Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[Thorne]

why should people who have tried hard to find a way out of a mess they did not choose themselves - bad state schools, closed circles of getting a decent job, illness - have to pay for the occasional cheating and hustling by some anonymous folks they have never met, but who happen to be living in the same kind of places and have more spacious consciences?

You know, I get tired of these kinds of arguments. "She didn't have any chance!" "It's not his fault that drugs are his only way out!" "They never got a break!"

I honestly don't care! It's not my fault they're in the situation they are in. I didn't force their parents to breed like rabbits when they didn't have two nickles to rub together. I don't trash the schools they attend, or the apartments they're living in. So why should I have to pay for their problems? I have my own problems to deal with.

Then along comes a career politician (who's never had to pray that his paycheck would cover the bills, who never had to worry about stretching that little bit of ground beef to cover two meals, who never had to watch a family member die because of a lack of decent care) and tells me I have to pay for universal health care so the poor people can be saved.

Why save them? Let them die off naturally. Let them pay the price for their stupidity and for the stupidity of their parents. Why should my kids have to suffer because so much of my pay gets taken by the government to pay for lazy pricks who are only interested in their next fix?

If it were up to me there would be no government handouts except for those who have already proven their worth to society, the elderly who've worked their lives away to make a better world for their children. Need a handout? Ask the church, or the Red Cross, or the Salvation Army. That's what they do. And I don't have to support them in their futile actions. But don't ask for my help. I've gotten to where I am through my own hard work and the hard work of my parents, and their parents and their parents.

My ancestors came over here from central Europe with little of nothing to their names, not speaking the language (doesn't seem to be a problem anymore, here), without jobs and without help. Yet they managed to drag themselves up to a decent life, and to help their kids get started on an even better life. So don't tell me it can't be done! All it takes is hard work and determination. Something that government handouts can't provide.

[Thorne]

As you can see from the above post, I'm getting more than a little peeved about this subject. It's something I've heard over and over for most of my life, and I'm tired of people defending other people who have done nothing to merit such a defense.

So I'm opting out of this thread. I'm sure I've upset a lot of people here, and if so I'm sorry.

[bellelapine]

You know, I get tired of these kinds of arguments. "She didn't have any chance!" "It's not his fault that drugs are his only way out!" "They never got a break!"

I honestly don't care! It's not my fault they're in the situation they are in. I didn't force their parents to breed like rabbits when they didn't have two nickles to rub together. I don't trash the schools they attend, or the apartments they're living in. So why should I have to pay for their problems? I have my own problems to deal with.

Then along comes a career politician (who's never had to pray that his paycheck would cover the bills, who never had to worry about stretching that little bit of ground beef to cover two meals, who never had to watch a family member die because of a lack of decent care) and tells me I have to pay for universal health care so the poor people can be saved.

Why save them? Let them die off naturally. Let them pay the price for their stupidity and for the stupidity of their parents. Why should my kids have to suffer because so much of my pay gets taken by the government to pay for lazy pricks who are only interested in their next fix?

If it were up to me there would be no government handouts except for those who have already proven their worth to society, the elderly who've worked their lives away to make a better world for their children. Need a handout? Ask the church, or the Red Cross, or the Salvation Army. That's what they do. And I don't have to support them in their futile actions. But don't ask for my help. I've gotten to where I am through my own hard work and the hard work of my parents, and their parents and their parents.

My ancestors came over here from central Europe with little of nothing to their names, not speaking the language (doesn't seem to be a problem anymore, here), without jobs and without help. Yet they managed to drag themselves up to a decent life, and to help their kids get started on an even better life. So don't tell me it can't be done! All it takes is hard work and determination. Something that government handouts can't provide.

Sir and I agree with you entirely. He would like to pass on His commendation to you and your family for understanding that there are no free rides in the world that only through hard work and honest labour (if labour is involved sometimes mental tasks can be trying as well) can you overcome obstacles.


Gagged_Louise : I have seriously been altruistic at times in my life only to have been told "You're the wrong colour for a scholarship"(despite having a 4.0 I wasn't needy enough), "Have a baby and we'll consider assisting you with your medical bills" (I had a tumor removed from my cervix). Now explain how in the hell anyone with half the brain I have or more of the brain than I have would TRY! if they are told...do this and you'll get it free? I've busted my ass my entire life so that people can pop out kids who will be taught that if they pop out a kid they can live for free too.
Yes somewhere every day someone is treated like shit. But not everyone you meet is worth respecting. Not everyone who cries they have repented, didn't have a chance or whatever their pitiful excuse may be worthy of anyone's help if they didn't actually try. Yeah I went to a shitty school...I went to a pretty damn shitty college (it lost it's accredation three times), but I struggled through and graduated. I got my diploma and I've moved into a better situation than my parents lived in. But I worked hard. I had parents who educated me that nothing was free and I'd have to scrape my knuckles if I wanted to get out of the dirt. I didn't take the handout, I wasn't even in the running for handouts based on how the government works.

