RE: Vote Universal Healthcare

RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

CuriousLord -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 5:18:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx That is not the definition of universal health care. Like public streets and public education there will always be those who use but do not pay. That is no reason for the rest of us to do without. Could you state your point more clearly here? I see a couple of possible meanings, but they're all pretty weak. I believe your auctual point may be more substantial. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I hope you are not suggesting that many people will intentionally get sick just so they can access the health care system. thompson Actually, no. That was not in my thoughts at all here, but there is a point in it. There's a lot of things people should do to help keep themselves healthy. Not only a health-based, but fiscal, motivation to do so. So what about those people who will be more prone to certain illnesses due to reckless behavior, such as poor driving, drinking alcohol, using illegal drugs, smoking, sun tanning excessively, exposing themselves to STD's regularly and without always using precautions, etc.? Also the richer part of society- not the billionaires, but the middle class and the upper middle class- those people who stay up late at nights working, never having wasted a weekend in a drunken stupor like so many of their peers, putting work on the top of their list of priorities- will be paying for the same quality health care of those who work part time, spending every cent that they can skrunge for on booze or drugs. If they want better? They get to pay for health care twice.

thompsonx -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 5:47:05 PM)
CuriousLord: Please assume that I am smarter than I really am...it makes me look good. I do not see a problem with those who work hard paying taxes to provide for universal health care. I do not see a problem with the "slackers" who do not work hard paying taxes for universal health care. I am not sure I see your objection to universal health care. My taxes help to pay for police and fire protection and while I have never had need of their use I do not begrudge those services to those who do need them. I hope I never need them but that does not mean I will seek a rebate on my taxes because I have not used them. I meet ignorant people from time to time. I am sad that they,for what ever reason, failed to learn while in school but I do not want to close the schools. If you were ill for what ever reason(your poor choices or just a twist of fate) I do not begrudge you health care because I do not need it. I am glad I do not need it but I know it is there should I have the need. thompson

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 6:18:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx That is not the definition of universal health care. Like public streets and public education there will always be those who use but do not pay. That is no reason for the rest of us to do without. There's a lot of things people should do to help keep themselves healthy. Not only a health-based, but fiscal, motivation to do so. So what about those people who will be more prone to certain illnesses due to reckless behavior, such as poor driving, drinking alcohol, using illegal drugs, smoking, sun tanning excessively, exposing themselves to STD's regularly and without always using precautions, etc.? Also the richer part of society- not the billionaires, but the middle class and the upper middle class- those people who stay up late at nights working, never having wasted a weekend in a drunken stupor like so many of their peers, putting work on the top of their list of priorities- will be paying for the same quality health care of those who work part time, spending every cent that they can skrunge for on booze or drugs. If they want better? They get to pay for health care twice. I'm not an alcoholic, I don't use illegal drugs, and I don't have unprotected sex of any kind, including oral because it's a health risk. I had a job at MCI, but they closed down. After my son was born, I got another job making $8/hr. With me being the only one working in a family of three, I was eligible for food stamps. But when I applied for Medicaid, they told me I made too much money. For you to say the middle class works harder than those in service jobs is just plain wrong. In fact, those who work the hardest often get paid the least. Or do you think everyone with a service job is an std spreading drug addict?

