Socialized Healthcare

D

dknob

New Member
Does anyone else find it disturbing that you may be paying the medical bills for the McDonalds eaters and the Aspartame/Soda/Fluoride drinkers? Medical bills for crackheads, heroin addicts and the rest? All those people getting fucked up and/or addicted to synthetic "medication".

Its obvious it isnt American, which no one gives a damn about anymore. But it doesn't even seem right. I've heard mixed things about Canada's medical. On one side its a utopia of perfect healthcare, on the other side Canadians cross the border for American healthcare.

Whats everyones opinions on this? And why should Joe Blow be paying for the med bills of crackhead McGee?

*edit*
or this kid
 
AlphaNoN

AlphaNoN

Well-Known Member
I'll bite, though I'm not looking for mud slinging contest, and I'll be the first to say that Canada's social medical care isn't what we should model our own on. But personally, I believe that the problems with socialized medicine are exaggerated out of a fear of redistribution of wealth, shortfalls in ones own health care, and mortality in general.

Let me start off by providing an example of a socialized system that is already in place in America, that few object to: Defense. This is, of course, just an example of how privatization is wrong for a situation, it doesn't necessarily mean that socialization is right for all situations. Let me get your thoughts on this and I'll post more, this is a bit lengthy.

Suppose the national defense of the United States were relegated to the private sector. Instead of the publicly funded Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, the country would be defended by private militias funded mainly by insurance companies. In the event of foreign attack on U.S. soil, the militias would defend those citizens in the affected areas who'd paid defense insurance premiums through their places of work (or, if self-employed, as individuals).

The best-armed troops would defend the wealthiest and most hawkish segments of the population, who would have paid the highest premiums.

The less-wealthy and more dovish customers who'd chosen a less-generous policy would likewise be defended against attack, but they could expect to pay heavily out of pocket because their insurance would only cover costs for weapons and manpower above a fairly high deductible. The doves' militias might or might not call in air support, knowing the insurance company would pay for it only in the most dire circumstances—difficult to calibrate as bombs are dropping all around you. Or perhaps these troops would belong to defense maintenance organizations (DMOs) that blended defense and insurance functions. If so, the soldiers would be required to follow strict protocols that would likely forbid not only air support but also the use of tanks.

Poor people and outright pacifists would buy no defense insurance at all, and therefore would end up being saddled with ruinously large debts to private militias they'd chosen hastily after the invasion was under way. Alternatively, these individuals might simply say the hell with it, wave a white flag, and surrender.

The advantage of a market-based national defense is obvious: Every citizen would receive an individualized amount of military protection, based on the value each of us placed on defending the homeland. Those who were particularly fretful about another 9/11 would pay a lot; those inclined to dwell on the rarity of foreign attack might prefer to use that money to buy a pottery wheel and a kiln for the basement. The freedom to choose is what this country is all about.

But the drawbacks of a privatized defense would weigh quite a bit heavier. The imposition of costs would bear no relationship to the buyers' ability to pay. Instead, cost would be driven by geography. People who lived in places that made particularly tempting targets, like Washington, D.C., would pay high premiums, and people who lived in places that had previously been attacked—Baltimore (War of 1812), Pearl Harbor (World War II), New York City (9/11)—would pay the highest premiums of all. Insurance companies would be reluctant to write policies for anyone living in these places and instead would seek out customers whose environments made unlikely military targets. Manhattan might be poorly prepared to repel enemy attack, but Middlebury, Vt., would be impregnable.

The overall cost of military defense would skyrocket even more than it does in our real-world, thoroughly socialistic system of national defense. This cost explosion would be partly due to welcome improvements as defense technology became able to kill many more people than previously thought possible. But costs would also be driven up by the enormous time and effort that defense insurers and militias would spend quarreling over who would pay the bills. (Assuming the militias were paid on a fee-for-service basis, rather than put on salary, soldiers would have an incentive to drive up costs further by putting deployment on a hair trigger.) Market purists would blame all cost problems on the inherently inflationary nature of third-party insurance payments and would argue for increasing the portion of national defense paid out of pocket in order to discipline buyers and pressure the private militias to get their expenses in line.

Bottom line: A market approach to national defense would give us a lousy national defense. That might be hard for many to perceive, since military technology, fueled by generous federal research grants to the more prestigious militias (and sometimes to less-prestigious militias via congressional earmark) might dazzle the world, and foreign potentates might flock to our shores to make use of our hardware and know-how. But too many Americans would be left undefended or underdefended, and too many militias and insurance companies would devote so much money and manpower to cost-shifting battles that they would lack sufficient funds to extend coverage or maintain existing coverage at an affordable level. The percentage of the defense-insured population would decline steadily, and people who purchased defense insurance would find that it covered a dwindling range of contingencies. The United States would end up more vulnerable to attack than Canada, Western Europe, or Japan.
 
