Universal Health Care - Should We?

[VinBin]

That was an interesting read...I do object to the idea of Universal Health Care...Mainly on the basis of personal choice.

Our ability to get a problem looked at when we feel it is a problem is a very powerful thing, something that isnt found in Canda (Or other nations with similar healthcare), which is often referred to as the "ideal" healthcare system. I didnt agree with Bush's idea for HealthCare either but it is closer to what it should be. Many people complain about how the main reason for bankrupcy is "medical reasons" but few actually address the fact that most of those individuals were NOT wise about spending before the "last straw" that broke their back...

Dont get me wrong, Im not against charity or anything for people who need help. Americans are some of the most charitable in the world, But it is the choice to give to a charity we deem worthy that is also a freedom...

I found an article that that presents an interesting case from Canada....http://new.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072005b.cfm

 

[Stevo]

VinBin,
you do know the Heritage foundation has more irons in America's corporate fire than dones has pills i hope...

besides, we already have a single payer system and it works fairly well, Medicare.

the aura of choice or charity that surrounds the NHC issue is somewhat misplaced by sorts that really don't want us (us little nobody's) to realize that the equity of care in general has suffered immensly in the growing disparity of todays America

let me put this another way, the true measure of any country's governance is how the people fare under it's rule, kabeesh?

we live in a country who's hidden hand of capatalism has infiltrated and coerced our leaders resulting in something bettween an oligarcy or plutocracy

one faction, relevant to NHC here, is the insurance middleman , quite fat & happily lobbying their hearts out with visions of congressional sugar plumbs to maintain their position.

ergo, the top echelon lives large, while those underneath exist on their crumbs (trickle down economics anyone?) resulting in stats like these;

The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. "The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less.

spend more, get less....

as well as...

"The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping.


Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)


"U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.
Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).


The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).


Women are 70 percent more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).


The leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country is murder (CNN, Dec. 14, 2004

source

~S~

 

[VinBin]

The article I linked to being on the particular website has nothing to do with the message itself, I searched for this particular article I remembered reading earlier on Google, and found it on the Heritage one...It has nothing to do with the organization, I think the message is very relevant...

A main reason for the insurance middleman rolling around in money is because of federal systems of healthcare like Medicare/Medicaid that control the amount they have to pay, regardless of how much they are billed…That’s government healthcare for you!

The middle class is shrinking, and its not because of the “fat cats” who roll around in money all day, its people deciding that they have no reason to think logically about how they spend. Why do you think there are so many who live paycheck to paycheck? Do they all have medical bills?? No, it’s living on credit, any economist can tell you that!

Why is there such a cry for "fairness"? Why is it that all people, regardless of their decisions, should deserve the "right" to have others pay for them? The thing about the US is that we have more of a choice (more than other countries) over what we do with our money. If a man decides to get high and drink his whole life, is it my responsibility to take care of him?

And finally, a good article that demystifies the WHO ranking of the US…
http://www.cchconline.org/publications/whoart.php3
“The World Health Organization primarily faults the United States for not requiring mandatory insurance or offering social welfare programs to all citizens--in other words, for being a free country with independent citizens. Given America's high level of health-care spending, the U.S. system does not achieve the organization's fairness and distribution goals relative to total health-care resources. In addition, the report criticizes the move toward medical savings accounts and the fact that 56 percent of America's health-care expenses are privately funded.

Interestingly, the WHO completely failed to broadcast that America's health system ranked first in responsiveness to patients' needs for choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality. In other words, where it matters most to patients, the U.S. system excels. “

 

[squid]

VinBin said: "Our ability to get a problem looked at when we feel it is a problem is a very powerful thing, something that isnt found in Canda (Or other nations with similar healthcare)"

I'm kind of confused as to what you meant here. There's not significantly less choice in Canada -- when you need it, you go seek healthcare. Arguably, there's more choice, because you are much more likely to be able to get non-emergency care since the costs are much lower than the average American's. Unless you mean somenthing else that I'm not getting?

 

[VinBin]

squid, in a Nationalized Health Care system, you cant just go and get a procedure done. You are put on a waiting list. Waiting lists for procedures that the government doesnt deem "urgent" are very common.

