usually those who moved here to get those top-quality treatments. All it takes is simple deduction: Did you have to spend $20,000 out of your own pocket for testing, MRI's, X-Rays, ect? No. Did you have to spend $5,000 for a year's worth of medication while going through the testing? No. Were the doctors able to diagnose you, even if they wouldn't operate? Yes.

So now, vs. their American counterparts, they have an extra $25,000 free to spend on procedures their country's healthcare won't/can't cover. They took the free care their country provided and then used the savings to come here and buy their final treatment... meanwhile, the people in this country can't even afford the testing to see what their issues are in the first place.

first of all we do not have free medical here. nor do we have free prescriptions. we pay for our general healthcare with our taxes. people who get free drugs have a drug plan either at work or they pay for it themselves. (the reason i bring up prescriptions is that thousands of americans cross the border to get prescriptions cheaper as well as buy drugs they can't get in the usa)
that "extra money', as you call it, they're spending on procedures in the usa was earned by those people. it was not free. they worked for it. they can spend it where ever they please, and as far as i'm concerned you should be grateful they're bothering to spend their hard earned dollars in your country.

you're actually complaining that these people are taking advantage of procedures offered at an earlier date than they are able to get them here? you are calling them leeches because of it? wow.
are you pissed because they have money, because you don't have money? what??

seems to me you're saying that because the american government won't get their heads out of their asses and offer their people some decent healthcare for their tax dollars this makes canadians leeches because the spend their money in your country? or because they move to your country and spend their retirement dollars there?
sorry, i don't see what your argument is
 
Ok.learn the history of the democratic party. You'll love all the great people like Sanger, or, idk the people who wanted to KEEP SLAVERY AND BLACKS WITHOUT RIGHTS. Gotta love that one.

On that note, Im gay so don't talk shit about gay marriage. Commies don't like gays either, ain't that right, Russia? Crazy bastards. I'm also guessing no one read the link I posted about Britain attempting to privatize hospitals, because since after having the program since 1946, they realized it don't work. But yeah, America, with four plus times the populace will do it better!


And don't mix Christianity and conservatism, cuz I know how you guys get mad when I bring up atheism and liberalism. Also [MENTION=4855]JGirl[/MENTION], America has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, but go ahead, nationalize all this shit. Just keep in touch in 15 years so I can say told you so.
 
Being British I think I should say that our universal health care system The National Health Service (NHS) is brilliant and very popular. Whatever problems it has are tiny in comparison to the security and benefits it brings to the country.

It hasn't squeezed out choice or private medical care either. I recently had private physiotherapy myself, just to speed up when where I'd have treatment. If I'd had no money I would have had free care through the NHS.

There are currently attempts to "reform" it from the current Govt which are hugely unpopular, it's a prized institution in the UK, and I suspect it will cost them dearly at any future election.
 
Article in the Guardian:
The NHS reforms still amount to privatisation
This bad bill will force hospitals to choose private over public care to make ends meet,
write Kailash Chand and JS Bamrah



NHS reforms will tempt hospitals to increase their income at the expense of NHS patients. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian
The health and social care bill returns to the House of Commons today. For all the political manoeuvrings of the listening exercise and the cosmetic changes, the bill remains a bad bill, and it fails the Nick Clegg test. Clegg's stated view is that the following conditions must be met:

• GPs should not be forced into signing up to commissioning consortia

• The pace needs to be slowed

• All artificial deadlines need to be removed

• The NHS needs to be protected rather than undermined.

The amended bill does not meet any of Clegg's demands: rather, it makes it worse.The core privatisation principle remains intact.