If someone is legitimately disabled sure. I hope like hell they are getting all the government assistance they can possibly get. But when the day comes that I go to WalMart to put things on lay away for Christmas just so I can afford that Barbie castle for my daughter, and people on welfare are handing over cash and wearing so much bling my eyes hurt....there's a serious problem. And it's not just with universal healthcare.

[Ladymad]

You know, I get tired of these kinds of arguments. "She didn't have any chance!" "It's not his fault that drugs are his only way out!" "They never got a break!"

I honestly don't care! It's not my fault they're in the situation they are in. I didn't force their parents to breed like rabbits when they didn't have two nickles to rub together. I don't trash the schools they attend, or the apartments they're living in. So why should I have to pay for their problems? I have my own problems to deal with.

After my mother passed away, I at age 16 was forced to care for my sisters, both younger than I, and my elderly grandmother, very sick with cancer. I couldn't go and get a job, because I needed to go to school - to better myself, to eventually get a university education and be able to support my family properly in the future. Thank god for Australia's bungled medicare system, which paid for my grandma's cancer treatments and the treatment my mother recieved before she died. Our PBS system ensured, through $5 for 3 months of birth control, that there would be no additions to our already struggling family.

If I had lived in the grand ole US of A, I wouldn't be at uni right now. My grandma would have been dead 12 years ago, the first time she was diagnosed with cancer. My mother, who had been chronically ill for the last 8 years of her life, would also have passed away much earlier. I would never be able to afford healthcare because to pay for what I needed at the time to support my family, I would have needed to leave school and find a job. So I would have found menial work, which never would have given me any opportunity for any actual advancement, leaving me forever stuck at the bottom rungs of the society.

Americas healthcare and welfare system systematically destroy lives. Through the denial of fundamental human needs like healthcare or adequate welfare for those in need, America pushes people further down when they need help the most.

My life would be fucked if what had happened here had happened in America... To me, it would not be worth living.

[voxelectronica]

I'm with Thorn on this. I lived a better part of my life in and out of poverty. I knew my mother starved to keep me fed as best she could while she was working two jobs. Meanwhile my sister was running every scam in every government cheese play book so she didn't have to work so she could go get high with her friends, while my mom and i watcher her kid. which eventually turned into two kids.

The projects... I lived there. Children i plaid with are dead from drugs, gang violence, or in prison. Some of them never made it to their teens. Some of them left and are doing great things. There is a line, there is a difference. Those who left came from the parents who worked hard. Those children understood that there are people who have no understanding of work is.

There is a culture in this country that feels that is okay to take hand outs. That it's okay to do nothing. That it's okay to work the system and it's larger than this "small percent". I've seen it, I've lived it, I'm related to it. They don't see it is a helping hand, as a temporary situation. They see it as what they deserve. That's their attitude. That it's deserved.

Are there people out there who work HARD even though they are on assistance? yes. Are they still contributing? yes. but this idea that it's only a rogue person who is abusive is silly. It's not an issue of how they feel it's an issue of how they're taught. I'm not on any assistance. My sister still is and her children are. When you are raised seeing your parents do something without remorse you will do it too without remorse.

I don't say this from any height. I say this as a girl that makes 9.00 an hour who takes public transit to work. whose bank account was over drawn from her birth control. I've been to a well fare office in the past 6 months and I STILL donate money. I STILL volunteer. When there are generations of people who have been on well fare and who get their nails done... yeah I think that's a real issue.

[gagged_Louise]

Thorne: sorry but we don't live in the 19th century anymore - the immigration policies of the United States, and the amount of land, or easy work (factory, shoeshining, farmhand or house maid) you could find just by passing Ellis Island, to single out just those two things, have changed radically since then. Nothing is easier than saying "it worked in my great-great-grandfather's day so it must still be like that now".

[denuseri]

Actually I have seen people in simular or worse circumstances than what have been described right beside me in the classrooms at college completely on a free ride where I have to take off to work in a strip club between semesters to make enough money to pay tuition..

Our Governement hands out lots of money to the people that are willing to look for it.

But not so much if you have a half way decent job or your spouse does or you are not both considered a minority.

I will fully agree our healthcare and social wellfare systems in all countires need to be re-worked.

But as I said before, after speaking to a lot of different health care proffessionals from a lot of different counties.......no one has it right yet.

[lucy]

I will fully agree our healthcare and social wellfare systems in all countires need to be re-worked.

But as I said before, after speaking to a lot of different health care proffessionals from a lot of different counties.......no one has it right yet.

You're definitely right on that, it appears as if America has it wrong the most, tho:
"Neue Zürcher Zeitung", November 20th, 2008 (sorry, didn't find a link to the online article, but it would be German anyway): US health care system now employs more people than the private industry and costs 16% of the gross national product.