CuriousLord -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 6:37:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx That is not the definition of universal health care. Like public streets and public education there will always be those who use but do not pay. That is no reason for the rest of us to do without. There's a lot of things people should do to help keep themselves healthy. Not only a health-based, but fiscal, motivation to do so. So what about those people who will be more prone to certain illnesses due to reckless behavior, such as poor driving, drinking alcohol, using illegal drugs, smoking, sun tanning excessively, exposing themselves to STD's regularly and without always using precautions, etc.? Also the richer part of society- not the billionaires, but the middle class and the upper middle class- those people who stay up late at nights working, never having wasted a weekend in a drunken stupor like so many of their peers, putting work on the top of their list of priorities- will be paying for the same quality health care of those who work part time, spending every cent that they can skrunge for on booze or drugs. If they want better? They get to pay for health care twice. I'm not an alcoholic, I don't use illegal drugs, and I don't have unprotected sex of any kind, including oral because it's a health risk. I had a job at MCI, but they closed down. After my son was born, I got another job making $8/hr. With me being the only one working in a family of three, I was eligible for food stamps. But when I applied for Medicaid, they told me I made too much money. For you to say the middle class works harder than those in service jobs is just plain wrong. In fact, those who work the hardest often get paid the least. Or do you think everyone with a service job is an std spreading drug addict? Family of three, and you're the only one that works? Alright, then my question is.. why aren't the other two working? I'm assuming one is the child you mentioned- I'd be all for him having healthcare covered. If the other member is also a child, an eldery, or a disabled (in other words, in a condition in which he shouldn't work), I'd also be for it. (Post 16.) For cases such as yours, I'd say we should look at improving unemployment for those who had jobs and lost them in a manner such as the one you had to suffer. Universal healthcare, though, would mean that we'd be responsible for a lot more. --- The money system is a good thing. It motivates people to actually work for things that they want. It causes competition for superior services. It causes innovation, ambition! Capitalism is, largely, a mechanism for continued evolution. Still, like evolution, it isn't always fair; regardless, it's still, overall, productive. Still, we're human. We want more fairness. defiantbadgirl, it sounds like you're having a legitmate problem. There should be ways to help take care of such problems. I just don't think the appropriate answer is shotgunning the money system with an indiscriminate socialist program.

Casie -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 7:22:19 PM)
I say get the government out of the health care system!! The are great at screwing things they take control of. So, why oh why do we think they could do this well? We pay enough taxes as it is!! If my husband paid half the taxes he does, it would equal a monthly house payment!! The last thing this country and our economy needs is higher taxes. And yes we would have to raise taxes for a universal health care system. Furthermore, I don't want someone who sits on their ass in low income apartments selling drugs stealing my tax dollars for free health care. And if you don't think there are very many out there I welcome you to come to my town and visit one of the three low income apartment buildings and see for yourself!! There is no reason on God's green earth why able adults should have their health care provided to them at the expense of everyone else. It's is absurd to me. And it is theft to be quite honest.What needs to happen is lower taxes so people are more able to afford health insurance. We need to make insurance a more competetive business for example people should be allowed to buy out of state insurance if it fits there budget better. People need to be more responsible for their health care. If you are gonna undergo a treatment, research it, be aware of the risks, and take an active role in your health care desions. This lead to less malpractice suits and in turn doctors paying less for malpractice insurance and gee lower prices for us. !

popeye1250 -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 7:47:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx That is not the definition of universal health care. Like public streets and public education there will always be those who use but do not pay. That is no reason for the rest of us to do without. There's a lot of things people should do to help keep themselves healthy. Not only a health-based, but fiscal, motivation to do so. So what about those people who will be more prone to certain illnesses due to reckless behavior, such as poor driving, drinking alcohol, using illegal drugs, smoking, sun tanning excessively, exposing themselves to STD's regularly and without always using precautions, etc.? Also the richer part of society- not the billionaires, but the middle class and the upper middle class- those people who stay up late at nights working, never having wasted a weekend in a drunken stupor like so many of their peers, putting work on the top of their list of priorities- will be paying for the same quality health care of those who work part time, spending every cent that they can skrunge for on booze or drugs. If they want better? They get to pay for health care twice. I'm not an alcoholic, I don't use illegal drugs, and I don't have unprotected sex of any kind, including oral because it's a health risk. I had a job at MCI, but they closed down. After my son was born, I got another job making $8/hr. With me being the only one working in a family of three, I was eligible for food stamps. But when I applied for Medicaid, they told me I made too much money. For you to say the middle class works harder than those in service jobs is just plain wrong. In fact, those who work the hardest often get paid the least. Or do you think everyone with a service job is an std spreading drug addict? Family of three, and you're the only one that works? Alright, then my question is.. why aren't the other two working? I'm assuming one is the child you mentioned- I'd be all for him having healthcare covered. If the other member is also a child, an eldery, or a disabled (in other words, in a condition in which he shouldn't work), I'd also be for it. (Post 16.) For cases such as yours, I'd say we should look at improving unemployment for those who had jobs and lost them in a manner such as the one you had to suffer. Universal healthcare, though, would mean that we'd be responsible for a lot more. --- The money system is a good thing. It motivates people to actually work for things that they want. It causes competition for superior services. It causes innovation, ambition! Capitalism is, largely, a mechanism for continued evolution. Still, like evolution, it isn't always fair; regardless, it's still, overall, productive. Still, we're human. We want more fairness. defiantbadgirl, it sounds like you're having a legitmate problem. There should be ways to help take care of such problems. I just don't think the appropriate answer is shotgunning the money system with an indiscriminate socialist program. CL, what we have now in this country is not capitalism. I don't know what it is! Outsourcing jobs, importing illegal workers and cheap goods made in third world countries? "Capitalism?" Then, we pay for the healthcare of people in foreign countries through all those "foreign aid" programs while 47 million of our own citizens go without any coverage at all? Anyone see anything wrong with that? Is that how "Capitalism" is supposed to work?

