by prophecor 401 Replies latest members politics
Pole:
Aye, I heard rumours about this a couple of weeks ago. It's good news, and the Polish expertise is considerable
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2005/10/18163953
Unfortunately your countrymen might not get as far as the islands, but time will tell
As far as whether healthcare is a right or a privilege goes, I see it as a right.
Wolves and Cape Hunting Dogs care for their sick. Go figure. In additon, any country that can afford a substansial standing army, navy and airforce to care for its citizens can easily afford to provide healthcare to care for its citizens. No matter what political principles you might hold, Homo sapiens is a social creature, always has been, always will be.
The above is opinion; you don't have to agree with me.
Basically, a free-at-point-of-access system,like the NHS, is cheaper than a private system. There is no way in the world that a private system can charge individuals less than they would pay in tax, as they need to make a profit. The lack of a profit motive can and has caused problems in public health systems, as it can lead to inefficiency. But there's no owner or shareholders looking to walk away with a profit. Thus, logically, a public health system can be more efficient and cost-effective than a private one, but has less pressure to make it so.
However, the disengagement between the individual and their own healthcare funding (i.e. you pay a tax everyone does and get whatever you need in healthcare, rather than having the individual choices you make about healthcare influencing what healthcare you can get) leads to problems. People are isolated from bad choices, for years and years and years.
Thus, you can take a pretty decent Heath System, put a government in power that is opposed to public spending for 17 years, have them cut taxes and cut spending, and 17 years later have a Health System with problems. "Everyone" was all for the tax cuts, but didn't (because of the disengagement) foresee that the tax cuts meant that the Health Service (and Education and the Public Transport) would wither over the years.
It has taken since 1997 when Labour came to power to basically erase the damage 17 years of Conservative government did.
But if it is all good (apart from needing to especialy ensure there is efficiency and having to educate voters that if they vote to cut taxes, services will suffer), why does anyone WANT private heathcare?
Well, there's two reasons. First of all, private heathcare allows for massive profiteering, benefitting a small minority at the expense of everyone. This small minority will lobby like hell to be allowed to have their license to print money, and pay for political support. Second, if you are very rich, you can obviously afford to have better heathcare than average (even if average is world-class, it can stil be better).
So, if you're interested in yourself and your neighbour, and you are not wealthy, a state-organsied free-at-point-of-access health system funded by taxation is the best solution.
If you're in the medical business, or are wealthy, a private heath system funded by individual contributions (or those of employers) is the best solution.
LT,
Unfortunately your countrymen might not get as far as the islands, but time will tell
If things are so bad in the Hebrides, I don't even want to imagine you smiling, then. ;-).
Pole
Well, there's two reasons. First of all, private heathcare allows for massive profiteering, benefitting a small minority at the expense of everyone. This small minority will lobby like hell to be allowed to have their license to print money, and pay for political support. Second, if you are very rich, you can obviously afford to have better heathcare than average (even if average is world-class, it can stil be better).So, if you're interested in yourself and your neighbour, and you are not wealthy, a state-organsied free-at-point-of-access health system funded by taxation is the best solution.
Well said.
sw
Put very nicely D -
I have read on the forum I belong to how some Americans seem to stigmatize "socialized medicine". Obviously, they have no idea how it works because all I can say is I've been treated marvellously! One can be admitted into a hospital here, or see a GP, and know that there's no money to worry about. Every person will get treated for free (obviously, it isn't really free because it comes out of out national insurance contributions).
Quite obviously if the system works in other countries, it can work in the USA....
sw
POLE wrote: If so, you are now claiming the mixed model of the US economy has ensured its international position? And can you give me any purer examples of capitalism?
Capitalism's heydey fades daily. The encroachments are eating it away at the edges. Our lawmakers and legislators have their hands out for lobbyists to press cold cash for favors. The ENRON scandal will demonstrate how rotten the egg is shortly. Consequently, I don't think the US economy has an International position that is unassailable. The inability of Europe to get along is the only thing propping us up at present. The farther away we get from pure Capitalism the more danger we have of sliding into the bog.