That's a third more than the second most expensive health care system (Switzerland, 12% of GNP). And it still leaves out about 15% of the population.

So, to sum it up: America manages to have an extremely expensive health care system that doesn't even provide all it's citizens with basic health care. Could it be any worse?

[denuseri]

Yes it could, look at the majority of counties in the world where heath care isn't even an option unless it is provided by volunteers from other nations.

[lucy]

Yeah, ok, but then again, you don't want to compare "developed" countries like the US with, say, Burundi.

[denuseri]

Heath care is needed world wide, not just in developed nations.

[gagged_Louise]

Health care is needed world wide, not just in developed nations.

Yes, but the US is one of the most technologically advanced countries on earth, plus a massive producer of goods, services and science - and the American state certainly doesn't sit arms crossed when it comes to furthering business interests or the sanity of the economy (well, right now it's an issue of course how much you should do that at home, but...) Inasmuch as she has a right to tax her citizens under law, the US should be able to afford to care for the people who live there and work for her. Most advanced countries have free, public medical care with a decent level of ambition. The US is a standout here.

People dying early or getting crippled for life when that could easily be stalled is a huge waste to any country. It's not just about suffering, it's also about keeping up the economy and the power to defend yourself in the long run, and to make smart and strong people come moving in when they might as well go to India, Australia, France or Canada. I'm putting it like that, a bit utilist, because Thorne and others seem to insist that individual suffering, education or safe roads is nobody's business if you can't pay for it by yourself.

[MMI]

Why save them? Let them die off naturally.

People are stupid to be poor? Did I read that right?

Nazism has its place, I suppose, but in America?


I agree that there is no health system in the world that is perfect, and perhaps we can all learn from each other. However, where a nation knowingly denies medical assistance to virtually all of its needy for fear of accidentally providing succour to the dregs of society, then that nation is unspeakably selfish, spiteful and cruel.

TO BE IN NEED OF HELP DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU DO NOT DESERVE HELP.

We who advocate "universal" health care supported by taxation are not saying, let's give all the tramps, hobo's, spongers, cheats and liars a free ride at the expense of all the decent, hard-working, god-fearing citzens who know what a dollar is worth, but not what compassion is, we are saying, let's do our best to make sure everyone gets the medical treatment they need, rather than just the treatment they can afford.

Belapine's illustration makes the point for me (which may come as a surprise to her!). Her parents had worked hard and paid taxes in a society which doesn't take care of its citizens' well-being except in rigidly limited circumstances, means testing being part of the conditions for qualifying for help. As a consequence, when her parents needed help, they were denied it because they "earned too much".

If they had been UK citizens, they would have worked just as hard, and paid taxes too, some of which would have gone to the NHS. When her mother became ill (whether she was rich, poor or simply comfortable), she would have received all the help she needed without having to fear bankruptcy or impoverishment. And she wouldn't find herself surrounded by drug addicts, drunks and the work-shy on her ward either.

She might have been even better of under the French, Canadian, Austrian or some other system, I cannot say. But unless she lived in a place like Bangladesh or the Congo, she is unlikely to have been worse off than under the American system.


Final thought: I suspect America's government supported health programmes actually are used by the dregs of society more, because no-one else is allowed to.

[mkemse]

My only question on Universal Health Care for all is 2 fold
Children need it, they can't afford it themselves since they do not work or can't work do to age
The other half is the Governement always has said that it is too expensive to ffer it to everyone
Tax Cigartettes or Liguor, ect We do ont have the Money for Universal Heaklth Care , But we ALWAYS seem to have money to help rebuld other nations, or help other countries fincialy, why not use that money to Pay For OUROWN helath Care, take care of ourselfs before we take care of others
I have on issue with the UnitedStates helping other Nations or Country, but only if it does not effect what we as American desve the right to have, if we are denied for money reasons then take the money we are going to send over seas to rebuild and use that
Every Child in this Country should have some type of medical insurance

[mkemse]

Originally Posted by wmrs2
It just has not worked very well to surrender your freedoms to the government in terms of health insurance

I am not sure what surrendering my freedoms had to do with health insurance, i have medicare a,b and d through the goverment, they pay most of my expenses (I hae a $10 deducatable no that is not a typo. $10.00 not $100.00)I have not lost 1 Freedom? I pay a minuimal prememium (much much less the Blue Cross Blue Shield, I get to choose my docotor, I get to choose my pharmacy ect and my hoisptial if that is needed, I have not given up 1 freedom for this and have saved money over Blue Cross Blue Shield amnog others
Just Not sure what you mean, what does having universal health care have to do with surrending freedoms??
And to pay for it, you up the Tax on Cigarettes, Liguor ect the Sin Tax,, if you do not drink or smoke, you as a taxpayer pay ZERO because all the cost are covered and only those who smoke and drink pay for the Insuarance costs through theTax on those items
And you still get your Insurance NO payroll deductiond on it either
Yes you pay a montlhy Preminum for Medicare but you would have to pay a Premium for any insurance you have Health, Life, Car ect NO insurance is free in terms of no premium to pay

