Why Socialized Medicine is Wrong

all that shit by you

you're a monster

You know, that sounds like something that Hitler would say.

They should cut the VA budget to zero, afterall nobody held a gun to their head and made them join the army. They should take care of themselves like the mercenaries of Blackwater have to do. The same with police, fire, cab drivers, oil refinery workers, and the most dangerous occupation in America, convenience store clerks. Why should we have to pay for all these fools, when they decided of the own free will to take those jobs and could have quit anytime. It's ridiculous.

ah but one word.... "denmark"

You're going to spend your money paying for lots of grandmas to drool in nursing homes already. That\'s already in place. And you\'ll pay for uninsured people to be treated in emergency rooms. You\'ll also pay for lots of other people who don\'t take care of themselves to be treated because they buy their health insurance from the same company that you do.

So unless you\'re self employed and uninsured but instead pay all your medical bills in cash, all that you fear is already happening. It\'s just less efficient than it could be which allows health insurance companies to make a nice profit. Glad you feel good about that.

HRE wrote:

You're going to spend your money paying for lots of grandmas to drool in nursing homes already. That's already in place. And you'll pay for uninsured people to be treated in emergency rooms. You'll also pay for lots of other people who don't take care of themselves to be treated because they buy their health insurance from the same company that you do.

So unless you're self employed and uninsured but instead pay all your medical bills in cash, all that you fear is already happening. It's just less efficient than it could be which allows health insurance companies to make a nice profit. Glad you feel good about that.

Right on HRE! I haven't heard one candidate propose 'socialized medicine' anyway. No one is proposing that the government pay the salaries of doctors and nurses. We're looking for a better way to insure people. When it comes to health care, for a lot of reasons too complicated to go into, the market is not very efficient and leaves too many citizens uncovered. And, as you mention, we're paying for the uninsured anyway.

Medicare is a single payer system for those over 65. We already have a universal payer program.

"mr articulate," your inability to find your own balls and therefore, sign your post with your real name, just shows how much you believe in your own argument.

Your premise is based on the belief that the Government should not interfere in peoples lives. So therefore, you also believe that the powerful and rich corporations should have the right to exploit the poor and weak. I just just don't agree with you. I believe that the responsibility of the Government is to protect and serve those who need to be protected and served, namely the poor and the weak.

As the brilliant movie "Sicko" by Michael Moore shows us, the medical systems of France, the UK and Canada do quite well in ensuring the health of their citizens while protecting the rights of entrepreneurs and corporations.

I've had my own personal encounters with the medical systems that exist outside of the USA, in Austria, China, Canada, Australia and Thailand, and I can tell you that if there is a first world country where I just don't want to get sick or injured in, it's the GOOD OL' USA. And yes, I am an American Citizen.

Your arguement is about money? Look into your argument better we our government spends on average 5k-6k a year on each and every citizen. Now before you run off your mouth and say ohh no that is just the government picking up the tab no you are wrong. It is how much our non universal health care (the only first world/ developed nation in the world without it.) spends to have the system we have in place. So if you have not spent your money where did it go? Look at the homeless it sure as hell ain't there so your argument there is mute. Know where it is??? Know one of the second organizations that get sived after public education is? You guessed it health care. Guess where it is...Iraq, Iran, Afgahanistan, Korea, Germany, Guam, Hugary, Isreal, Turkey...and the hits keep playing, military spending. I know I haven't spent my 6k this year. I want a new bike and some clothes maybe the government will let me have it back? Don't be dumb just to sound tough read up on both sides not just Anne Coulter spouting her ignorant bliss.

Take the billions wasted on the war in Iraq and put it into something that will save lives and make this country great again!

I definitely don't agree with the socialized health care at all but something to think about with money as in government spending at what things COULD go for....

http://www.sensibleiowans.org/budget_analysis.php

While I agree as people we are best indebted to secure the mental and physical welfare of the people in our communities; however I would have to agree with the first post to a degree.

To create large centralized systems only grows government, limits personal freedoms and creates terrible insufficiencies and corruption that at some point will bankrupt our entire system.

The idea that we can institute Federal programs negates the flexibility of local level functioning and freedom.

It's a difficult balance, but in order to secure the welfare of unhealthy individuals, we need to think more compassionately as individuals. To rely and to be codependent on big government to take care of everything will diffuse our personal sense of responsibility and make us cold and disinterested.

People are self centered. To be compassionate it is important for us to feel that urgent sense of obligation to others. Like the fellow in New York who is lying unconscious on the streets as people walk by just because they feel someone that has more authority will take care of him exemplifies the loss or absolved power people have by this belief in a higher function.

