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.

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

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.

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?

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
You say you are against socialist programs.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
You say you are against universal health care but you offer no alternative.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
If you were to look at countries that have socialized medicine you would see that that is not the case.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Is that how "Capitalism" is supposed to work?

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.

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...

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

It is absurd to believe that an individual exists in a vacuum.

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.