[mkemse]

Originally Posted by wmrs2
It just has not worked very well to surrender your freedoms to the government in terms of health insurance

I also may have misunderstood what you mean by loss of Freedoms, if you are referring to loss of Fredom to choose your own docotor own hospital and related , yes you would if you are talking about loss of freedoms such as where you can live, work travel ect, your civil liberties no you would not loose that, so if i misunderstood what you mean my
i just need to clarify what I said in response to what you said, my apologies if i misuinderstood what you meant

[wmrs2]

Originally Posted by wmrs2
It just has not worked very well to surrender your freedoms to the government in terms of health insurance

I also may have misunderstood what you mean by loss of Freedoms, if you are referring to loss of Fredom to choose your own docotor own hospital and related , yes you would if you are talking about loss of freedoms such as where you can live, work travel ect, your civil liberties no you would not loose that, so if i misunderstood what you mean my
i just need to clarify what I said in response to what you said, my apologies if i misuinderstood what you meant

What I said was a very general statement and realize it may not mean much to others. If the government does everything for you and all planning for the future, the individual is free to pursue happiness within a very limited domain. You could be forced to accept less than you can individually afford. I don't want to support people who, for example, buy too much of a house but I don't want the government to tell me how big of a house I can purchase either. That may not be good enough answer for the person that can not afford any house or health care at all but it is the best I can offer at the present. I do have an open mind to suggestions. I do think the answer lies within the discussion of capitalism vs. socialism.

[mkemse]

What I said was a very general statement and realize it may not mean much to others. If the government does everything for you and all planning for the future, the individual is free to pursue happiness within a very limited domain. You could be forced to accept less than you can individually afford. I don't want to support people who, for example, buy too much of a house but I don't want the government to tell me how big of a house I can purchase either. That may not be good enough answer for the person that can not afford any house or health care at all but it is the best I can offer at the present. I do have an open mind to suggestions. I do think the answer lies within the discussion of capitalism vs. socialism.

Ok all I wanted to know was when you said los of reedom whether you mean freedom to chooice you doctor ect ect or lost of civil librities

your post to me was very ambiguous when toy said "Loss Of Freedoms," tha could mean any number of tyings from loosing you ability to choose your docotor, hosptial pharamacy and be at theirmercy or your cilvil libertires
ifi was in refernce to loss of choosing your own docotor, ect yes you would if was in reference to loosing your civil liberties, that would have nothngi to do with it the as i ssaid the term used "LOss of Freedo as posted was a very geberal term

[wmrs2]

Ok all I wanted to know was when you said los of reedom whether you mean freedom to chooice you doctor ect ect or lost of civil librities

your post to me was very ambiguous when toy said "Loss Of Freedoms," tha could mean any number of tyings from loosing you ability to choose your docotor, hosptial pharamacy and be at theirmercy or your cilvil libertires
ifi was in refernce to loss of choosing your own docotor, ect yes you would if was in reference to loosing your civil liberties, that would have nothngi to do with it the as i ssaid the term used "LOss of Freedo as posted was a very geberal term

Pardon me for this please but your typing is so bad that I am having difficult reading what you are asking but nevertheless, I will try to answer you. As I said I think the answer lies in a discussion of socialism vs. capitalism. You say you are not a socialist, as you keep telling me,therefore, you should appreciate my comments. The more the government takes over the control of health care, the less freedom you will have in making decisions. For example, this morning, the news media announced that Obama was going to resend the decision that protected doctors who refused to provide services to people seeking abortions. Heretofore, if the doctor considered it immoral to perform an abortion, he could refuse to do so. From hereafter, if he refuses to do so, the doctor could lose his right to practice medicine and also lose any Federal funds in payment for any services he provides. It has been a part of established law that a mother can have an abortion but, if a doctor for religious reasons, did not want to provide this service, he could refuse. Now, that is about to change.The right of the doctor to chose is stripped from him. This is one example of where socialism tends to limit the freedom of the individual to make moral decisions. I am sure you can think of others.

In thinking about what you said last night about health care, it came to me that the problems associated with health care may not lie so much in the system of health care we have, but in the individual's management of his personal economy. As you explained your health coverage to me, it seemed that you have a pretty good health plan. I think this is true of the majority of Americans. Your health coverage is very similar to mine.