National heath care is not going to help people as much as we would like to believe. It's an illusion and is unsustainable. It costs everyone by making the cost of living higher and the implementation very difficult. Policy makers will some how find a way for your dolors to pad their particular special interest. A dollar given to a national insurance pool will be a dime spent on the process.

No easy answer, but I believe relying on big government can not work.

mr articulate wrote:

More importantly, the notion of universal coverage follows from a failure to consider the big picture. It enables massive, UNSUSTAINABLE governement overspending and allows the government to enact all kinds of damaging illegal policies elsewhere. Saving sick people with socilized healthcare only allows the government to kill healthy people in illegal wars overseas.

How the HELL did you make that jump in logic? a universal system will enable the government to overspend which will in turn lead to all sorts of terrible illegal policies and more killing of people overseas in wars?!?!?

Wow, that is amazing.

Yeah well privatized medicine is proving to suck pretty damn bad, so how about you give us the answer since you think socialized medicine is also wrong.

If you think that the medical system is so horrible now, just wait until someone introduces socialized medicine. I'll support any idea OTHER than that. And don't quote or reference anything from Michael Moore because he's a proven douchebag.

Thank you for posting yet another useless view.

Try this on for size:

When one considers the issue of police and fire protection in

isolation, it is natural for any compassionate person to conclude that

everyone deserves access to police and fire protection. The idea of

people being robbed, killed and burned seems deplorable to many.

And I agree every inch with that philosophy. Everybody deserves to be

alive and unharmed and everyone deserves basic safety. It is tragic

and deplorable when people die because they didn't recieve needed

police and fire protection.

Unfortunately, many people who reach the conclusion that everyone has

a right to access police and fire protection misunderstand this to

mean that everyone has the right to access the incomes of other

people. This NOT a right.

More importantly, the notion of universal police and fire protection

follows from a failure to consider the big picture. It enables

massive, UNSUSTAINABLE governement overspending and allows the

government to enact all kinds of damaging illegal policies elsewhere.

There is no perfect system of government in existence. The proper

purpose of the US government is to maximize personal liberty and to

maintain the rule of law while mimizing interference in people's

lives. The disadvantage of this system is that poor people are often

unable to afford private personal and fire protection. If you find

this situation unacceptable, then with all due respect, you should

consider moving to a socialist county where public welfare takes

precedence over personal libery. But you cannot have it both ways.

And this is another issue altogether, beyond the scope of what I want

to discuss in this post, but I also suspect that most proponents of

universal protection seriously overestimate the extent to which police

and fire protection can improve the quality of life for many people.

There are as many serious problems with the current administration of

police services and there are problems with paying for it. We like to

talk about police departments and fire fighters in the US being the

best in the world, but that isn't necessarily saying much.

The tragic reality of life on this planet is that people get robbed,

get murdered and die. Elderly people, vulnerable innocent children,

everybody. This has been a feature of every civilization that has ever

existed at any time in history. Well-intentioned but misguided

humanitarian efforts save everyone with universal police protection

will do little other than screw up the country internally with

inconsistent, unconstitutional legislature while not even

accomplishing its intended purpose.

And on a personal note, I don't want to spend my hard-earned money

keeping criminals from stealing your grandma's cash and meds so she

can drool in her shoes in a nursing home for a few extra years. That's

your job. Hire your own protection.

Republicans love to scare people by using the whole "socialized medicine" term! The strategy is that if people are scared, they don't think.

The current HMO/private insurance system is incredibly wasteful and inefficient. About 30% of your annual health insurance premium goes towards overhead (adminstrative, advertising, salaries, denying claims) instead of paying for healthcare. Why does half the country continue to think this is a better system than what other countries have? Are they nuts?

The best system would be a single-payer system, where the government PAYS for healthcare, but does not administer it. It would work somewhat similar to Medicare, and it would save us over $200 billion a year! There should also be some type of price controls put on prescriptions drugs/pharmaceuticals to stop these companies from sticking it to the consumer.

And liberals need to quit trying to play robin hood. Your socialist ideas are a lame attempt to make you feel better about yourself. That or you're feeling sorry that you couldn't get a college degree or find a real job. How much money do you donate to charities? And do you give money to every homeless guy you see? If not, you're a hypocrite. Quit trying to tell me what I have to do with my own oney. But I'm feeling too lazy to get off the couch... how about you come over here and do my dishes and laundry because you're a good person. Thanks.