National health insurance.

[rolmops]

Could somebody please explain to me why there are such strong emotions for or against some form of national health insurance?
It seems to me that a basic level of health insurance that can be added to depending on the customer's desires,takes the pressure off companies to provide health insurance,thereby making them more competitive in the market place.
Does anybody really believe that having no insurance is preferable to socialized medicine?
I don't get it,help me out here.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: National health insurance.

Oh, so does that mean that health insurance is a right? Help me find it in the constitution I must have overlooked it. Bill of Rights?

Apparently according to 18Rabbit sex changes for prisoners is a right. I can't see how this could possibly be a big government money grab. Liberals can devine rights out of thin air and the rest of us have to pay for it. Meanwhile our society just gets lazy, dependant, and stupid. How pathetic that grown adults can't be responsible for anything, even their own health. No slippery slope here, na. We should all get a VA health plan as that is what it will deteriorate down to. I am against government running anything not specifically outlined as their responsibility. How about Social Security as an example of fine government stewardship.

 

[JRJ]

Re: National health insurance.

The rich can afford it and the poor get care for free. The rest of us that don't have health insurance, but work for a living are paying until we run out of money or die.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: National health insurance.

Ahhh, the Rehub mantra.....
Why should I have to pay for it?
I say do away with the VA hospitals altogether....
Why should I have to pay for it?
I'm not a veteran...
I didn't get to vote on Korea or Viet Nam, but I have to pay?
WHY?.....:devil: advocate.....

 

[ricksrster]

Re: National health insurance.

Who pays for national health insurance? It is not free. Raise more taxes? How about doing away with all private ownership of businesses. We could be the Union of Socialist States of America. We as individuals are suppose to work hard to improve ourselves. we all have opportunity to higher education and training. Nobody is suppose to hand us an easy life. Thing that are easy to obtain can be easily lost. In a free society it is up to the individual to improve his life. That principal is what made The USA the powerful country that is is. Work = Success. It sets us apart from the socialist countries and sets the example for the world to follow. Just because somebody was born into a welfare family doesn't mean they are doomed to stay there. They can move up in America. They have to be willing to work and work hard. Life is not fair and it is not meant to be easy. Laziness is weakness.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: National health insurance.

I'll bite...
Providing some basic health care up front, will most likely save $ down the road.....
Didn't yo momma tell ya....
"an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"...JK

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: National health insurance.

& part of the problem is the religious right....
Instead of paying for sex education & abortions for the "disadvanted", they would rather pay 18 years of welfare & free benefits anyway....:devil:
Yet another example of religion blotting out common sense.......
The need to have a gazillion children due to infant mortality is way past in the western hemisphere....
The only people who have a gazillion are those that can't afford them....
But you still get to pay for them!
Wake up!:devil:

 

[roscoe]

Re: National health insurance.

Haut, go ahead, YOU pay for all the abortions, it is your RIGHT to do it.
But don't tell me that I have to pay to kill a child.

Oh wait a minute. I think you have too many children for your income level.
After we tax 80% of it away from you, we will have to support your children.
So, you pick out two your children, and we will send a doctor over to exterminate them tomorrow.



Now, back to the original question.
Show me any government program that is run more effectively or efficiently than its private sector counterpart.

Oh, go ahead, show me 10 examples. Wait, that would be too easy, since the gov't is so efficient, show me 50 of them.

 

[PW2]

Re: National health insurance.

Oh, so does that mean that health insurance is a right? Help me find it in the constitution I must have overlooked it. Bill of Rights?

Not a right, you say? Are you advocating that if a person gets sick without insurance, they are left to die in the street?

If not, then you are already advocating health care as a right. The only debate is how it is funded and distributed.

 

[QC]

Re: National health insurance.

& part of the problem is the religious right....
Instead of paying for sex education & abortions for the "disadvanted", they would rather pay 18 years of welfare & free benefits anyway....:devil:

How does one belief require the other? What a flippin' retarded leap. One has nothing to do with the other. This is classic BS, rhetoric BS. Yes I intended the double BS. What a load of carp! I assume that I am the religious right because I believe in personal responsibility. And you, Oh enlightened one, believe that you know who is stupid and irresponsible. How dare you call me insensitive for considering others capable of responsibility . . . :|

The need to have a gazillion children due to infant mortality is way past in the western hemisphere....
The only people who have a gazillion are those that can't afford them....
But you still get to pay for them!
Wake up!:devil:

This illustrates more than any other post I can think of how the left thinks. Messr. Haut Medoc, while sipping his Medoc, has fingered out that there are Gazillions who simply don't get it and he, Oh enlightened one, is going to sip wine while he determines their ill-fated fate. He calls us, those who expect the Gazillions to figure it out on their own, the insensitive "religious right". The labeling and arrogance is beyond comprehension to me. Hillary, Bill, Al and John all wrapped into one, labeling, leftist, idiotic lettuce wrap . . . OMG!!!!

If you, Sir Kopec, do not see the irony, you are truly blind to your own flipped up bullship! Love you anyway, but wow :^

 

[POINTER94]

Re: National health insurance.

No PW, I observe their right to die in the street. I have to wonder what kind of responsible person would find themselves in the street in the first place, then i would question what they are doing to get out, besides having babies.

Nice dodge, can't find those rights can you. Do you know why PW? Because the don't exist. The right to take from others is the only right I see you advocating.