Of course, I have no way of knowing if you are wealthy or poor but let's say that you are dirt poor. Let's speculate that you had no respect for the value of an education when you were young. Let's say that you gambled and hit the bars regularly and never really tried to hold a well paying job.(I assume none of these things are true of you,ok.) The problem with your health care benefits would not be with your health care system but rather with how you managed your life history. Too many people chose to enter the economy at a level that pleases them at the moment, show no motivation to improve their economic position, and in later life want others to pay their way. It is about that grasshopper thing. This illustrates the weaknesses of socialism and the strong point of capitalism. I prefer capitalism rather than communism and socialism the same as you do.

You say that you do not favor the nationalization of the factors of productions and neither do I. If we apply this same principle to health care, it is obvious why we must be against universal health care as some people predispose it. Yet, I recognize that health care needs to be improved for children and the disabled but I don't see the value of letting grasshoppers mess up the works which socialism will do.

My point in stating that America has the world's greatest health care was not to argue that fact as being too true but that the good health system we have was built under a capitalistic system. I think that we can improve the health system in a more democratic way by sticking with our democratic principles. This, I assume this is the reason you are not a socialist yourself.

[mkemse]

What I said was a very general statement and realize it may not mean much to others. If the government does everything for you and all planning for the future, the individual is free to pursue happiness within a very limited domain. You could be forced to accept less than you can individually afford. I don't want to support people who, for example, buy too much of a house but I don't want the government to tell me how big of a house I can purchase either. That may not be good enough answer for the person that can not afford any house or health care at all but it is the best I can offer at the present. I do have an open mind to suggestions. I do think the answer lies within the discussion of capitalism vs. socialism.

ok thank you for clarifying it as a general statement, that is why i asked what you mean, the way iot was worded I simply did not know which "Freedoms "were referenaced, it was NOT meant a a sligt to you, just asking for clarification thats all

thank you

[MMI]

I didn't relise this thread was still going on ...

I can't comment on the different levels of medicare people are on, or whether it is a good deal for you all - I hope it is.

I do endorse thank Dr Buzzczar for his comments, and I note that wmrs2's response was, I can't lose my job. Then you are luckier than most Americans. I have "spoken" to many Americans on the internet who do not have any health insurance because they cannot afford it. They pray that they never fall seriously ill because they dread having to use the public health services. It is third world standard. I have also spoken to at least one American without health insurance and who had a serious illness. She is better now, but she had to sell her house.

Socialism isn't all about taking money from those who have it and giving it to the indolent. It is treating everyone as they should be treated, like people, regardless of how much money they have accumulated. I suppose you could say that under socialism, a person is appeciated for what he gives to society whereas under capitalism, a person is appreciated for what he takes out of it.

Yes, America has universal health care: a two-tier system. One for the rich, and one for the poor. In the land where everyone is supposed to be equal, only if you have money are you entitled to good health, and, yes, to live your life to the full. I was thrilled to hear that Obama wants to introduce a better healthcare system: go for it, Barack!

I have indicated before how much I have personally benefitted from our state system. I have had a heart attack, I am on life-long treatment for diabetes. My wife has been operated on for cancer and is now receiving a five year course of medicine. I have no idea what that might cost in USA: we get it for free.

But, that's not true, we don't get it for free. We paid our National Insurance contributions, like very other working person in UK. These contributions pay for the NHS, just as your medicare premiums pay for your private system. The difference is, that, there are no limits or exclusions under the NHS, and there are no fat cats creaming off profits like there are in the health insurance companies. (I admit there are inefficiencies and budget restrictions, but those happen everywhere, and they do not impeded the provision of a high quality health service that is free at the point of delivery. And if the British system does suck - as capitalist Americans have claimed - then the French and Canadian systems certainly do not.)
As for the freedoms I have surrendered, I can't think of one. If you know what freedoms I have lost, please tell me.

[MMI]

On the contrary, the fact that a man falls on hard times, and then falls ill, but cannot be treated because he is poor shows that the capitalist system is fundamentally flawed.

I agree there are some people who are unwilling to make sensible provision for their life, and I can understand the argument that they should be made to take the consequences of their stupidity, but such people are few and far between. There are many many more who deserve our help and who would be just as willing to help if they could. Your system condemns them, perhaps to death. A state healthcare system would not.

Furthermore, who is to say who is a scrounger and who is deserving? How can you tell?

When you consider that countries like France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have state sponsored healthcare systems where treatment is available for all, I repudiate the suggestion that universal health care is something only to be found under "socialism".

What I want to know is, why you are so mean-minded that you would prefer to let people suffer rather than pool your resources with everyone else to ensure that everyone, good or bad, wealthy or poor, holy or evil, black or white, you or anybody else, can be given the best available treatment when they need it.

No-one - not even drug addicts, benefit cheats or people of a lower social class than yours - wants to have cancer, or to have to deliver their own baby in a squalid hovel, or to cauterise a stump after losing a limb on their own. Would you turn them away from hospital becasue they don't have the right medical subscription? Suppose your car left the road ploughed into a hedge under which a homeless person was sleeping. Should you be treated for your cuts and bruises while the vagabond lies in his own blood and piss, limbs crushed and body racked with unrelieved pain, simply because he didn't make sensible provision for his future?