Granted, it does seem that "overall" the Canadian system does seem to lead to healthier people, you have to be careful to say its not BECAUSE of the health system. People in the US are known to be unhealthier and have the highest child and adult obesity rates, no? And people who are at the lowest economic level arent necessarily going to seek care as much as those in higher economic levels for problems that are actually serious.

Interesting Article...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared
Chart showing Obesity rates of different countries...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bmi30chart.png Notice Canada has almost HALF the rate of obesity as Americans...Japan and Korea, almost 1/10 the rate...
"If the poorest twenty percent of Americans were excluded from health statistics, Canadian and American life expectancy and infant mortality rates would be almost identical.
There is some disagreement as to whether the poor are less likely to be healthy merely because they have reduced access to medical treatment in the United States. The fact that the poor in the United States are also generally poorer than in Canada is believed by many to contribute greatly to reduced health. In the U.S. long waits for routine care are unknown; operations are scheduled immediately."

The more you read about the health systems, the more you realize that the problems might not lie in the health system itself, but the attitudes and beliefs of people in those systems (ex. suing fast food for making you fat)...Its this lack of responsibilty for your actions that I find most irritating...

 

[Stevo]

The article I linked to being on the particular website has nothing to do with the message itself, I searched for this particular article I remembered reading earlier on Google, and found it on the Heritage one...It has nothing to do with the organization, I think the message is very relevant...

VinBin, the same NHC carnards used in may political banters are seen here.

A main reason for the insurance middleman rolling around in money is because of federal systems of healthcare like Medicare/Medicaid that control the amount they have to pay, regardless of how much they are billed…That’s government healthcare for you!

or, one could say that the gov is holding the riens on one, while allowing the other to completely run itself off the rails

The middle class is shrinking, and its not because of the “fat cats” who roll around in money all day, its people deciding that they have no reason to think logically about how they spend. Why do you think there are so many who live paycheck to paycheck? Do they all have medical bills?? No, it’s living on credit, any economist can tell you that!

the specture of blame?
your claiming that the demise of the middle class is entirely their fault due to being financially challenged?

we could apply the thumbnail approach here, and simply compare the average Joe-bag-o-donuts standard of living to say, 40 yrs ago during the Ozzie & Hariet heyday to today couldn't we?

or we could dig up all the nobel laurelette economists whom have been given the door by this administration due to their alarmist stance

or we could start an entirely new thread (i'd be sooo there too) to dig deeper

Why is there such a cry for "fairness"? Why is it that all people, regardless of their decisions, should deserve the "right" to have others pay for them? The thing about the US is that we have more of a choice (more than other countries) over what we do with our money. If a man decides to get high and drink his whole life, is it my responsibility to take care of him?

ah, the real crux....

because a democtratic order predicates itself on fairness VinBin.

we've seen that fight it in this country from suffrage to civil rights , and now health care is in the same limelight as those basic humanities

this by far and large has nothing to do with the political diversions of choice or quality as it does with equality

our entire infastructure of roads, emergency or public service, military, governance , schools etc are all a common priveledge here, paid by the entire gambit of responsible to irresponsible citizens

why should health care be any different?

you do know that, under the current system, we all pay for that 12% (40 million of us) whom are the have-nots here right?

Interestingly, the WHO completely failed to broadcast that America's health system ranked first in responsiveness to patients' needs for choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality. In other words, where it matters most to patients, the U.S. system excels. “

i really gotta tell ya, i loath jingoistic editorials VinBin, they usually carry about as much wieght as the flat earth societies argument

the chief dif bettween a jingoist and a patriot here is one doesn't wear star spangled glasses, nauesatingly in vouge these days.

The more you read about the health systems, the more you realize that the problems might not lie in the health system itself, but the attitudes and beliefs of people in those systems (ex. suing fast food for making you fat)...Its this lack of responsibilty for your actions that I find most irritating...

i'll agree on this one to the extent of our McDiet's, the fact that ketchup is now considered a vegetable in school lunches should ring a bell or two

Arguably, there's more choice, because you are much more likely to be able to get non-emergency care since the costs are much lower than the average American's.

good one squid.

could i please have a show of hands among American ems'ers as to the increase of no or low level incident transports merely for 'insurance reasons' ?

oh and, for extra credit, whyare the ER's in America are closing thier doors faster than s**t through a goose , many to reopen as urgent care centers ?

ah, that lovely hidden hand of the market eh? always a dead giveaway of our true selves

~S~

 

[VinBin]

Arguably, there's more choice, because you are much more likely to be able to get non-emergency care since the costs are much lower than the average American's.