D

dknob

New Member
I can understand the defense concept, although I could see strong militias (if the ATF wasnt constantly harassing them), independently and heavily armed, not acting on behalf of insurance companies(Always the bankers...). This would at least insure we never headed into a needless war overseas.

My main fear of socialized medicine is that everyone will be taxed to save the cig smokers, mcdonalds eaters, fluoridated water drinkers, hardcore drug addicts rather than just let them die or make a life changing decision to finally help themselves. I don't know how to fit that in to your analogy about defense, but you see where im coming from right? Its that simple, thats my whole issue with this deal, other than the fact that it is unconstitutional - but im used to that.

I don't see any possible way to remedy this problem, unless everyone else, unlike me, wants to save EVERYONE from themselves. Privatization is tricky, especially when certain variables raise the price of med so high you NEED to be in the banks(insurance co) pocket. Something needs to change, but I sincerely doubt socialized medical is the way, especially with the lack of preventative healthcare. Especially with the American view of healthcare, popping pills and eating salad laced with chemicals that disable your thyroid, drinking water that can cause skeletal fluorosis, dental fluorosis, retardation and cancer. It's hard enough to avoid the obvious shit, try avoiding the stuff nobody tells you about, or everyone is in denial about. I still have a hard time avoiding stuff like MSG. I even had to switch chicken cause they pump them with phosphates?! I don't even know what that is, or how its completely unstudied and will one day be found to cause cancer or some other shit, but I know it isnt right and what reason do I have to trust someones wonder-chemical propaganda. Poison/Chem seems to be everywhere, and even if you're trying to avoid it, you will eat or drink some. I can see socialized healthcare, or even a total socialist dictatorship working, just not in this country.
 
AlphaNoN

AlphaNoN

Well-Known Member
devknob said:
I can understand the defense concept, although I could see strong militias (if the ATF wasnt constantly harassing them), independently and heavily armed, not acting on behalf of insurance companies(Always the bankers...). This would at least insure we never headed into a needless war overseas.

My main fear of socialized medicine is that everyone will be taxed to save the cig smokers, mcdonalds eaters, fluoridated water drinkers, hardcore drug addicts rather than just let them die or make a life changing decision to finally help themselves. I don't know how to fit that in to your analogy about defense, but you see where im coming from right? Its that simple, thats my whole issue with this deal, other than the fact that it is unconstitutional - but im used to that.

I don't see any possible way to remedy this problem, unless everyone else, unlike me, wants to save EVERYONE from themselves. Privatization is tricky, especially when certain variables raise the price of med so high you NEED to be in the banks(insurance co) pocket. Something needs to change, but I sincerely doubt socialized medical is the way, especially with the lack of preventative healthcare. Especially with the American view of healthcare, popping pills and eating salad laced with chemicals that disable your thyroid, drinking water that can cause skeletal fluorosis, dental fluorosis, retardation and cancer. It's hard enough to avoid the obvious shit, try avoiding the stuff nobody tells you about, or everyone is in denial about. I still have a hard time avoiding stuff like MSG. I even had to switch chicken cause they pump them with phosphates?! I don't even know what that is, or how its completely unstudied and will one day be found to cause cancer or some other shit, but I know it isnt right and what reason do I have to trust someones wonder-chemical propaganda. Poison/Chem seems to be everywhere, and even if you're trying to avoid it, you will eat or drink some. I can see socialized healthcare, or even a total socialist dictatorship working, just not in this country.
Click to expand...
The point I was trying to bring home with the defense analogy was that we will willingly pay for military protection for society as a whole, even though we rarely need it, having it there as a security blanket, knowing that in the event of a disaster we would have our bases covered, seems well worth the more than half of all taxes we pay on past and current military. But, we won't apply that same sound thinking to health care, which, as defense has, would benefit overall from public control, as far as coverage, advances in technique, and prevention are concerned.

It is quite threatening, taking into account all the people that can't, won't, or don't know how to take care of themselves. To take responsibility for all those people seems like an endeavor that is doomed to failure, because no matter how much there is, there will never be enough. And providing for them will take precious resources away from those of us who may or may not need it, but have earned the peace of mind that accrued wealth brings.