Have you ever read a Charles Dickens book?

As for the doctor losing his freedom to choose on religious grounds whether to perform an abortion or not, at least it restores the woman's right to choose on pragmatic grounds whether to become a mother or not, without receiving a lecture on the doctor's idea of what is right or wrong, or to be told she is a harlot and the spawn of the Devil. I would bet that her choice is more valid than the quack's.

So far, you have failed signally to convince me that I would be better off making my own provision for healthcare, than I am belonging to the National Health Service.

[mkemse]

On the contrary, the fact that a man falls on hard times, and then falls ill, but cannot be treated because he is poor shows that the capitalist system is fundamentally flawed.

I agree there are some people who are unwilling to make sensible provision for their life, and I can understand the argument that they should be made to take the consequences of their stupidity, but such people are few and far between. There are many many more who deserve our help and who would be just as willing to help if they could. Your system condemns them, perhaps to death. A state healthcare system would not.

Furthermore, who is to say who is a scrounger and who is deserving? How can you tell?

When you consider that countries like France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have state sponsored healthcare systems where treatment is available for all, I repudiate the suggestion that universal health care is something only to be found under "socialism".

What I want to know is, why you are so mean-minded that you would prefer to let people suffer rather than pool your resources with everyone else to ensure that everyone, good or bad, wealthy or poor, holy or evil, black or white, you or anybody else, can be given the best available treatment when they need it.

No-one - not even drug addicts, benefit cheats or people of a lower social class than yours - wants to have cancer, or to have to deliver their own baby in a squalid hovel, or to cauterise a stump after losing a limb on their own. Would you turn them away from hospital becasue they don't have the right medical subscription? Suppose your car left the road ploughed into a hedge under which a homeless person was sleeping. Should you be treated for your cuts and bruises while the vagabond lies in his own blood and piss, limbs crushed and body racked with unrelieved pain, simply because he didn't make sensible provision for his future?

Have you ever read a Charles Dickens book?

As for the doctor losing his freedom to choose on religious grounds whether to perform an abortion or not, at least it restores the woman's right to choose on pragmatic grounds whether to become a mother or not, without receiving a lecture on the doctor's idea of what is right or wrong, or to be told she is a harlot and the spawn of the Devil. I would bet that her choice is more valid than the quack's.

So far, you have failed signally to convince me that I would be better off making my own provision for healthcare, than I am belonging to the National Health Service.

Sorry about mt typing, yes WMRS2 had said if we had universal insurance she would loose all her freedoms what I wa trying to determine was if they meant Freedom to choose her own doctor, medication and pharacy ect or if they meant civil liberties, the reply post by them was ambiguois and left me confuded as to what they mean by looose of freedomss thas all
based on pasts posts by them I waa not sure which freedoms the were infreference to

sorry about my typing hope this one is better

[Belgarold]

To add on to MMI's post. There is a public health issue involved in the argument FOR Universal Health care as well. If someone who can't afford health care (and in this country there are more and more of us) and they get something serious or contagious it affects their whole area.

My feeling is the Health Care Insurance Industry are the ones that create the socialist bugaboo. They have a cash cow here and do not want to lose it. WHile most Americans suffer. And where a high school educated clerk decides what will be paid for and what won't be.

ALL PEOPLE deserve health care.

ANd Duncan, you are right, but many that do not support Universal Health care use that argument. That the poor are ALL ne'erdowells that do not deserve to be treated like human beings. SO MMI's point was sound, it IS callous to believe this. But many, many people believe it.

[Thorne]

I'm going to play some Devil's Advocate here. (If I believed in hell I'd probably be condemned to the seventh circle for this. And some here would be more than happy to escort me there! )

ALL PEOPLE deserve health care.

Why?

I can think of quite a few people who don't deserve health care. I can think of quite a few who don't deserve to live!

Should a junkie who poisons himself with toxic chemicals every day of his life be entitled to the same quality of health care as hard working citizen? Should someone who drinks himself into a stupor night after night, destroying his own liver in the process, be given the same chance for a new liver as the young mother who's liver was damaged in a car accident? And what of the doctors and nurses who might no longer be able to set their own fees for services rendered. Don't they deserve better than that?

Everyone deserves healthy foods, too, don't they? So why not devise a Universal Food Service System, so anybody who's hungry can walk into any restaurant and get the most expensive meal for free? Just trash the food stamp program. That only lets people get the cheapest foods. We all deserve to eat steaks, every night!

And people need transportation, too, don't they? Why not give everyone a brand new luxury car, so they can get around when they have to? And don't forget the gas! Everyone needs free gas, too. And heating oil. And housing. We DESERVE it! Don't we? Hell, the government's paying for it. They have plenty of money!