thompsonx -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 8:21:48 PM)
CuriousLord: You say you are against socialist programs. We are a socialist country. The reasons that people form themselves into societies is so that the group is stronger than the individual. We have a fire department that is paid for by all but only used by a few. We have roads that are paid for by all but not used by all. We have schools that everyone pays for but not everyone uses. These are just as socialistic as universal health care. You say you are against universal health care but you offer no alternative. Clearly the system currently in place is not working. You keep harping about drug addicts and what not as if somehow all of the drug addicts and the "ner do wells" would suck the system dry if it were to be put in place. If you were to look at countries that have socialized medicine you would see that that is not the case. thompson

CuriousLord -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 8:58:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You say you are against socialist programs. I'm afraid you may misunderstand me. I'm just against having a socialist program as extreme as universal health care. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx We are a socialist country. The reasons that people form themselves into societies is so that the group is stronger than the individual. Not quote so true. Capitalism and socialism are just concepts, not necessarily realities. In a way, we're neither. More.. well, practically, we're a combination. I'd say we're probably closer to a capitalist society, though we definately have large socialist components. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx We have a fire department that is paid for by all but only used by a few. We have roads that are paid for by all but not used by all. We have schools that everyone pays for but not everyone uses. These are just as socialistic as universal health care. Good points, though I'd argue that these cases (fire departements, roads, and schools) are good to have socialized for different reasons. (I'd also point out that while we have socialist forms of these institutions, we also have capitalist roads and schools; additionally, many plan on capitalizing schools further via vouchers). Where a hospital clearly works with people at individual levels, fire fighters deal with fires that affect properties which would be difficult, and likely counter-productive, to assign bills to. This is especially true in the case of forest fires and fires ranging over large areas. Schools, before adulthood, deal with minors- a class of individuals I've argued probably should receive social benefits. Universities, perhaps accordingly, are often government-assisted, but not government-provided. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You say you are against universal health care but you offer no alternative. What do you mean? I already said healthcare should be offered to those too young, old, or disabled to provide for themselves. And we have unployment going, so let's fix that up and improve it. Both of these programs put together would still be much, much cheaper than universal healthcare. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Clearly the system currently in place is not working. You keep harping about drug addicts and what not as if somehow all of the drug addicts and the "ner do wells" would suck the system dry if it were to be put in place. Among other problems. But, yes, they'd get a free ride and people would have less reason to be productive. (The less someone needs money, the less likely they are to work. If this just means a little easier, then they'll be a little less productive.) quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx If you were to look at countries that have socialized medicine you would see that that is not the case. Do you have evidence for this, or is this just an opinion?