Whether the deputy PM has been muzzled or he is keeping his powder dry for another assault is unclear. What is evident is that the prime minister remains doggedly behind his health secretary. This reform by a knowledgeable but misdirected health secretary is unique in its messiness and incoherence. Most critics, from the left as well as the right, had hoped that the bill would effectively be scrapped and David Cameron would start from a clean slate. Instead, a tweaked bill has produced a far from satisfactory result
Cameron's reassurance that the NHS is safe in Tory hands now seems hollow. To date, Andrew Lansley has failed to explain to the British public the need for this monumental change. Remember, a recent study in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine showed that the NHS is the most efficient service in the world, in lives saved per pound spent. How has David Cameron allowed this to happen?

The public should have no illusions: beneath the veneer of the listening exercise, the core substance that constitutes the bill remains contentious. The NHS reforms remain driven by pure market ideology, without a shred of evidence that they will benefit the English population. On the contrary, the evidence shows that if you create an American-style healthcare system the result will be denial of care and huge costs for the taxpayer. If the bill is passed, coming generations will not forgive us for taking the "National" out of the NHS.

Financial pressures, flat budgets until 2015 and an ongoing
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a political issue and people seem to forget what that means: no matter how much you talk about the economics of healthcare, in the end it's about how you'd like the world to be. And forum talks can hardly change that. If you want to contribute to this, get out in the field, join a local party group and do some work.
 
This is a political issue and people seem to forget what that means: no matter how much you talk about the economics of healthcare, in the end it's about how you'd like the world to be. And forum talks can hardly change that. If you want to contribute to this, get out in the field, join a local party group and do some work.

I hear what you're saying but I disagree with the sentiment. Politics and government are not about political parties. Its about people communciating with each other, working together to solve issues in a way that is beneficial to the majority of people. 'Taking action' pretty much means talking about things that are important to you to as many people as you can, working out if your beliefs are vaild, adjusting your opinions to include more information and then being an active citizen. Democracies only make sense when citizens work to inform themselves and communicate with each other. The government is not something that 'happens' to people, its something that is supposed to represent the collective, something every person needs to be a part of and contribute to for it to function.

Talking about your personal political beliefs on a forum is a great way to challenge yourself and gain more insight into what people actually care about.
 
Ok.learn the history of the democratic party. You'll love all the great people like Sanger, or, idk the people who wanted to KEEP SLAVERY AND BLACKS WITHOUT RIGHTS. Gotta love that one.

On that note, Im gay so don't talk shit about gay marriage. Commies don't like gays either, ain't that right, Russia? Crazy bastards. I'm also guessing no one read the link I posted about Britain attempting to privatize hospitals, because since after having the program since 1946, they realized it don't work. But yeah, America, with four plus times the populace will do it better!


And don't mix Christianity and conservatism, cuz I know how you guys get mad when I bring up atheism and liberalism. Also [MENTION=4855]JGirl[/MENTION], America has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, but go ahead, nationalize all this shit. Just keep in touch in 15 years so I can say told you so.

to be quite frank i couldn't care less about your health care system. i was responding to what Lerxst was complaining about re: how americans can't even get the tests done never mind the procedures, but canadians get all the tests etc 'free' due to our 'free' healthcare then come stateside and get the work done with all their big savings.
you say you have one of the best healthcare systems in the world, he says the opposite.
actually the world health organization lists the usa as 37th on the list of best healthcare systems worldwide.
not really what i would consider one of the best but you go ahead and think so if it makes you feel good
 
Last edited:
I appreciate the input of members from other countries that have a nationalized health care system. I find it very interesting to hear comments directly from those who experience those systems first hand.

I'm curious how those systems began. Have they always been nationalized? Are the hospitals government owned?
Are the health care professionals then essentially employees of the state?
I am willing to admit my ignorance on this matter.
 
I appreciate the input of members from other countries that have a nationalized health care system. I find it very interesting to hear comments directly from those who experience those systems first hand.

I'm curious how those systems began. Have they always been nationalized? Are the hospitals government owned?
Are the health care professionals then essentially employees of the state?
I am willing to admit my ignorance on this matter.

this is pretty informative - probably will answer your questions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States
 
I appreciate the input of members from other countries that have a nationalized health care system. I find it very interesting to hear comments directly from those who experience those systems first hand.

