Universal Health Care Or Private Health Care?

So What is Best For America In your opinion. Please provide reasons!

Reason 1: The United States Constitution DOES NOT grant the government the ability to take complete control of a legal business sector, in this case, medicine.

Reason 2: The response to a health care problem is a long time. For example, there is a six month waiting period in the U.K. to see a doctor, no matter how serious the illness. Cancer Patients have, on average, a 40% greater change of dying if in the U.K.

Where did you get that stat? Not disagreeing, just would like to know where. I'm very against it myself - it is about 1012 pages and no one seems to have read it all. So, essentially, we are pushing a bill which no one knows the full extent of. It seems all the rage in congress now for the majority party to pass something, then when it backfires, point the finger at the other party for not reading it. Well, guess what! Neither did you!

Stalker wrote:Where did you get that stat? Not disagreeing, just would like to know where. I'm very against it myself - it is about 1012 pages and no one seems to have read it all. So, essentially, we are pushing a bill which no one knows the full extent of. It seems all the rage in congress now for the majority party to pass something, then when it backfires, point the finger at the other party for not reading it. Well, guess what! Neither did you!

I came across it as I was doing research on this very subject earlier today. I'll try to find it again.

if healthcare for everyone becomes free then its going to hurt the economy more because all the health insurance companies will lose alot of business obviously so more jobs lost. Im not an expert on this but its pretty simple. Socialism isnt the way to go look at China. the hole thing is just ridiculous.

I say we just all go to TV Evangelists/Healers. It's clear that it's just a demon possessing you.

Private Health Care
These are not really biased to any sort of left/right however logic dictates...
Reason 1: From studies done in china, canada, and other governments around the world, centralized health care DOES NOT work. Several patients do die or suffer longer because the waiting list that forms is large.

Reason 2: You have no choice in the doctor who treats your ailment, the government literally draws a name out of the hat so you either get the good brain surgeon, or the one fresh out of college. I would like to have some choice of who is picking at a brain tumor as much as the next person.

NJSC wrote:I say we just all go to TV Evangelists/Healers. It's clear that it's just a demon possessing you.

win.

Lone Wolf wrote:Private Health Care
These are not really biased to any sort of left/right however logic dictates...
Reason 1: From studies done in china, canada, and other governments around the world, centralized health care DOES NOT work. Several patients do die or suffer longer because the waiting list that forms is large.

Reason 2: You have no choice in the doctor who treats your ailment, the government literally draws a name out of the hat so you either get the good brain surgeon, or the one fresh out of college. I would like to have some choice of who is picking at a brain tumor as much as the next person.

Haha

logic dictates, that at least 20% of Americans don't have health insurance, And those have to cough up thousands of dollars for a surgery, examination, or emergenct. But 100% of citizens under the universal healthcare polocies in foreign countires do have free healthcare. Private health care companies are some of the dirtiest corporations on the planet. More people probably die from denied private insurance claims, than from the "poor" healthcare from universal healthcare using countries. Every day, Private insuers denie claims to surgeries that could save lives, just so they can make more money. Also, did you know that the private health insurance companies paid off congress members to vote against Hilary Clinton's Universal HC plan in the 90's? And are probably doing the same today for Obama. And the stories about the hour long waits in Canada and U.K. for a doctor, are mostly propaganda. Paid by whom? Private insurance companies.

I think right now, the government couldn't afford Free Healthcare.. that I understand. But if the economy bounces back, It should be a major priority. Because American's shouldn't have to trust their lives to CEO's of private health care companies.

I agree with Hans regarding that, at this point in time our government cannot afford Free Healthcare. But there must be a better way to solve this healthcare problem than the current plan that is trying to be pushed through. If I were to get some sort of serious ailment, I would like to pick my doctor. I know that we all would agree that if we had a brain tumor (copyrighted statement of BigD) that we would surely pick the doctor who has a 99% treatment success rate on brain tumors, than the other one who has a 67% treatment success rate.


IMO, I believe the government (not the current one, but the next Republican dominated [no offence to anyone] government) should regulate what the private healthcare insurance companies do to provide WE THE PEOPLE the best treatment, but always keeping in mind that WE THE PEOPLE need the right to choose who we want picking at us. Also may I say WE THE PEOPLE(elephant), and not WE THE SUPREME GOVERNMENT WHO RULES EVERYONE(donkey).

Before anyone comes down on me, I am NOT a Republican and I am NOT a Democrat. I am very independent, and share many views. I completely agree that the system needs to be changed, but It shouldn't be government sponsored. The gov is here to protect us (the people, who btw are supposed to control the gov and therefore technically are the gov) and our rights. Taxes are necessary to do this, but quite frankly I don't want my money going to someone who made their own bad choices. In some cases it just sucks that the people are in their situation and it wasn't their fault, but hey that's why there are charities. We all agree that helping our fellow American is the right thing to do, correct? Well then let's go help them ourselves - we don't need the gov to do that.