See, that’s the problem, there IS A LACK OF CHOICE, that’s what I’m saying is the problem in nationalized healthcare.
You seem to be confusing lower prices=more people being able to get it=more choice...I mean choice as in freedom to choose facility, doctor and time to get the procedure...

Yea, I think this would be a great discussion as a separate thread...but Ill quickly say something before I end this one here...

A democratic system doesn’t define itself by "fairness" in the sense your using it as Stevo. Suffrage and Civil rights was based on the equality of man(and woman), as an individual who possesses freedoms and rights. The right of all individuals to express their voice towards their Democratic Nation. It does not, however entitle someone to services they deem global. The equality of man ends with the freedom of all to do as they will within boundaries, it doesn’t carry on to healthcare and other services that you state. Equality doesn’t entitle someone who works and is able to get insurance for his family to receive the same level of healthcare as someone who doesn’t (for whatever reason) and depends on others for their care...that's what we call Socialism...(haha, God help me if someone here tries to support Socialism...)

The government should take care of basic, fundamental services, not because of equality but rather because privatization of those aspects would not be efficient (privatized military, for example). Healthcare is not a fundamental need that needs a government hand, it can run very well being privatized. The main problems right now is the government and their control over the healthcare market and the lack of responsibility that American consumers are exhibiting, leading back to my argument of overall poor health among Americans...

Stevo, you may dismiss the article that anlyzes the WHO ranking, but you have to say, for a country as large as the US, even with this overall low quality of health (which tends to have nothing to do with insurance or such and all to do with personal choice and responsibility), we are doing pretty good at keeping our people healthy (as healthy as a 500lb man who smokes can be) and alive...

I’m not a big fan of Bush, so don’t think I disagree with all the comments you made on the current situation, the middle class issue isn't a "result" of the current administration though, as much as peopel would like you to think...:shades_smile:

 

[ffemt8978]

This is a split from the thread "Girl Needs 16 lb Tumor Removed" located here
http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=1925

I felt this is a good topic and needed it's own thread.

 

[Stevo]

yes, and thank you ffemt8978 , i find the issue fascinating due to the many political ties we all are subject to as citizens and as providers.

do chime in, and VinBin don't stray to far, you've a cornucopia of points going here that warrant discussion if you wish

now that S words out i see, well i suppose it was only a matter of time so let's have at it. I had mentioned previously i was no BHL, i really do beleive in a hand up, not a hand out. Anyone wishing to see how the latter can fall on it's face need only look toward France where the peugout's are still smokin'

Socialist systems scare people because they have the onus of lacking choice, by definition we find....

Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production.

however i'd lend creedence to the possibility that when the top 1% of any country controls 99% of it's wealth and resources , and utilizes the governance to do so, we basically have socialism for the rich

choice then becomes slim pickin's because said scenario tends to Walmartize across the board, thus responsibity for proper governance is usually desirable** good governance wards off potential monopolies, and today's insurance companies are merely a consortium that constitutes this...

**otherwise we repeat History

we all see the signs and sympthoms of the disease, we're just programmed to focus blame on the smaller pix, the same tunnel vision we are warned of on calls exists in this issue as well. This is something the medico-political cabal here harps up anytime the issue arrises..

they know that they'd be on the loosing end in a nationaised scenario, a good % of papershufflers would be first to go....

do we have a choice other than American health care? we sure do because we're good capatalists that subscribe to the lowest bidder , and seem to find ways to outsource to them....check out
Medical Tourism

just one point, more to come...

~S~

 

[FFEMT1764]

Ah yes socialism...it seems to be working well for Sweden and Norway- they have free healthcare, and no one is complaining one bit...now if we could only get the politician to think of their contituents...

 

[VinBin]

Ah yes socialism...it seems to be working well for Sweden and Norway- they have free healthcare, and no one is complaining one bit...now if we could only get the politician to think of their contituents...

heh...Ill be around, I enjoy hearing different sides to an issue.

Stevo, Socialism is an idea that is rather hard to define to strict terms...It ranges from ..."Government ownership of the sources of production." to "a political or economic theory in which community members own all property, resources, and the means of production, and control the distribution of goods."