I'm curious how those systems began. Have they always been nationalized? Are the hospitals government owned?
Are the health care professionals then essentially employees of the state?
I am willing to admit my ignorance on this matter.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Finland

Wikipedia :D
 
Why, for f*** sake, are we too ignorant, greedy and stupid to simply accept a health system like most of the developed world already has?? What are we afraid of? The poor people actually feeling healthy and happy enough to vote?

It's hard to digest exactly how moronic our system in this country (US) is when you see the real life accounts of, both US citizens and then our European, Canadian and even Cuban counterparts. Yep... Communist Cuba... or enemy of 50 years... Universal Healthcare. Talk about propaganda, seems our government even puts the Nazis to shame in that department!

Maybe Americans feel that it isn't the right time or place for a universal healthcare system provided by the government.
After all, you have to admit, the government isn't really in a position to carry out the demands of the populace. Pardon if I'm not politically or economically aware, but isn't the US government already in approx. $15 trillion in debt?
Perhaps that's what bothers conservatives, why spend more money when we already have enough problems dealing with the already inflated debt.
Better yet, its pretty understandable for US policymakers to be cautious when they look at how Greece's debt crisis and how it effected that country.
 
Maybe Americans feel that it isn't the right time or place for a universal healthcare system provided by the government.
After all, you have to admit, the government isn't really in a position to carry out the demands of the populace. Pardon if I'm not politically or economically aware, but isn't the US government already in approx. $15 trillion in debt?
Perhaps that's what bothers conservatives, why spend more money when we already have enough problems dealing with the already inflated debt.
Better yet, its pretty understandable for US policymakers to be cautious when they look at how Greece's debt crisis and how it effected that country.

True, if we needed to add more spending. Problem is, we already have the money floating around in the system. We've just decided to spend those billions of dollars on the military instead of our own public welfare system.
 
True, if we needed to add more spending. Problem is, we already have the money floating around in the system. We've just decided to spend those billions of dollars on the military instead of our own public welfare system.

Perhaps this is due to the age old belief that increased military spending would create more jobs and therefore cause a recovery in the US economy. During the Cold War (and I dare say before WWII even), the result of increased military spending was correlated with an increase in jobs, manufacturing, and economic prosperity.
Whether this is a fact or not remains to be seen. Economically speaking (and I mean in Keynesian terms), the more money the government spends the more GDP we have (hence the idea of economic recovery)

Or better yet, perhaps the lack of universal health care progress is the result of an air of distrust that wreaks the US populace of its government. Those "recent developments" on the government adding chemicals into the water and making people homosexuals/infertile is an example of how much paranoia plagues our population. (Not to offend anyone)

I do recall a poll where at least half of the American population does not trust the government, or better yet has little faith in its ability to do anything right.

The political system could also be another reason for the lack of progress, after all: the United States is considered a bit more of a "tight-bound" alliance of states compared to the near-universality of France or the UK's federal government. Even though the federal government of the North did assert its supremacy in the American Civil War, there are still some "nooks" and "cranies" that are reminiscent of states' rights (and we wouldn't want to trample on those).

Perhaps the country's size also plays a significant factor into conservatives reluctance to create a universal health care system. You cite data from relatively small countries (i.e. UK, France, etc.) While Canada does have a comparable land mass to the US: its population of roughly 31 million barely compares the US' population of at least 300 million. The size of the US (population and land mass wise) calls for an extreme amount of sophisticated organization, which the US government seems to fail to provide.

Even more so, numerous cases publisized by the media of identity theft and the illegal use of social security accounts by foriegners is another testament to why Conservatives don't want universal health care. You have to admit, the idea of some illegal alien using your name and your account to pilfer your money (and other taxpayers' dollars might I add) and get free healthcare does tend to detract people from a universal health care system.