Stalker wrote:Before anyone comes down on me, I am NOT a Republican and I am NOT a Democrat. I am very independent, and share many views. I completely agree that the system needs to be changed, but It shouldn't be government sponsored. The gov is here to protect us (the people, who btw are supposed to control the gov and therefore technically are the gov) and our rights. Taxes are necessary to do this, but quite frankly I don't want my money going to someone who made their own bad choices. In some cases it just sucks that the people are in their situation and it wasn't their fault, but hey that's why there are charities. We all agree that helping our fellow American is the right thing to do, correct? Well then let's go help them ourselves - we don't need the gov to do that.

Ah-HA! I well writen post, which is rare on most forums! I completely agree with you!

I'm all for standardization of the industry. Standardization usually increases competition as consumers can compare products more. However, I don't think we can afford free healthcare. I've got friends in Canada (Canada has a medical system much like the UK), and what I've heard from them is that there's a lot less accountability for the doctors, because they've very much limited malpractice suits. And as a result, some of the doctors get sloppy. I've also heard that the wait times are a lot longer, and that a lot of people will sometimes drive to the US for medical treatment sometimes.

But honestly, if you see what kinds of profit margins that companies get from the government, it is truly outrageous. My dad worked in the commercial elevator industry for like 26 years, and he's told me what kinds of crazy profit margins you get from government projects. I mean, check out Gov Liquidators.com, and you can see what they pay for stuff. I was browsing the military gear section, and did you know that our government pays like $18 per ALICE mag pouch? I mean, as an individual, you can get a new pouch for less than that at RETAIL if you shop around. And frankly, when I look at how much they pay for that stuff, I shudder to think how much they'd pay for healthcare for all Americans.

One that that is for certain is that we cannot compare America to different countries with healthcare systems like the UK, Taiwan, etc. The fact of the matter is in the US we are dealing with a larger volume of individuals. Also the fact that there is much more of a difference in the population other than borders and numbers.

Personally I would stick with the private healthcare system that we have today. Mainly because my experience with government institutions have been fair to partly cloudy (cough cough USPS). I try to mail something at 4:50 and the doors are closed and I have had a dump pouch held in customs for 3 weeks now and they are always experiencing an extremely high volume of callers. If I needed a surgery within 24 hours extremely high volumes of callers would be less than ideal.

People forget that this bill will not make our healthcare like Canada or the UK. The only public health care the government is going to make any time soon is the offering of a public plan for uninsured people. Basically, they're extending medicare to all uninsured people.

Admin has a good point. The US spends more on military than any other country (a lot more. The next closest is China, and it's far away from our level of spending). If we cut that spending in half, we'd have way more than enough money to pay for healthcare and many more projects.

That is indeed true. Our military spending is REALLY high. As I said before, I claim no full part of either party, and here's some more evidence. I honestly don't think we need to be doing all that we are in foreign affairs any more. It is doing more harm than good. When our own country is in a state of downfall we can not and should not be expected to try and solve problems for everyone else. Heck, right now after all that we have done for the last... oh, 100 years or so, maybe it's our turn to get some help for once!

But, that's a different topic... like previously stated, idk if a government sponsored healthcare option is the best, but something definately needs to change, and cutting back on an absolute monstrosity of over-spending would greatly help the cause.

Ok well Heres something. How do we expect the Universal Health Care plan work if we can't even support a government operated program such as "Cash For Clunkers"?

Bulldog94 wrote:Ok well Heres something. How do we expect the Universal Health Care plan work if we can't even support a government operated program such as "Cash For Clunkers"?

What do you mean can't support it? Even though it just lasted a couple of months, over 800,000 cars were traded in for brand new automobiles. Which has definitly helped the auto industry. Which in turn has helped the economy.

Hans wrote:

Bulldog94 wrote:Ok well Heres something. How do we expect the Universal Health Care plan work if we can't even support a government operated program such as "Cash For Clunkers"?

What do you mean can't support it? Even though it just lasted a couple of months, over 800,000 cars were traded in for brand new automobiles. Which has definitly helped the auto industry. Which in turn has helped the economy.

which means our tax money went to other people getting new cars. wonderful.

But Did it fail??? Answer that

of course not. who doesnt want the government to pay for part of their new car. Thats like giving candy to a child. of course their gonna take it. But what about the kids that dont get a piece of candy, because they dont want to get cavities (debt) later on?? Well they still have to pay for the candy being given to the other kids. You follow??

besides, cash for clunkers is just a way to gain access to everyones computer. check it out....

back on topic, btw.

healthcare.

this is the last cash for clunkers post from steve-o. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqfuZ7hiap0

The thing about cash for clunkers and the welfare programs are the strings attached. You could only trade in a used vehicle to buy a brand new "approved" car, yes it did work. And quite well the consumers were attracted to the gov't money, everyone was peeling off in a brand new GM.

But what will be the economic karma from that program? If any at all. How did the gov't pay for those trade ins? Foreign loans?