The question is; do the benefits outweigh the consequences? The benifits being; if we can successfully fund and manage socialized medicine, ideally, better than any previous country has before, American society as a whole will never know the horror of losing their entire lives to an untimely sickness. If we succeed in that respect we are guaranteed that if you get extremely, expensively sick, the illness will not bankrupt you and funds will be available to cover your treatment. The consequences are that you will be paying for medical coverage you may never need or use, at insurance rates or higher and that coverage will be used to pay for other peoples' health and prosperity, they will probably abuse it, they will most likely use if frivolously, and they won't care that your hard earned dollars went to fund it. It will force American tax payers to make hard decisions about what their tax dollars will go to, a reassesment of priorities will be neccessary. (Personally, I would go with dropping the "wars on" drugs, terrorism abroad, etc. And legalizing/taxing vices for additional income.)

I really don't know how social medicine would play out in the US. But I seriously think your fears of providing for addicts and obese Mc D's customers are unfounded.

Drug addicts already have the option of state care when it comes to rehabilitation, the overwhelming majority of them are not interested. Those that are genuinely interested in fixing their lives should receive care, the burden they bring to the table is marginal if they do indeed clean up their act and start contributing to society. As for the obese masses; the number one prevention of obesity is regular visits to the doctor, someone to help them understand that they are going to die a disgusting early death, and to provide options for them to stay healthy. Keeping the masses informed is half the fight to a cheaper health care platform. And of course, those that do die young and fat or face down in the gutter of an overdose are not going to be using their "end of life" or elderly health care, one of the most expensive as far as time and resource consumption goes.

Socialized medicine offers longer life expectancies, less infant mortality and better care than our system. And while those outcomes can't, and shouldn't, be chalked up solely to the health care, it's foolish to deny that health care plays a part. Indeed, there's just about no disagreement over which side achieves better health care outcomes. Outcomes, remember, are not simply who saves more folks from heart disease. Americans do more in the area of cardiac bypass, but then, we need it. We do more in the way of cancer treatment, but both France and the UK have significantly lower death rates from cancer, heart disease too, most of this comes because preventive care due to the low disincentives for visiting the doctor, is far more advanced compared to America. Much more is caught much earlier and lifestyle changes, medications, and small-bore surgeries used to keep folks healthy. And, indeed, life expectancies across the ocean and to the North are much better than they are here.
 
D

dknob

New Member
None of my reasons are unfounded cept the drug addict one. They may be marginalized somewhat by doctors visits etc, but they are known health problems. I don't know man, life expectancy and survival rates don't do it for me. Survival of the fittest. I believe that keeping the weak alive is worse for the country as a whole in the long run. What an extreme concept, I know, it just makes sense to me. Ive been called right wing, sepratist, anarchist etc, I just like the constitution and ill never get past that facet when it comes to tax dollars. I have an extremely strong distrust for our government, warranted, and I especially wouldn't trust them with my healthcare.

Im also kind of waiting for the requirements for this socialized healthcare. The part im waiting for is "If you do not take our vaccines, you are not covered". Remember this, pretty sure you're going to see it. Further research on the gov's history with vaccines will explain why id even bring this up.

Id still like to know what some Canadians think of their healthcare as well. I saw "sicko", but later heard it was extremely one sided along with reports that some Canadians pass the border for American healthcare.

Either way, this is going to be a interesting presidency. Of course I expect the worst, but we'll see when one of the bastards enters office and starts breaking promises.
 
AlphaNoN

AlphaNoN

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't put my hope in survival of the fittest, even the most ignorant, ugly, fat, poor, mouth breather can find a way to spread their genes (usually en masse lol). If you haven't seen "Idiocracy" I highly recommend it for a satirical but surprisingly astute portrayal of where society is heading.

I can see your point about vaccinations, no one should be forced to take a needle. What we need is civilian oversight of the manufacture and testing of all vaccines by impartial third parties. I also see the danger of not using a generally accepted practice, such as regular immunizations to prevent people from dying of diseases we have all but eliminated from our country. Take for example the recent outbreaks of measles (some 127 patients) and polio, these were caused by someone who refused immunization, left the country, then returned carrying the virus, where it promptly spread to everyone in contact with that person who had also refused the vaccine (or had it refused by their parents). Should you be forced to be immunized? No. Should you complain when your children die or are disfigured from an easily preventable disease? Survival of the fittest..

I can see that you've made up your mind up on the matter, and I pretty much have too. At this point I don't think I could support social medicine, as the polarization of the political spectrum would not allow for an effort that would "take a village", so to speak, to make it work in a way that would benefit all.

Keep an eye on the political stage, we're due for a show of some sort ;)
 
D

dknob

New Member
AlphaNoN said:
If you haven't seen "Idiocracy" I highly recommend it for a satirical but surprisingly astute portrayal of where society is heading.