mnottertail -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 9:20:28 PM)
quote: What do you mean? I already said healthcare should be offered to those too young, old, or disabled to provide for themselves. And we have unployment going, so let's fix that up and improve it. Both of these programs put together would still be much, much cheaper than universal healthcare. How would you offer that, seriously; in what form. At my folkses age and I paid a hell of a lot more in tax, social security and made more money in my life that is not mine than you can ever hope to make in gross............you guys are going great--------------your mommy prolly does your taxes. there is a bunch of you pimples coming out here with numbers in your last name that are only that.the FARGO, ND VA had the audacity to name itself after Ronald Reagan--------nobody voted and trust me, after Carter, there aint no veteran presidents, now let me tell you something, you can yell retards, and the WMD wave comes in, yell ignorant and the neo-con wave comes in, but behind the war as they are they wont pay it (cyber bitch I am gonna pick this foolish congress budget shit up again soon........lol, just rambling.....I'm drunk ) so, somebody goes nuts and you all coward neo-cons say that well, we found a bad american, cant cover him, there are 20 year old kids without limbs and worse, and your ass will have to pay for them for thir lifetime........ don't actually try to think while you are fuckin stupid people......it has been overwhelming for you at the outset.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 9:42:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Is that how "Capitalism" is supposed to work? Yes. The game Monopoly can teach you exactly how an unfettered, chance based capitalist system results in a monopoly (ultimately a plutocracy as the board is owned by one player by endgame, one player in a position to call ALL of the shots politically). Just as in real life, in the game of Monopoly money begets money. In the earliest stages of play you must spend as much as possible to gain access to high value real estate. Then you must just as quickly develop those properties so that you can task your opponents with high rents - while they are paying you off they can't develop their own properties as easily. If you do this well, your opponents will begin to sell off what little they own to keep paying you. By the end, you have crushed your opponents who are beholden to you or entirely bankrupted. Back to real life: By the time I got here lots of people already owned most of the good shit worth owning. All I can hope for is to buy in at some point with the money the monopolists allow me to have - and they do need us to perform actual labor for them, to be sure. But it's also quite clear that the system is stacked in favor of those that bought in early and developed quickly. And yes, it's de facto plutocracy. The smartest move you can make is to become some kind of owner - that's how you make your money work for you while you more or less kick it. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Monopoly

RossDaniels -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 10:23:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'm afraid you may misunderstand me. I'm just against having a socialist program as extreme as universal health care. Where a hospital clearly works with people at individual levels, fire fighters deal with fires that affect properties which would be difficult, and likely counter-productive, to assign bills to. This is especially true in the case of forest fires and fires ranging over large areas. Schools, before adulthood, deal with minors- a class of individuals I've argued probably should receive social benefits. Universities, perhaps accordingly, are often government-assisted, but not government-provided. As an Australian I have to say that it's amusing to see universal health coverage being called 'extreme'. It's worked here for decades, and as with the NHS in Britain and the heath care systems in Canada and throughout the developed world, it has widespread public support for the simple reason that it works. At least I suspect that it works better than the more expensive US system. One point that people might not have realized is that in a lot of those system, public healthcare competes alongside with private insurers. For all the talk of private companies delivering services more efficiently than the government, in Australia at least, the private insurance companies still require government subsidies to compete with the public healthcare system. Personally I think that's a waste of money, but that's another debate...

CuriousLord -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 10:28:55 PM)
Erm.. you seem a bit more inclined to insult than speak at this point. I'll.. try to not be "overwhelmed" by the extreme complexities of all of this.. Yeah.. go neo-conservatism.. it's a real movement.. we have meetings every Satruday at 2 PM. It's sort of a lunch/dinner sort of thing. We have shrimp and kool aide.

farglebargle -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 10:29:27 PM)
What do you call a government supported program of CORPORATE exploitation, such as our current situation with HMO's bringing nothing but additional expense to the table? Since we HAVE Government run healthcare ( for the benefit of HMOs ) why not just keep the Government in control, but get rid of the HMOs? I would think that Healthcare is functionally equivalent to Socialist Security, and therefore, why not just fund it the same way?

