Socialized Medicine or Free Market -- poll

[Mountainmanbob]

In the old days here we had what was called County Hospital. It was a large full service hospital that catered to the poor -- the services were free. True, the waiting lines could be long at times. They should have never gotten rid of these -- would have never had the need for failing Obamacare.

Still don't believe in my working monies going to pay for lazy ones who wish not to work.

M-Bob

 

[archer75]

Is it my fault that my father was a drunk? Is it the ugly girls fault she can't get married?

I couldn't attend college because I had to work in order to eat. Is that "fair"? Maybe not, but I worked hard enough that I did get a degree, when I was 40, working 6 days a week, at the time, BTW.

Life is tough. It's called reality. If you keep expecting others to pay your bills you will never be successful in life. You will simply try dismissing people like me with name-calling and the worst insult you could think of by inferring I'm not a even a Christian, but I've experienced much pain, loss and suffering from childhood, yet still survived, and as a Christian.

I guess I understand the sense of this. But I don't see why it wouldn't be extended to include police, emergency services, public roads, the military. Is it my fault someone robbed me? Is it my fault a wildfire destroyed my house? Why not just have everyone solely responsible for himself in every way?

 

[archer75]

In the old days here we had what was called County Hospital. It was a large full service hospital that catered to the poor -- the services were free. True, the waiting lines could be long at times. They should have never gotten rid of these -- would have never had the need for failing Obamacare.

Still don't believe in my working monies going to pay for lazy ones who wish not to work.

M-Bob

Why did they get rid of them? Whose idea was that?

While I don't know anything about these particular hospitals, this is related to a common complaint -- a couple generations ago, at least some wages were high enough and there were enough public services that it was possible to work and live or at least get basic help if you were desperate.

You're right - Obamacare is a patch on a broken (evil, many would say) system.

 

[miamited]

In the old days here we had what was called County Hospital. It was a large full service hospital that catered to the poor -- the services were free. True, the waiting lines could be long at times. They should have never gotten rid of these -- would have never had the need for failing Obamacare.

Still don't believe in my working monies going to pay for lazy ones who wish not to work.

M-Bob

Hi MM,

While I agree that I'm not particularly crazy about my money going to a whole class of people who 'wish not to work', that isn't what we're addressing here. You seem to think that it's only the poor who are affected by the 'pre-existing condition' delimma. You also seem to the think that the 'poor' are those who 'wish not to work'. While I agree that there are surely many who fall into that category, the group of people who can't afford health insurance premiums due to pre-existing conditions isn't so easily and categorically defined.

There are many poor people who can't afford exorbitant health insurance premiums that do work. Working 60 hours/week at a minimum wage or slightly above minimum wage job doesn't leave a lot of money for most family bread winners to pay a thousand dollars or more a month for a family insurance plan. The current plan addresses that dilemma in two ways. First, it provides that everyone pays the same for the same insurance coverage. So, healthy people get dinged a bit while those with pre-exisiting conditions are not so overly punished for their health conditions. Whether one cares to believe that such conditions are or aren't personally created. Secondly, for those without the real means to pay for health insurance because of the wage level of their work, it provides subsidies that they can recoup some of the cost. While this may not seem fair to someone of good health, I think it does provide some measure of fairness to the situation. At the very least, it does provide some amount of grace that the 'haves' can show the 'have nots'.

Now, you may be the kind of person that feels we shouldn't offer grace to the lazy and worthless ne'er do well that 'will not work', but I'm not sure that such a classification really identifies all those who would receive such grace. As a nation and as individuals, I believe that God looks well upon those who show a certain amount of grace to those in need. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is how I feel about how God sees the operation of what mankind 'should' be like.

I'm always humored by those who think that all welfare recipients drive Cadillacs. I work with our local food bank and honestly, I see very, very, very few people drive up in some fancy expensive car. Most of them are riding mopeds or driving automobiles that are fairly well glued and taped together. There are poor people living among us who are genuinely poor and do work. There are poor people among us who do work and after paying for their housing and food costs, just don't have the kind of disposable left over money to pay $500.00 or $1,000.00 for health insurance coverage for their families. Friend, there are 300 million people in this country and most of them weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths or haven't been able to find jobs that pay them $50,000.00/year or better. According to this website, 51% of working Americans earn less than $30,000.00. 40% of working Americans earn less than $20,000.00.

40% percent of U.S. make less than $20,000. The fed government considers a family of 4 making less than $24,250 to be impoverished. – InvestmentWatch

Current premiums for health insurance for such people would mean that the majority of their paychecks would go to health insurance. How then will these people eat and live with a roof over their heads?