Whichever you base the idea of socialism on, the basis of that there is no individual ownership or control over what the person earns is the major problem. I am interested to hear your side to the points I brough up earlier on the situations that would result from nationalized Healthcare...

choice then becomes slim pickin's because said scenario tends to Walmartize across the board, thus responsibity for proper governance is usually desirable** good governance wards off potential monopolies, and today's insurance companies are merely a consortium that constitutes this...

I dont really follow what you are saying here, could you clarify?

however i'd lend creedence to the possibility that when the top 1% of any country controls 99% of it's wealth and resources , and utilizes the governance to do so, we basically have socialism for the rich

Socialism for the rich? Meaning the rich all share resources? Or something else? What Im really interested to hear from you Stevo, is your side to the Universal healthcare idea, lets get away from all the talk about things that have little to do with Healthcare and more to exactly how Nationalized will help or hurt the country on the basis of all people (rich and poor)...

My argument has little political basis or support for a specific party, other than that the government has no place to control many services that dont need control. It is based on what I have repeated many times, that each person has a responsibility to their actions and however those effect them now and in the future, and no other person who should feel responsible for those actions.

 

[FFEMT1764]

Me too...I always love a heated political debate...hehehehe :nerd:

 

[Stevo]

VinBin,
what i was trying to portray was the mechanics behind the system that have brought us to this point. the movers and shakers of this issue really don't wish us to focus on specifics, they wish us to dwell in a sound byte/bumper sticker political mentality

topics such as abortion, guns, or second hand smoke are often merely diversions used explicitly for the masses to argue about while the deeper issues slip by them , only to dealt with by the few, not the whole.

you've brought personal responsibility and choice to the table, and i don't disagree with you other than to point out that they are constrained to what the system offers here.

there are books written on monopolies, they also touch on what is referred to as the walmartization of America. In a nutshell, it means your choices grow fewer as big biz congeals as an entity. Said entity(s) may not even be competitive , either via similar fortune 500 sugardaddy's , or because they control enough of the market to not even care about having to be.

Capatalism being an animal that usually needs some manner of restraint has been basically let off the goverment leash in this millenium due to this...

perhaps a good example is the phrama-cabal here. companies like Pfizer have positioned themselves over the years to have every senior in America happily drooling through their golden years, along with the AMA's endorsment

we all see it don't we? my personal best is an old lady on 42 different pills a day , looked like a handful of lucky charms....(don't tell the D.A.R.E. officer ok?)

Her choice was to cough up the $$$, or die.

In fact i can think of many frequent flyers whom choose bettween eating and medications to keep them alive here, and these people have been solid citizens too, raised families, been veterans, stood by their country etc.

only to be kicked when they are down....

So multiply that by X amount of baby boomers looking at the 'greying of America' think NASDAQ, and consider what we have for 'choice'

meanwhile, the senior tour buss to montreal continues to pass my home going north to a cheaper pusher, one whom has been the brunt of this administrations grumblings....

the scenario i am alluding to is indicative of socialism for the rich, i simply say that the goverment should in all fairness include the rest of us in on it

the savings in adminstrative costs alone to NHC should save a few forests of trees in paperwork...

~S~

 

[VinBin]

there are books written on monopolies, they also touch on what is referred to as the walmartization of America. In a nutshell, it means your choices grow fewer as big biz congeals as an entity. Said entity(s) may not even be competitive , either via similar fortune 500 sugardaddy's , or because they control enough of the market to not even care about having to be.

Yes, Ive heard much on this "monopoly" that is WalMart and how its destroying the 'good ol' stores that America was founded on...but you see, to have a monopoly, you need a heavy stream of demand to maintain the monopoly. And it seems to me, that the same people who compain of how they are "monopolizing" America are the same ones who run to WalMart to get the discounts.

Yes, it does discourage competition, you are very right about that, but you see, more government isnt the ANSWER, its the PROBLEM! What is the government going to do?? Hell, to start a business you have to run through 6000 loopholes, whos to blame for that? Walmart?? no, its the government that wants to ensure all is fair.

the scenario i am alluding to is indicative of socialism for the rich, i simply say that the goverment should in all fairness include the rest of us in on it

Im not sure what to make of this statement, I wish I could say I understood now what you meant by "socialism for the rich." But Im still having a hard time grasping the concept. Are you saying the rich control the country?? In that case, I would ask in what aspect, if you mean the rich control business, then of course! Socialism for the rich in its literal sense means that the rich all give and spread riches throughout themselves so they all get an equal share, I dont see this happening.