CuriousLord -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 10:33:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RossDaniels quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'm afraid you may misunderstand me. I'm just against having a socialist program as extreme as universal health care. Where a hospital clearly works with people at individual levels, fire fighters deal with fires that affect properties which would be difficult, and likely counter-productive, to assign bills to. This is especially true in the case of forest fires and fires ranging over large areas. Schools, before adulthood, deal with minors- a class of individuals I've argued probably should receive social benefits. Universities, perhaps accordingly, are often government-assisted, but not government-provided. As an Australian I have to say that it's amusing to see universal health coverage being called 'extreme'. It's worked here for decades, and as with the NHS in Britain and the heath care systems in Canada and throughout the developed world, it has widespread public support for the simple reason that it works. At least I suspect that it works better than the more expensive US system. One point that people might not have realized is that in a lot of those system, public healthcare competes alongside with private insurers. For all the talk of private companies delivering services more efficiently than the government, in Australia at least, the private insurance companies still require government subsidies to compete with the public healthcare system. Personally I think that's a waste of money, but that's another debate... Yeah.. I can imagine private carriers needing subsidies to compete. Afterall, they are completing against something that's 100% subsidized.. kind of hard to argue with something that's free.. While it.. "works".. in Austrilia, I sort of doubt it carries the social reprocutions that one might find favorable in the US. Still, if you know any links to the sociology of such a system, it'd be neat to read.

RossDaniels -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/14/2007 11:04:00 PM)
Well, private health insurers can exists without subsidies, since there will always be people willing to pay more for coverage. They'd just make up a smaller part of the market.

TheHeretic -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/15/2007 12:11:23 AM)
Speaking as one of the millions of Americans without health insurance, universal care is the last thing I want. The DMV analogy is ancient at this point, but still true. I'd rather not make an appointment to see Dr. Lowest Bidder and his nurse Equal-Opportunity Employee. Like many of the statistically exploited, my situation is temporary and a matter of choice. I changed jobs, and the new policy hasn't kicked in yet. Knowing my medical history, I gambled that the $350 a month for the interim coverage would be considerably more than a potential trip to the ER for stitches. A bout of bronchitis would mean a trip to the Vets clinic (free, with my DD214), and paying full price for the anti-biotics. Now, getting a better system of services to those without means is a damn good idea. Our ER's are about the worst place to handle that. When a patient died in the waiting room at King-Drew, how many of those ahead of her didn't need to be there? The fact that doesn't fit easily into the tragedy of the uninsured, is that we have universal access to medical treatment. For those that cannot pay, the service is slow, generally impersonal, often downright bad, and costs a lot more than it should. Government provided, in other words. I've done the middle of the night trip to the ER, before the clinic opened, with a cough that doubled me over. I sat amongst the illegal and the homeless. I might have been the only person there who wrote a check when the bill showed up. Guess what? When the new policy kicks in, I don't want to sit next to the smelly homeless dude. Better benefits was one of the reasons I went after this new job. My options are a lot better here. I'll want to upgrade again before the abuse I've heaped on my body over the years really starts catching up with me. I work very hard to NOT need the safety net. Do we really want a system where only the very wealthiest can afford better than crap? You want a whole lot more free clinics? I'm in. You want a federally backed catastrophic illness benefit? We can work something out. You want the government to assume control of the system, I'm right back out again.