I understand that you believe that most of these people are just lazy people who are unwilling to work to provide for themselves, but I think the reality of the issue is much different.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[archer75]

I guess the "winner" tag is usually enough, but I feel compelled to say that @miamited's post above is excellent...just excellent. I couldn't have said any of this better.

 

[miamited]

Hi again MM,

So, I believe that this is the crux of the matter. Are the majority of those who are currently receiving the blessing of tax subsidized insurance premiums and the benefit of paying the same amount for the same health insurance coverage no matter their present health condition, lazy non-working individuals or are most of them people just like you and I who are trying, in the best way that they know how and that their education and abilities allow, trying to do the best that they can to live life?

Secondly, should our governmental laws allow for some amount of largess for those who aren't as financially secure, in the making of laws that address the nation's health insurance issue?

What say you?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Now, let's carry my efforts to the next step. For those who do believe, as I have proposed, that God looks with favor on those whose efforts are designed to help the less fortunate among us, let's simply weigh the two plans that are currently being discussed.

Do all the laws and provisions of the current healthcare law effectively address all these issues better or worse than the bill that is presently being considered?

Now, I'm honestly not looking for individual and specific aspects of either law, but at this point, merely asking for an overall review of the two. Getting into the specific and individual aspects of the two will be in the next step.

God bless you all,
In Christ, ted

 

[Mountainmanbob]

I think that the main purpose of the government should be to protect us. I'm just not sure that this protection carries all the way over so as to include medical coverage.

My father was in a convalescent facility and we were told that he would need to go home soon because of his insurance coverage. He would have to start using his own money if he wanted to stay there longer.

My poor broke friend who never hardly worked in his life was in the same type of facility and was told he could stay there forever if he wanted it's the good old taxpayers once again picking up the tab.

M-Bob

 

[Ringo84]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should apply equally to everyone. Yes, sometimes it means people who have never worked a day in their life, but everyone deserves to live. Nobody deserves to go into medical bankruptcy.
Ringo

 

[archer75]

I think that the main purpose of the government should be to protect us. I'm just not sure that this protection carries all the way over so as to include medical coverage.

My father was in a convalescent facility and we were told that he would need to go home soon because of his insurance coverage. He would have to start using his own money if he wanted to stay there longer.

My poor broke friend who never hardly worked in his life was in the same type of facility and was told he could stay there forever if he wanted it's the good old taxpayers once again picking up the tab.

M-Bob

I can see why that seems unfair. But why not fix things so that everyone can get the care they need, no questions asked?

Further, as Ted suggested - what about those who weren't poor / well-off enough to stay there at all?

Single-payer is a compromise solution. Everyone gets the medical care they need, but we still use money and approve of greed, so people who are into that can still do their thing.

 

[Phil 1:21]

The problem with free market healthcare in this country is that it died a long time ago. It was killed by the FDA that created monopolies for drug companies and lucrative careers for corporate lawyers. It was killed by insurance companies that lobbied against interstate competition so they could protect their bottom lines instead of people. And it was killed by a healthcare system that allows a hospital to charge $20 for an aspirin that a pharmacy sells for two cents. Government broke the system, so why would we think they could fix it?

 

[miamited]

I think that the main purpose of the government should be to protect us. I'm just not sure that this protection carries all the way over so as to include medical coverage.

My father was in a convalescent facility and we were told that he would need to go home soon because of his insurance coverage. He would have to start using his own money if he wanted to stay there longer.

My poor broke friend who never hardly worked in his life was in the same type of facility and was told he could stay there forever if he wanted it's the good old taxpayers once again picking up the tab.

M-Bob

Hi MM,

And I believe that you have allowed this single experience of yours to color and define your entire understanding of the issue. Similar to those who say that all welfare recipients are driving Cadillacs. They did one day see someone with a Cadillac in their driveway receive a welfare check. Perhaps they were scamming the system. I don't know, but I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. Just because there are some who attempt to scam any system of good that man establishes really isn't a valid reason to throw out the whole system. Better enforcement is needed.

I don't know the particulars of your experience, but...

Is it really your position that because you know of one or two unfair realities of what's happening that we should just throw out the whole tub of bath water? When was your father in this facility? Was the 'poor broke friend' there because of the current healthcare law or had his situation existed even before? I mean yes, there have always been certain unfairnesses in what medicare and medicaid do that private insurance doesn't. Although, it's my understanding that they are few and far between. How were you privy to what your 'poor broke friend' was told concerning his care. Finally, 'types' of facilities can certainly be much different.