Should you be forced to be immunized? No. Should you complain when your children die or are disfigured from an easily preventable disease? Survival of the fittest..

I can see that you've made up your mind up on the matter, and I pretty much have too. At this point I don't think I could support social medicine, as the polarization of the political spectrum would not allow for an effort that would "take a village", so to speak, to make it work in a way that would benefit all.

Keep an eye on the political stage, we're due for a show of some sort ;)
Click to expand...
Idiocracy is one of my favs. And I agree and Agree to these two other paragraphs I left quoted. That is my primary fear, I think socialized medicine could work great for everyone, somewhere! But definitely not with how politics are. They always find a way to fuck it up.

on with the show
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Yes, but the problem with Socialized Medicine is that I'll end up paying more in taxes for something that I will hardly use.

I smoke and I drink, but I rarely get sick (last time was several years ago). Forcing me get health care means that I'm stuck paying for every extreme drunk that gets sclerosis of the liver and ends up in the emergency room needing a liver transplant. Every suicide attempt that fails, and every hypochondriac that flips out and wastes the time of a doctor.

I also have a problem with the amount of corruption and inefficiencies embedded in the current socialized medicine (Medicare and Medicaid). Maybe if the government showed that it could clean that up, and eliminate waste and find a way to ensure that excellence was the standard.

I don't think McCain's forcing everyone to get Health Insurance is the right idea either. I find the thought of being forced to trust my health to a corporation or the government as insulting. I will take care of myself.

Though the entire question really should be what must we do. And right now the only answer to that is to focus on paying off the national debt and actually getting the budget to show a surplus. Government is so inefficient, and corrupt right now that it is hard to want to expand it with out evidence that it is capable of operating efficiently.

Of course, the government is most efficient when no government employees are working. (It's a joke, not an opinion)
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Government control of anything, brings more control. You can bet, if we go to a complete socialized medical system, there will be controls on diet, weight and nutrition. Government, by its very nature, is about "don'ts."

Vi
 
Winter Woman

Winter Woman

Well-Known Member
Since when is it up to the government to tell me what I should buy with my money?
Should I purchase insurance so you don't have to?


healthcare.jpg
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Winter Woman said:
Since when is it up to the government to tell me what I should buy with my money?
Should I purchase insurance so you don't have to?


View attachment 1177801
Click to expand...
It isn't up to them. They have no right, they simply have greater force which they are willing to use and have repeatedly.
You could do what many people have done and tell them fuck off and refuse to participate involuntarily. Forcing somebody to purchase something will have unintended consequences and is certainly going to create more government. I think the IRS has already purchased a bunch of shotguns and hired new people in the enforcement division, but hey it's "for our own good".
 
B

BL0TT0

New Member
The government has control over Social Security, Medicare, and all the welfare programs. Based on how these programs are "working" I really hate to see how socialized medicine will "work".
 
M

Merowe

Well-Known Member
I see this thread began a couple of years ago but as a Canadian - now living abroad - I have an opinion on public health care to share.

First: unless you're a complete fucking idiot you will base your opinion on evidence: and evidence on the relative performance of socialized/ private health care systems is easily come by if you know how to use Google.

Anecdotal stories about Canadians visiting doctors south of the border are true but these are isolated incidents and generally by wealthier Canadians who are impatient or simply prefer private medicine for ideological reasons. If they're rich enough they can afford treatment by the best specialists in the world, who are often in the 'States.

Likewise, elements in the Canadian private media, which generally leans to the Neanderthal are constantly agitating against public medicine and publish all sorts of alarmist bullshit trying to whip up a panic.

Canadians for the most part don't buy that crap and consistently vote overwhelmingly in polls for the public system, for TWO VERY SIMPLE REASONS. Indeed, for those suspicious of the Canadian system it is a credit to the increasingly Pravda-like quality of North American media how few people actually know this shit:

Canadian life expectancy is slightly higher than Americans. That is, the average Canadian will live slightly longer than the average American. You can massage this basic truth any way you like - poorer outcomes for the uninsured drag down the numbers, etc, it still yields the simple fact that whatever else you say about our system, relative to Americans we can't complain too much about our health care, it seems to do a reasonable job of keeping us healthy.

Fact Two: the Canadian system on a per capita basis COSTS HALF AS MUCH. I don't have the figures to hand, but we spend about $2,000/citizen to the Americans' $4,000. Someone else can google that.