Haut, I had no idea you could get drunk on Kool-aid. You have been almost unreadable recently. The hate is difficult to separate from the message.

 

[JB]

Re: National health insurance.

Who gets turned away at the ER? Nobody.

Those who can't pay, don't. They may get harrassed and even sued, but if they don't have the bux they don't pay.

Those who can pay do, and they pay enough to cover the can't pay patients. Given enough time and bad enough health they pay until they become can't pay patients, too.

That is the great American underground universal health care program. Covers emergencies and major medical problems.

During the 3 years between group insurance and Medicare (62 to 65) I paid roughly half of my assets (about a quarter million bux) for major medical problems that others who had no assets got free. To me, that was just bad luck.

In my view "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does not include good health or complete health care, nor does our Constitution provide for it.

A goal of keeping everybody alive and healthy forever at taxpayer expense is a road to catastrophe.

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: National health insurance.

Look at the UK, they have national health insurance, and a 70% income tax to boot.

 

[PW2]

Re: National health insurance.

No PW, I observe their right to die in the street. I have to wonder what kind of responsible person would find themselves in the street in the first place, then i would question what they are doing to get out, besides having babies.

Nice dodge, can't find those rights can you. Do you know why PW? Because the don't exist. The right to take from others is the only right I see you advocating.

Haut, I had no idea you could get drunk on Kool-aid. You have been almost unreadable recently. The hate is difficult to separate from the message.

Your stance makes no sense, Pointer. "The right to take from others?" I am not necessarily advocating this, but only describing the reality of what we are doing now, like it or not.

Let me guess. You and your family have catastrophic health insurance, right? There are lots of ways an otherwise responsible person can lose their health care insurance.

As a society, the majority view is that we don't want uninsured people, upon getting sick, to simply die in the street. You may take the opposite view, but you are the minority.

There ought to be some more rational way to distribute healthcare.

 

[ricksrster]

Re: National health insurance.

I think the word responsibility nails everything on the head. The liberals tell us nobody has to be responsible for the way they conduct their own lives or make decisions. it is every body's, including the government's, fault there are poor people and criminals.
Money for sex education? Don't Mom and Dad tell you how babies are conceived? If not, why? If Mom and Dad are unemployed and not around to teach their children then where are they? Should we have at the tax payer's expense, day care for the irresponsible so the parent's can hang in bars or cruise the streets for drugs?

 

[levittownnick]

Re: National health insurance.

To me the "salt in the wound" is the "surcharge" that I must pay on top of my medical expense to cover those that can't pay. It is a "Kick you when your down" fee. (I am not talking about a tax that all taxpayers share.)

Needless to say that I would like to kick the idiot who conceived of such a surcharge and cover the dopes that approved it in snake dung.

 

[KaGee]

Re: National health insurance.

I guess KATRINA taught us nothing about what the gov can and cannot do.

Rolmops, maybe you can enlighten me on this:
The crowd that wants a national health care system is also the same crowd that fights any type of Tort reform to reign in the law-suit crazies.

Our PCP just got out of the business because she was sick and tired of the malpractice insurance BS. It's not just the out-of-control premiums, it's the way they want to dictate how she ran her practice.

 

[jtexas]

Re: National health insurance.

rolmops, did you get an answer to your question " why there are such strong emotions for or against some form of national health insurance?"

Sure would be nice to have a debate about the question without all the "dems think this" and "rehubs think that" malarky.

Here's a novel idea: why not give your own opinion and maybe point out the obvious errors in the others without all the name-calling? Give it some thought and get back to me later.

We do have national health insurance...ever heard of medicare & medicaid?

Anybody here thinks we don't already pay for health care for those who can't afford it? Those who can't afford to go to the doctor end up at the hospital ER when their problem gets to the point where a few pills won't fix it. Hospital treats 'em, can't collect...and that's why you pay $25 per aspirin at a hospital.

Countries with socialized medicine have a double standard of health care where the wealthy go to private doctors & hospitals and everyone else waits in line - the implication is for a lower standard of care but I have no experience to confirm that.

Nationalized health insurance would be a huge drain on resources. The beaurocracy would suck up volumes of cash...would it be more or less efficient than the current system, who can say? Hospitals have huge rooms full of people working hard to pry as much money as possible from insurance companies, who have whole floors devoted to not paying out anything if they can help it.

Point is, there's no way of knowing; it's risky to dump the whole private insurance scheme in favor of a nationalized plan.

And layering a another system on top of the current one just means that those who have insurance now will have to start paying for those who don't.

But people are suffering and dying for lack of insurance. The ER don't turn people away, but need radiation or chemotherapy or kidney transplant or _________ (fill in the blank) and have no money? Sorry, friend, your time has come.

 

[levittownnick]

Re: National health insurance.

To me the "salt in the wound" is the "surcharge" that I must pay on top of my medical expense to cover those that can't pay. It is a "Kick you when your down" fee. (I am not talking about a tax that all taxpayers share. )

Needless to say that I would like to kick the idiot who conceived of such a surcharge and cover the dopes that approved it in snake dung.

 

[levittownnick]

Re: National health insurance.

To me the "salt in the wound" is the "surcharge" that I must pay on top of my medical expense to cover those that can't pay. It is a "Kick you when your down" fee. (I am not talking about a tax that all taxpayers share.)

Needless to say that I would like to kick the idiot who conceived of such a surcharge and cover the dopes that approved it in snake dung.