Yes, it's the 'good old taxpayers' that pick up the tabs for all social programs. But, is that the kind of reality that you think is the sign of a righteous government? That 'good old taxpayers' shouldn't have to pay for anything that is a government sponsored program for the betterment of the general well being of the people? I honestly don't think that there is a single government on the face of the earth, among the governments of the, what might be termed 'civilized' nations, where you will find that to be the reality of their governing.

Many European governments and many of the governments of the nations of the Americas have government sponsored single payer health insurance systems. Yes, they are paid for from the tax revenues of their people. Many governments have some sort of social programs for the poor and the elderly that are paid for from the tax revenues of their people. Most governments, I believe, do understand that a part of your 'protect us' policies are programs that provide a certain amount of financial and medical aid to those unable to provide it for themselves for whatever reasons. The issue, of course, with all of these governments is how much is enough and how much is too much.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi MM,

Look, I'm not God. I don't know the future and I don't know a whole lot about the present as regards many of the issues that our government faces in the day to day operation of governing.

Here's what I do know. Several years ago it was determined that far too many people were not carrying health insurance to cover their health insurance costs, but still received health care benefits. It was determined that this was being done, in many, many cases, by people using ER's for such mundane health issues as colds and flu. Issues that, by going to ER's for care at the cost of thousands and thousands of dollars, that would ultimately be charged to taxpayer funding, could have been handled through simple GP office visits for a cost of a couple of hundred bucks.

You make a very big issue of the taxpayer having to pick up the tab for a lot of the issues that are currently going on with the current healthcare laws. Question: Do you have any earthly idea of where the hospitals got the money that would finally pay the bills for all those uninsured people that were showing up on their doorsteps for simple health issues? Friend, I firmly and faithfully believe that your tax dollars and my tax dollars have long been paying for the healthcare 'crisis' that has arisen in our country since many, many businesses stopped providing employer paid health insurance. Here's an article that may interest you that contains statistics that existed long before the current healthcare law went into effect. It claims to have been compiled from evidence over several decades.

Who Bears the Cost of the Uninsured? Nonprofit Hospitals.

You will note in there that there has long been an obligation picked up by the federal government to help hospitals pay for low income and uninsured patients. You might also note that the cause of many hospital closings has been somewhat tied to these unrecovered medical costs. People being uninsured for medical care, yet going ahead and demanding or requesting medical care whether 'needed' or not, has long been a problem in our medical system. Hospital ER's are mandated by law to care for every person that shows up on their doorsteps requesting what they believe to be emergency needs. Regardless of the patient's ability to pay for that care.

So, the Obama administration took on the job of trying to address this fairly serious issue. The legislature spent 18 months from start to finish to cobble together a set of rules and laws that would try to get more people on health insurance policies. Both Republicans and Democrats were involved. All the many committees that researched the various and sundry aspects of the new bill contained members of both parties and they did have the opportunity to make known their respective concerns. Now, that certainly doesn't mean that everyone was happy with the final outcome, but that's the general rule of any representative government. Choices and decisions are made that are generally based on the majority rule. But, both parties had an opportunity to know what was in the bill and then the opportunity to make known and try to work out any differences or disagreements. That process is not being used in this current situation.

The Republicans have fairly effectively shut out any Democrat from having any ability to work or make changes to the current bill. I mean, this bill went from one day being brought to the floor and within some 3-4 days being pushed for a vote. There was not a single bi-partisan committee that was allowed to study or address any issues of the bill. Even the office of OMB wasn't able to put together a cost and possible effect study before the bill was voted for. Friend, that just isn't the fair way that our representative government should work.

So, I'm all for let's make changes to the current healthcare law that might make the results for the people better. It isn't Obamacare! It's the current healthcare law of our nation. That seems to be a very large part of the current issue. The Republicans are pushing out and addressing the current healthcare law as being an integral part of the past president. While the issue was certainly being addressed because the Obama administration wanted to address this 'crisis' in our healthcare industry, the law that was finally cobbled together had nothing to do with President Obama. It was a law that was written by several dozen legislatures. It was a law that was argued and debated for many, many months between lawmakers. The president really had nothing to do with what finally came out the other end except for the fact that he did request that any healthcare law should address certain specific issues of healthcare.