All right, all right, I realize I'm bordering on the ridiculous here (if I haven't already crossed that border.) But my point is that nobody deserves anything. We have to EARN our way in this world. Nobody has to give anything to anyone.

As I understand it, Universal Health Care brings everyone to the same level (theoretically) so that the bum from the Bowery and the millionaire from Park Avenue get the same quality of medicine, the same quality of nursing care and the same quality of hospital care. While I'm sure that the bum sees nothing wrong with this, I'm also sure that the millionaire does! And so do I.

Should we provide health care to those who cannot afford it? Certainly! That doesn't mean it has to be the greatest quality health care, though. A certain basic level of care and treatment would be called for. Beyond that it's pretty much pay as you go.

And yes, I realize that condemns the children of poor families to lower quality health care simply because of their parents position in society. Short of raising all children in a central creche system until they are old enough to earn their own way, I don't see any cure for this. Life's a bitch!

(Geez, I'm gonna get crucified for this!)

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

As I understand it, Universal Health Care brings everyone to the same level (theoretically) so that the bum from the Bowery and the millionaire from Park Avenue get the same quality of medicine, the same quality of nursing care and the same quality of hospital care. While I'm sure that the bum sees nothing wrong with this, I'm also sure that the millionaire does! And so do

As I understand it, Universal Health Care means that basic health care is available to everyone. Germany, for instance, has a Universal Health Care that covers 85% of their population that covers basic health needs. The other 15% opt for private insurance as they can afford it. Germany has had a form of universal coverage since 1883 under Otto Von Bismarck, by the way.

[Belgarold]

I'm going to play some Devil's Advocate here. (If I believed in hell I'd probably be condemned to the seventh circle for this. And some here would be more than happy to escort me there! )

Why?

I can think of quite a few people who don't deserve health care. I can think of quite a few who don't deserve to live!

Should a junkie who poisons himself with toxic chemicals every day of his life be entitled to the same quality of health care as hard working citizen? Should someone who drinks himself into a stupor night after night, destroying his own liver in the process, be given the same chance for a new liver as the young mother who's liver was damaged in a car accident? And what of the doctors and nurses who might no longer be able to set their own fees for services rendered. Don't they deserve better than that?

Everyone deserves healthy foods, too, don't they? So why not devise a Universal Food Service System, so anybody who's hungry can walk into any restaurant and get the most expensive meal for free? Just trash the food stamp program. That only lets people get the cheapest foods. We all deserve to eat steaks, every night!

And people need transportation, too, don't they? Why not give everyone a brand new luxury car, so they can get around when they have to? And don't forget the gas! Everyone needs free gas, too. And heating oil. And housing. We DESERVE it! Don't we? Hell, the government's paying for it. They have plenty of money!

All right, all right, I realize I'm bordering on the ridiculous here (if I haven't already crossed that border.) But my point is that nobody deserves anything. We have to EARN our way in this world. Nobody has to give anything to anyone.

As I understand it, Universal Health Care brings everyone to the same level (theoretically) so that the bum from the Bowery and the millionaire from Park Avenue get the same quality of medicine, the same quality of nursing care and the same quality of hospital care. While I'm sure that the bum sees nothing wrong with this, I'm also sure that the millionaire does! And so do I.

Should we provide health care to those who cannot afford it? Certainly! That doesn't mean it has to be the greatest quality health care, though. A certain basic level of care and treatment would be called for. Beyond that it's pretty much pay as you go.

And yes, I realize that condemns the children of poor families to lower quality health care simply because of their parents position in society. Short of raising all children in a central creche system until they are old enough to earn their own way, I don't see any cure for this. Life's a bitch!

(Geez, I'm gonna get crucified for this!)

Maybe not crucified, but I do take exception to much you have said, LOL.

I DO believe that people deserve to be fed. Just on what we Americans throw out every day we could feed the hungry. And there are too many people going hungry in this country.

Granted the car thing aside (a bit far out there :-) ). I believe, yes the Junkie needs to have the OPTION of getting care for his addiction. And Life may be a bitch but that is no reason we can't strive to make it better.

And true socialism is supposed to do as you say. Everybody is equal and gets equal care. And in a perfect world maybe that would work. But if you look at the USSR, China, etc. Corruption wins out and the Commisars and leaders live VERY well while the populace suffers. But we have our OWN share of corruption in this system as well.

I believe that what Obama proposes is that if you don't like the government plan you can opt out and have your own plan. The socialistic, we are going to ruin your health care bugaboo, is a scare tactic from the Health Insurance industry.

Dr. BuzzCzar's explanation of the German system is probably what we would build here.

But we have to get past all the scare tactics and misrepresented facts I believe.

[MMI]

Mr O'Neil. I have to say, I do like to provoke people. I can't help it, I like a good rumbustuous debate. If a poke won't get one, I'll try a prod.