Let's return to the issue of healthcare. In an attempt to boost its economy even more, China has recently become similar to the US in one respect. They have an almost purely capitalist health care system. The result? 90% of their rular society can't afford any form of modern medicine.
I don't think there can be such a thing as a Capitalist Healh Care System. Especially in China! Under Capitalism each person; each family is responsible for anticipating its healh needs (the same as its food needs and shelter needs) and taking early steps to set up provisions for same. Even a squirrel knows to store nuts for winter! Insurance and investment are the individual's cushion. This isn't a System, as such. China has been pushed to the wall with its total economic collapse due to Socialist doctrine (which has destroyed millions, if not billions of people) and they hold their nose as Hong Kong propsers in a quasi-Capitalist orgy of economic boom. These Chinese rulers are in a permanent state of cognative dissonance just like Jehovah's Witnesses who won't face reality.
The failure of Communism is that it doesn't fit the nature of our natural evolutionary history: competition and survival by success at the expense of the failure of the unsuccessful.
Capitalism is an outworking of evolution. It is the idiocy of man that he becomes delusional about what his own nature is and begins tampering with it to his dismay.
Terry
I think the reason many of 'us' stigmatize social meds is because we've seen incredible inefficiency in our government, and we're PAYING for it!
I work hard.
I recently sold my home and moved to a smaller, more modest home when i realized that after paying income tax, property tax, employee comp tax, attorney tax (yes, i pay a tax for the 'privilege' of practicing law), office property tax, and employee salaries and benefits, i work nearly 300 days of the year before a CENT goes into my pocket.
My biz is relatively small, compared to 'big business'. At some point in the game, why should i work and employ others?
By adding to the burden, the gov't eventually takes away all incentive to be productive and WORK.
By adding to the burden, the gov't eventually takes away all incentive to be productive and WORK.
I agree.
If the government could figure out a way to provide basic health insurance for all with out killing small business through taxes, or middle america through additional taxes, I would be all for it. But I don't think that is possible.
If the government could figure out a way to provide basic health insurance for all with out killing small business through taxes, or middle america through additional taxes, I would be all for it. But I don't think that is possible.
Other countries have proven over and over again that such is perfectly possible.
Little Toe, last year we were in the 30% tax bracket. Thank God for dependents.
Fairchild, the problem is that our current situation is like a set of parallel bars. Currently, we have most of the population covered under government insurance programs. Then we have another huge portion of the population covered by commercial programs. In the middle are the 'working poor.' We all acknowledge some are truly poor, and some make bad choices which causes them to be poor.
I do understand wanting them to be covered for all sorts of moral and humanitarian causes. The difficulty here is that, if you cover these 45 million uninsured Americans, on what basis would you do it? There are some very limited options.
We could move the Federal Poverty guideline to allow more people access to the currently existing programs. I don't for one minute believe this one would help, you'd just replace them with another 45 million screaming that they're the new working poor, because taxes would have to be adjusted upward to cover the additional cost of this socialized medicine.
You could place everyone on a social program. This would mean the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the commercial insurance sector. The impace on the job loss would not necessarily be felt through unemployment in the long term, because the government would of course need someone to administer the benefits, pay the claims, audit the utilization, etc. So now you're talking about MORE government employees, and we all know how hard they work, right? In the commercial market there are checks and balances for performance, which are very limited in the government. Everyone knows once you get a government job, unless you bust a cap in someone's ass, you're not going to lose that job. That is no incentive for a quality workforce. Do you know how good government benefits are? Plus, the government workers would most likely not be on that plan. Just like Congress and Senate are not on the Health Plans that they sign into law for the American worker. They have a 'special' plan.
Have you thought about the cost to open another whole division of government? I could just see it now. The Office for Citizens Health or some other such useless moniker.
So the difficulty is, how do you converge parallel bars into one horizontal bar?
Did anyone read the New York Times article I linked to?
Lisa