If the Republicans want to set up a similar method of debate and give and take to cobble together another healthcare law, I have no problem with that. However, I think that whatever comes out the other end should be something that is better for the general population at large, than what we already have. I believe that it should most certainly not attempt to put us back in the situation that we were in before. I like my local hospital. They are friendly people who are there to help me if I need such help and if they were forced to close down because suddenly again they were having to deal with a lot of unpaid medical care, then no, I wouldn't be happy with the outcome of any new legislation.

God bless you.
In Christ, ted

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I guess I understand the sense of this. But I don't see why it wouldn't be extended to include police, emergency services, public roads, the military. Is it my fault someone robbed me? Is it my fault a wildfire destroyed my house? Why not just have everyone solely responsible for himself in every way?

Good questions, and believe me, if I were king, I would make people who are thrill-seeking adventurists climbing mountains or parasailing, would do so at their own risk.

Other than that, mankind cannot right every "cosmic injustice". We can't make people with 70 IQs have 120 IQs; we can't make short guys 6' tall; we can't make pretty girls ugly (without some violence)

The distinction is made between bearing your normal burdens and bearing abnormal burdens. The former are the lot of us all, while the latter is the lot of some. Where we disagree, is where to draw the line. Is it Ok for some people not to have an iPhone, or is that "unfair"?

 

[miamited]

Good questions, and believe me, if I were king, I would make people who are thrill-seeking adventurists climb mountains or parasail at their own risk.

Other than that, mankind cannot right every "cosmic injustice". We can't make people with 70 IQs have 120 IQs; we can't make short guys 6' tall; we can't make pretty girls ugly (without some violence)

The distinction is made between bearing your normal burdens and bearing abnormal burdens. The former are the lot of us all, while the latter is the lot of some. Where we disagree, is where to draw the line. Is it Ok for some people not to have an iPhone, or is that "unfair"?

Hi jimmy,

True, we can't right every cosmic injustice. But, we can help to carry the burden that others carry due to earthly injustice. We can have mercy for the suffering. We can help them in their need for medical care. We could actually be just like Great Britain and provide for everyone's medical care. We could be like Canada and provide for everyone's medical care. We could actually be like every nation upon the following list in providing, through taxation, for the medical needs of absolutely every single person living in this great country.

List of countries with universal health care - Wikipedia

There are 58 countries on that list. All of which have a predominantly, if not completely, universal healthcare system. We could be like them. Why we go kicking and screaming into that place, I honestly don't know. Most people have some anecdotal account of some unfairness of those healthcare systems, but I find it difficult to imagine that 58 countries of the world aren't handling this issue somewhat better than we are. Of course, also like Great Britain does, if an individual wants 'better' private insurance coverage for their medical needs, they are certainly free to purchase such plans. Despite Great Britain having a government paid healthcare system, people can buy private insurance. But for all those who can't or won't, they will receive reasonably competent healthcare. So, for those who would decry that some single payer system doesn't work very well, I would say fine! Purchase whatever kind of healthcare you'd like to have.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[imind]

God created the free market system.

pathetic...

 

[jgarden]

Socialized Medicine or Free Market -- poll

Canada has implemented a universal healthcare system since the early 1970's at a fraction of the cost that Americans currently spend on prescription drugs and medical care.

At that time, the life expectancy of the average American and Canadian were approximately the same - life expectancy being a common measure of a healthcare system's effectiveness.

Canadians are now living 2-3 years longer than their American counterparts, spend significantly less on healthcare and are subject to far fewer personal bankruptcies based on medical costs - apparently Americans are willing to forgo these benefits for the privilege of calling themselves "good capitalists!"

 

[HighwayMan]

"Free Market" is one of the most deceptive terms ever used. It ties people, generations even, to economic slavery, all for the benefit of the able and the wealthy. I don't think, or I am not aware, if "socialized" medicine has ever been applied in a truly successful for everyone way, but regardless, "free market" should never be the alternative for a morally conscious person.

 

[JackRT]

Sorry to hear that. Can't say that any of my family or friends have ever suffered or died due to lack of treatment.

As noted elsewhere, most of the countries you cited are religiously and ethnically homogeneous. We're not. The U.S. is the only country based on an idea (individual identity and liberty), not common religion and ethnicity, as in most of the world.

Canada just might be the most diverse nation on the face of the earth. Socialism has worked well here --- well, not perfectly because it takes constant attention.

 

[jgarden]

Canada just might be the most diverse nation on the face of the earth. Socialism has worked well here --- well, not perfectly because it takes constant attention.

Most Canadians don't consider themselves socialists - they had a conservative government in power from February 6, 2006 to November 4, 2015.

The Canadian healthcare plan may be far from perfect - but their is no popular support for adopting an American system!