Nevertheless, it does seem to people outside USA that the value of everything to Americans is measured in dollars, and if a thing has no dollar value, then it is utterly worthless. A misconception, possibly, but almost as universal as some healthcare systems. Vide other Americans' comments in this thread.

The fact that a poor person owns his own house doesn't necessarily mean much. How much equity does he own in that house, by the way? And is that house no more than a timber construction twice the size of my potting shed, or is it a vast mansion set in grounds that expand over many acres? To get to the point, if he sells it, will it cover his medical bills, and, if it does, will he have somewhere to live after he has paid them?

But if, as you say, even the poor of America are wealthy, then why do you fear helping them out. They will be able to afford to contribute to the system as much as you will. They will be scrounging off you no more than you will be leeching off them. Please understand, despite what detractors say, national healthcare services are not free handouts to the dregs of society: everyone pays into it and everyone is entitled to draw upon it when they need to.

Furthermore, I believe that dubbing the American Health Care System (or the proposed one) as Kevorkian is a gross slander on the medical profession in America. If they are operating a triage system, it is to prioritise treatment by the degree of urgency, it is not to filter out those who can be "helped to die".


And that brings me on to Thorne's comments. Oh Thorne! What can I say? Should I say it in German? Wer sind die Untermenschen, die verdienen, zu sterben*?

OK - I'm not fluent, but I think you get my point.

How would you decide who gets healthcare and who doesn't? People without jobs don't? Or blacks, jews or communists, maybe. Perhaps you hate women. Or people earning less than $50,000. What is your criterion when you say there are people who deserve to die?

There but for fortune, Thorne. You do deserve to be crucified

And you also need to get it out of your head that you are being asked to give up any of your ill-gotten gains just to give other people who you consider beneath you a free ride. You are being asked to make a payment similar to a health care plan's premium - and instead of it - in order to obtain a full health care service run by or on behalf of everyone who participates. It's co-operation, not communism, and it's probably cheaper than what you pay Medicare - and you won't be excluded on the grounds of your parents' medical history, or because you have suffered from a particular illness before, or simply because your policy doesn't run to that much cover. You'll be entitled to the best the heath system can afford. I can see nothing wrong with the bum and the millionaire getting the best. But if the millionaire can afford even better, then let him have it, so long as he maintains his contribution into the health service.

It should be available to all, but the choice whether to use it must be a free one.

Likewise with a healthy food service or a public transport service. If these were thought desirable, then everyone would contribute to a food tax or a transport levy, and then everyone would leave their cars at home and ride to work for "free" eating "free" organic sandwiches. These ideas, have their merits, Thorne: good thinking!

I personally think there should be a national legal service where everyone could get legal representation, free at the point of delivery.

Finally, I think Belgarold has made a very pertinent point when he highlighted government's responsibility to look after the health of the nation as a whole, and that includes controlling the spread of disease.

Perhaps they should be eliminated.

Or they could be cured.


* Who are the subhumans who deserve to die?

[Thorne]

And that brings me on to Thorne's comments. Oh Thorne! What can I say? Should I say it in German? Wer sind die Untermenschen, die verdienen, zu sterben*?

How would you decide who gets healthcare and who doesn't? People without jobs don't? Or blacks, jews or communists, maybe. Perhaps you hate women. Or people earning less than $50,000.

Thankfully I don't have to make those decisions, but my first choice would be those who prey on innocent people, taking anything they want because they are too lazy to work for it. I don't hate blacks or Jews. And I don't even hate communists, though I think they are deluded in their beliefs. And I definitely love women! And I respect them. And for the record, I earn less than $50,000.

What is your criterion when you say there are people who deserve to die?

Well, to start with, I'd have to say child molesters would be at the top of my list, followed closely by drug dealers/importers, especially those who sell to children. Spouse beaters and general bullies who blame everyone for their own failings might make the list, though perhaps just being the recipients of the kind of abuse they hand out would be enough. And rapists. I cannot tolerate them. Put them up with the child molesters.

There but for fortune, Thorne. You do deserve to be crucified

While I will admit that some of what I have in my life may be due to luck, most is due to my own hard work and that of my wife. We have always looked to the future, saving when we could and skimping when we had to. Not letting ourselves get into debt over luxuries we could live without.

And you also need to get it out of your head that you are being asked to give up any of your ill-gotten gains just to give other people who you consider beneath you a free ride.

The unkindest cut, here. Anyone who manages to save and make something of themselves must be depending upon "ill-gotten gains". Well I can honestly say that none of what little I have in this life has been gained at the expense of someone else. Unless you think I should give up my job of 25 years to someone who needs it more.

[Belgarold]

Just more info on the houses of the poor. Many are houses that have been in the family for years and years. Some from the Homestead act, when members of the family could afford houses, and such like that. Many of these houses are not worth much, unfortunately and if they were sold would mean the owners were probably left homeless.