Analyse this as you like but to me its a pretty clear indictment of the American system. The subordination of people's health to the corporate drive for profits just about doubles your actual health care costs. If you implemented a truly public health care system and not the corporate shake-down that Mr.Obama signed off on your monthly costs would be halved. Or it would just come out of your income tax. I'm sure you could find a little room in that quaint little defence budget to help out there. Maybe cancel a couple of bomber toilet seat contracts or something.

With a few decades of Canadian healthcare behind me I've had a couple of surgeries and plenty of low order maintenance visits to my GP at the local hospital clinic. Specialist referrals and appointments were easily come by and besides medicine there were very few extra costs, I think I once had to spend 30 bucks on a plaster cast for a broken limb. All in all I'm very much in favour of the system.

When the entire population is freed from the gnawing worries associated with access to health care the quality of life for the entire society is improved. Less desperation means less crime, less tragic waste of life, improved self esteem. Seems a no-brainer to me.

To those who argue they don't want to pay for all the junkies and the crack babies' treatment, the logic of the argument is compelling. But in practical terms, as I've noted, you end up paying twice as much for the privilege of not subsidizing the losers.

I just noticed in my old province of Ontario that obesity rates are through the roof. The fact is, health care costs in both countries could probably be halved with proper control of the junk food industry. But that would impinge on the 'freedom' of the McDonald's corporation, I'm sure, and that, of course, is unthinkable.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Merowe said:
I see this thread began a couple of years ago but as a Canadian - now living abroad - I have an opinion on public health care to share.

First: unless you're a complete fucking idiot you will base your opinion on evidence: and evidence on the relative performance of socialized/ private health care systems is easily come by if you know how to use Google.

Anecdotal stories about Canadians visiting doctors south of the border are true but these are isolated incidents and generally by wealthier Canadians who are impatient or simply prefer private medicine for ideological reasons. If they're rich enough they can afford treatment by the best specialists in the world, who are often in the 'States.

Likewise, elements in the Canadian private media, which generally leans to the Neanderthal are constantly agitating against public medicine and publish all sorts of alarmist bullshit trying to whip up a panic.

Canadians for the most part don't buy that crap and consistently vote overwhelmingly in polls for the public system, for TWO VERY SIMPLE REASONS. Indeed, for those suspicious of the Canadian system it is a credit to the increasingly Pravda-like quality of North American media how few people actually know this shit:

Canadian life expectancy is slightly higher than Americans. That is, the average Canadian will live slightly longer than the average American. You can massage this basic truth any way you like - poorer outcomes for the uninsured drag down the numbers, etc, it still yields the simple fact that whatever else you say about our system, relative to Americans we can't complain too much about our health care, it seems to do a reasonable job of keeping us healthy.

Fact Two: the Canadian system on a per capita basis COSTS HALF AS MUCH. I don't have the figures to hand, but we spend about $2,000/citizen to the Americans' $4,000. Someone else can google that.

Analyse this as you like but to me its a pretty clear indictment of the American system. The subordination of people's health to the corporate drive for profits just about doubles your actual health care costs. If you implemented a truly public health care system and not the corporate shake-down that Mr.Obama signed off on your monthly costs would be halved. Or it would just come out of your income tax. I'm sure you could find a little room in that quaint little defence budget to help out there. Maybe cancel a couple of bomber toilet seat contracts or something.

With a few decades of Canadian healthcare behind me I've had a couple of surgeries and plenty of low order maintenance visits to my GP at the local hospital clinic. Specialist referrals and appointments were easily come by and besides medicine there were very few extra costs, I think I once had to spend 30 bucks on a plaster cast for a broken limb. All in all I'm very much in favour of the system.

When the entire population is freed from the gnawing worries associated with access to health care the quality of life for the entire society is improved. Less desperation means less crime, less tragic waste of life, improved self esteem. Seems a no-brainer to me.

To those who argue they don't want to pay for all the junkies and the crack babies' treatment, the logic of the argument is compelling. But in practical terms, as I've noted, you end up paying twice as much for the privilege of not subsidizing the losers.

I just noticed in my old province of Ontario that obesity rates are through the roof. The fact is, health care costs in both countries could probably be halved with proper control of the junk food industry. But that would impinge on the 'freedom' of the McDonald's corporation, I'm sure, and that, of course, is unthinkable.
Click to expand...
Your post indicates you are very much in favor of having others subsidize your health care. Subsidizing somebody voluntarily is a good thing, it's called charity. Subsidizing somebody involuntarily is a bad thing, words like theft and slavery come to mind.

Asking government to initiate force on your behalf doesn't seem very nice. Would you steal from your neighbor? If not, why have you asked the government to do it for you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top