NorthernGent -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/15/2007 1:02:49 AM)
'Seems to me like there are two bones of contention: 1) Why should those from the poorest socio-economic groups be supported? We're all supported: every day. Presumably you read books and study, and, consequently, borrow/take from others' (the groups') intellectual property. It is absurd to believe that an individual exists in a vacuum. 2) The government is not best placed to run an efficient health care system. This one carries more weight in my mind, but it's predicated on your definition/measure of efficient. If you mean cost reduction, then of course a private company will be more efficient because their mission is to make money: that is their reason for existence. Some of those savings may be passed on to the consumer, depending on market competitiveness/potential for price fixing etc, but it doesn't guarantee quality healthcare; as per any other product, it's dependent on what the consumer/market is prepared to accept. The government, on the other hand, exists to serve the community; that is their reason for being, so, providing you live in an active civil society where people exercise their liberty within the democratic process, they will serve your needs and provide you with a quality standard of health care (this assumes that you aspire to a quality standard of health care for everyone, some will not). Maybe the government isn't the root of the problem; maybe it's the people not exercising their right to a stake in the nation, and, rather, take the easy, get-out-of-jail-free option which is to blame the government for everything: people get the government they deserve. In my opinion, the government can exist to serve the community, and they can administer a 'value for tax payers money' health care system, but it's not going to arrive on a plate for you; you have to work for it, you have to play an active role in the democratic process: you have to work for your stake in the nation, nothing's free in life. The alternative is 50% of the people not voting, and others making uninformed decisions on policy; big business takes over the asylum, governments are rendered subservient to them, and corruption, theft and war becomes the norm/accepted.

meatcleaver -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/15/2007 1:22:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent If you mean cost reduction, then of course a private company will be more efficient because their mission is to make money: that is their reason for existence. Some of those savings may be passed on to the consumer, depending on market competitiveness/potential for price fixing etc, but it doesn't guarantee quality healthcare; as per any other product, it's dependent on what the consumer/market is prepared to accept. NG. Private healthcare being cheaper than a national healthcare system is not born out by the facts. The most expensive healthcare in the western world is American healthcare which is private with some government interference. One of the most cheapest is the British National Health Service which compared to its European counterparts is hugely under funded but still for the most part delivers a world class service. My brother lives in California and loves all things American but even he says American Healthcare sucks (the delivery and cost, not the clinical side). He complains you are given treatment you don't need when you are healthy just to make money and refuse you treatment you need when you are sick, just to save the insurance company money. One of the best arguments one can make to capitalists for a national health system is for the benefits of the country. A healthy, stress free work force performs better and costs the country less (and companies) than an unhealthy worforce or a dtressed workforce wondering what will happen should they contract a major illness that will consume all they have worked for.

CuriousLord -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/15/2007 1:27:40 AM)
I don't mean to knit-pick; just easier to address specific points this way than vague, general responses. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent We're all supported: every day. Presumably you read books and study, and, consequently, borrow/take from others' (the groups') intellectual property. I believe this analogy to be flawed. (The next paragraph is irrelevant if you cede this.) But don't books cost money? And isn't studying just improving someone's self, at the cost of one's own effort (i.e., working), in order to go perform work? (Yeah, yeah. I know. Libraries. I don't know who uses the dated things anymore unless they're looking for some specific history or a fiction. Neither of which are known to rake in money, except, of course, for the people who write and publish them. But that doesn't help library readers.) quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It is absurd to believe that an individual exists in a vacuum. Did anyone suggest an individual exists in a vacuum (i.e., do everything alone)? Or are we suggesting individuals should earn their pay (i.e., work- alone or not, which would not fulfill the "vacuum" requirement)?

CuriousLord -> RE: Vote Universal Healthcare (9/15/2007 1:32:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent If you mean cost reduction, then of course a private company will be more efficient because their mission is to make money: that is their reason for existence. Some of those savings may be passed on to the consumer, depending on market competitiveness/potential for price fixing etc, but it doesn't guarantee quality healthcare; as per any other product, it's dependent on what the consumer/market is prepared to accept. NG. Private healthcare being cheaper than a national healthcare system is not born out by the facts. The most expensive healthcare in the western world is American healthcare which is private with some government interference. One of the most cheapest is the British National Health Service which compared to its European counterparts is hugely under funded but still for the most part delivers a world class service. Aren't most things more expensive in America? I still remember Africian exchange students talking about how they'll go back home after graduation since a large section of land can be purchased there for a small apparentment's monthly rent here, along with everything else being far cheaper. Plus isn't this why many jobs are being outsourced internationally and our trade deficiet with China's huge? This is to say, we have to consider the relative cost of things here in America when comparing prices.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875