Another point you made, "the government should let us in on it"?? In on what? the money? the business? If someone owns a business and makes 10million a year, how would the government ensure that this man isnt the only one who is capable of buying a big house? Why should we have homeless people when he is living in a big house? Should we demand the government provide free housing to those that cant afford it, and make those "filthy rich snobs" take care of it? Do you see what Im getting at?

Your comment on Pfizer is a good one, you are right, they charge ridiculous prices for the drugs that dont take a fraction of that to produce? They dont charge more because they do more "research" as they claim...That myth has been disproved many times, its because they spend so much on promotion and the main reason...THEY HAVE CONNECTIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT!! See, the problem isnt a LACK of government control, they have TOO MUCH ALREADY! Drug companies gave an absurd amount to politicians (almost $1million to Bush, and near 100k to others) and lobby for programs that will ensure that they dont have to be in a true "capitalist" enviornment...the FDA? HAH! Half of the members on the "committes" have some connection to drug companies...

Our government is flooded with people who have connections to insurance companies, drug companies, all in the guise to ensure "fair trade", "fair marketing", "fair treatment"...We dont need the government to ensure equality...The market tends to do that itself, When a drug company creates a drug that killed 1000s because of a heart attack (Vioxx), they shouldnt have the FDA covering up and saying "they didnt know"...They shoudlnt get a slap on the wrist, in a free market, they would be drilled by consumers, here the Government tells us its OK!

This isnt equality...Think about how they will screw up Nationalized HealthCare...

Id actually like to touch on the Administrative costs later, I should be getting back to work that needs to be done...:shades_smile:

 

[Stevo]

perhaps to say 'by the people for the people' has evolved to 'by the rich for the rich' here would best describe what i claim is socialism for the rich VinBin.

if you'd like i could post graphs, charts, and examples ad naseum, yet i think it'd take away from the chief issue here.

it is all , imho, catalyst to our current situation. and as much as i think W isn't qualified to run a McDonalds, the roots of it all have festered in our history for some time.

big-pharma speaks volumes when it comes to our current health care situation in bed with goverment here, which is why i use the example(s) previously

go here for more on this

toward some common ground here, i do loath big goverment as well. in fact the bigger they get the more functionally inept they appear. (hiring equatrian lawyers for disaster mitigation, and instituting n.i.m.s. as an umbrella policy surely should raise a brow here)

however,even in light of this, WE (us little people that is) would fare better off with NHC run by said goverment as a lesser of evils vs. the goverment pimping American medicine to line the pockets of goverment cronies as it now stands

more as time permits

~S~

 

[hfdff422]

How much of our daily lives do you want the government to control? Let's see- I can operate relativley debt free, keep my life on a decent schedule, keep corruption out and decency in, use the well being of my family and my fellow man as the guide for my actions, etc. But now we need to take an overpriced marginally ran system and take control of it away from me and others like me and turn it over to a bereaucracy that cannot manage itself, that is headed by the few people in this world more corrupt than insurance CEO's, that will say anything to further their ability to scruntinize their subjects, That goes deeper into debt simply because they can, that cannot properly fund programs now, that has more bogus and meaningless cash grab oppotunities than I could list on 100 pages of text, that has so many loopholes built into programs that have a tendency to screw middle America and further the upper class while developing a dependant class out of people that given proper direction could be an asset instead of a burden. Our government is not a benevolant one. Our government is not a competent one. Why in the world would we hand over such a large portion of our GDP and further the scheisters at the top. This would not create a better healthcare system, it would create a more dependant society and a less competent healthcare system and more powerful bereaucracy.