Disclaimer: this isn't really something I'm asserting nor denying, I'm just pointing out hypothesized reasoning of "anti-universal healthcare" proponents.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bickelz
Politics and government are not about political parties. Its about people communciating with each other

Try joining a campaign and you'll see how much more effective it is when you talk with people on the street than on forums.
 
What? Where does employment enter the picture?

Whoops! I meant uninsured.


Look, I'm not saying the amount of peeps willing to purchase it doesn't stay the same if price goes up, ceteris paribus. The only thing that can be said with certainty beforehand, though, is that those who value the insurance less than the cost will not purchase it. The claim in your last sentence that the price will steadily go up due to heightened average risk relies on the assumption that people with lower risk will consistently exit at a proportionately higher rate than those with higher risk (presumably based on the reasoning that, since they have a lower expected monetary return, they value the insurance less). As I stated in my first comment, there are reasonable conjectures that the opposite would be true instead!

"Higher risk" people need the insurance...they know they're higher risk. Many of them are old so why would they stop buying healthcare insurance?
 
True, if we needed to add more spending. Problem is, we already have the money floating around in the system. We've just decided to spend those billions of dollars on the military instead of our own public welfare system.

First off, we don't "just have the money sitting around". We're running deficits of over $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year.

Secondly, I do agree that we shouldn't spend money on war efforts because war destroys wealth, it never creates it.

Thirdly, welfare programs may help a few people but they make everybody else worse off and slow economic growth. You're just redistributing money instead of creating an atmosphere that creates wealth. If the entire economy grows, everybody's living standard rises. Redistributing wealth just means that the money taken and given to others can't be used to invest back into the economy in an efficient manner. This is known as The Broken Window fallacy.
 
Redistributing wealth just means that the money taken and given to others can't be used to invest back into the economy in an efficient manner. This is known as The Broken Window fallacy.

In actual real life lower income people put most of their earnings back into distribution because they mainly use it for the necessities of food, cost of living etc. which actually invigorates the local economy.

Here's an overview of the myths about welfare from the Columbia University website, a review of Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader? by Irv Garfinkel, Lee Rainwater, and Timothy Smeeding.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ssw/faculty/profiles/Garfinkel-book.pdf

"Myth: The welfare state undermines productivity, efficiency, and economic growth.
Fact: Welfare state programs complement capitalism and increase productivity, efficiency, and economic growth. Investment in public education is the main driver of this; education is so demonstrably productive that including education in any analysis of social welfare shows that, in general, welfare state programs enhance rather than retard productivity, efficiency, and growth in economic well-being.

Myth: The welfare state is the antithesis of a capitalist nation—and thus wealthy nations are, by definition, NOT welfare states.
Fact: All wealthy nations, including the United States, are welfare states—that is, they are primarily capitalist states with large, selective doses of socialism. Capitalist governments socialize select institutions to reduce the economic insecurity produced by a market economy. The most common areas of targeting include education, public health, and some forms of insurance. While such policies require resources, rich nations have figured that the benefits exceed costs.

Myth: The United States pays far less than other rich countries for health insurance.
Fact: Including the costs of employer-provided health insurance makes clear that the United States pays far more than any other rich countries for less universal health insurance.

Myth: In the U.S., most welfare state benefits go to the poor and near-poor.
Fact: The way that benefits for families with children are distributed in the United States is U-shaped, wherein the poorest and richest get the largest benefits, and the working poor, lower middle class, and even the middle class fall between the cracks. Health care and housing are the most perversely distributed because in them, the U.S has separate programs for aiding different income groups—with the poor receiving means-tested benefits from safety net programs and the middle and upper classes receiving employer provided and/or tax related benefits. The richest fifth of the population gets health benefits that are almost twice that of the poorest fifth. The richest fifth receives housing subsidies (through the mortgage interest tax deduction) that are nearly four times the housing assistance provided to the poorest fifth and about eight times the assistance provided to the lower middle and the middle class."