 

[VinBin]

Very true hfdff422...

toward some common ground here, i do loath big goverment as well. in fact the bigger they get the more functionally inept they appear. (hiring equatrian lawyers for disaster mitigation, and instituting n.i.m.s. as an umbrella policy surely should raise a brow here)

Yes, good point.

however,even in light of this, WE (us little people that is) would fare better off with NHC run by said goverment as a lesser of evils vs. the goverment pimping American medicine to line the pockets of goverment cronies as it now stands

I still disagree on this point Stevo, and I would like to get back to this later today when I have a bit more time to respond. 1. Legal Issues and Corruption would run rampant and surely it will be a bigger mess than MediCare and Medicaid is now... 2.As hfdff422 stated, "us little people" are not an exception to the idea of independent thought and responsibility. We are not feeble and our minds dont fall apart if we dont think collectively. Being responsible with money and making sure you have the disipline to set aside money for necessities is no one's job but your own. Take for example that in general, we as Americans, dont care to save ANY money up until its too late, and then quickly proceed to blame the system that is "flawed" against us "little people"....whos fault is that?

 

[hfdff422]

The Government has its place, and there are certain things that It should run- just not half of what it tries to run. Personal responsibility should be the standard expectation of our citizens. The reason medicine and care is overpriced is partly due to government micromanaging legal and professional issues. It also is partly due to varied interpretation of laws that allow way too much money to be awarded to malpractice suits that were filed for risky procedures to correct the stupidity of those who are suing. Many of these laws and criteria are put in place for our safety- sure, but at what point do we start living in guaranteed safety?- Never, but on the road to try to receive that guaranteed safety, we shall guarantee a loss of freedom. We are already paying a hefty bill for it financially. The advancement of medicine is inherently risky, and to guarantee advances- must remain so.

I will pay the cost of freedom, whether it be the risk of daily life, the price of medical care, or even putting myself in clear and present danger to ensure the American dream. I do not want to live in a society that $1.35 of every big mac is somehow tied to government cost and regulation. There are hair in your meat- there is rat crap in your soup- etc. At some point, regardless of government regulation there will be a risk of your lips touching something gross. Where would you rather eat, the mom and pop restaurant that serves fresh pie, or the Burger King that is very detail oriented on keeping up on their DOH inspections? Guess where you are more likely to have ants crawling across the dry goods.

To maintain the level of care that we currently have, government control would increase the inefficiency of expenditures and that bill will be felt by a vicious demise in our economy. We are not in a position to suffer the kind of hit that our economy would take.

 

[Stevo]

$$$ for $$$ other countries with NHC fare better than we do hfdff422, and their citizens are not left out in the cold.

the ideal of personal responsibility via a healthy lifestyle saving the entire insurance pool $$$ is somewhat tedious, the tactic is often used to demonize the unfit as a focal point

every one of us will inevitably get sick or injured at some point, and all of us are going to eventually die. Now if your lucky you'll go quickly and quietly (i ain't leavin' ems nothin!) but should you lanquish your expenses will traditionally assume the most $$$ in your last 6 months.

this is where the other ideal of fiscal responsibility also falls on it's face, and when you've taken enough old timers from their homes to the local fossil museum , listening to the demise of that hierloom along the way inept goverment starts to look a whole lot better than greedy CEO's

the gov has proven it's superiority over the private sector in many regards here.

Medicare has a 3% administrative overhead iirc, compared to the private insurances whom are double digited

that said, did you know Vermont has socialized medicine? That's right, it's called Dr. Dinosaur , exclusively for kids here.

works like a charm really...

you see, our history of have nots goes back quiet a way, after the depression a good % of us couldn't pass the physical for WW11 in fact.

the level of toothless scarecrows here became a burden on society, so now our tax $$$ goes to Dr. D's preventative concept

contrast this to the ignorance concept that allows 40 million of us to be a potential burden and you may see my point

we are our brothers keeper here, like it or not...

~S~

 

[hfdff422]

I am my families keeper- as in my wife and kids. If my brother cannot take care of himself, should I bring him into my home, let him eat my food and let him become a burden on me. Not for very long, a hand up is OK on occasion, but you cannot allow those who have the ability to care for themselves to not do so. I am OK with the productive members of society helping to care for those who are unable, but universal healthcare is not that. Universal healthcare takes control away from the members of society that are paying for it. We will not benefit from losing more rights and control of more services, not to mention allowing a top heavy government more access to more of our money.
We should not be without compassion, we do need to take care of those who cannot do so, and furthering those programs is not something that any reasonable person is opposed to. Creating a larger dependant class and further coddling those who are abusing the system is not humanity though, it is a guarantee of a loss of liberty.