It’s my JOB to keep track of national issues and talk about them, and I’ll be the first to admit confusion over all the talk about where health care is headed. Universal health care, nationalized health care, socialized medicine. There are numerous different ideas on the table, and it’s a dizzying exercise to try and understand them.
I think one thing is clear. Most of the plans being considered involve taking wealth from the rich and providing medical services to the poor. While that happens to some degree already with state-run Medicaid programs, the latest proposals reach a new level, having now exceeded a trillion (yes, with a “T”) dollars. And it’s not just money, it’s also about making decisions about people’s health care.
The move toward this government-administered health care is based on the new-found premise that health care is somehow a right.
I don’t personally swallow the premise, as some do simply because it sounds good. In fact I take great exception to the idea that someone who has smoked their whole life can claim a “right” to have someone else’s hard work and effort pay for lung cancer treatments. Same goes for those who don’t exercise, eat junk food, and hang-glide for a hobby. Call me mean-spirited.
Of course there are situations where people, unable to pay, need medical attention for reasons over which they had no control, but a big chunk of our health care is needed because we’ve made poor choices.
So, to get the discussion going… a few questions for consideration, particularly for those who think every American has a right to health care and want to see nationalized health care implemented.
– Should we be raising taxes on the wealthy — those most likely to hire people and invest in business expansion– to fund health care reforms, while the economy is struggling?
– Aren’t you worried about moving toward a system that has created problems in providing care in other countries? (Undoubtedly you’ve heard the stories of waiting lists in Canada and the UK)
– If health care is a right, then what level of care corresponds with this right? The latest, most expensive treatment? Is plastic surgery part of the right to health care? And who makes those decisions?
– What gives you the idea that government would do a better job than the private sector in managing medical care?
I’m sure there are many more questions… but this should get the discussion underway.
Popularity: 8%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
First!
Neal,
A wonderful and timely topic, and I appreciate the “opne” manner with which you started this thread. THIS is how meaningful debate and dialogue begins, how results are produced.
That said, as we begin this conversation, let us agree to do a few things that will help us to achieve understanding of one another and perhaps even common ground. Only then can we hope to find path that is best for the greatest amount of Americans. And perhaps that is right where we shoul dbegin…
Phrases like “socialized medicine” and “nationalized health care” are but two of the many catch phrases used to ivide the points of view with regards to the task of helping all Americans find their way to basic health care. Let us see if, during this discussion, we can refrain from using the Limbaugh Language” and instead, try and listen to the opinions and points of view other than our own, to see if we can seperate those ideas we don’t necessarily agree with into two distinct categories: “I don’t sgree with that” and “dealbraker”.
Ok, first I’m going to offe a very brief synopsis of my “broad view” of the health care situation in our country and my feelings on what we, as a nation should do. Then I will adress a few of the points or comments you made in your opening.
Overall healthcare in this nation sucks. Those of us with means have the ability to pay for the care we need, acquire the drugs that will heal us, and receive both treatment and tools to keep us from becoming ill in the first place. Those without means either go broke doing the best they can, simply head to the emergency room, or leave the government to foot the bill, via Medi-care and Medic-aide. So, in a very real sense, we already have a governmental healthcare system, even though the government did not ask for it.
When you peel back all of the layers of this stinky onion, you find, as you do with most “necessary” aspects of our society (e.g. fuel, pharmaceuticals, the military, etc.), the wretched hand of the lobbyist, and this is where my initial comments about the overall “disease” of healthcare (pardon the pun) will end. For as with most problems in our nation that diversely effect especially the have-nots, were it not for the influence of medical, insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists (or should I say their money), the fallacy known as the “open market” would handle the majority of the problem just fine.
Now Neal, let me address a few of the points or comments you made in your opening…
1. “I think one thing is clear. Most of the plans being considered involve taking wealth from the rich and providing medical services to the poor.”
Actually Neal, the one thing that is clear is that you have not ever, nor will you ever take away from the “rich” the ability to, through their financial influence with lawmakers, adjust the laws, tax codes, etc. so that they actually DO pay their fair share. Were this ever to happen, it would be possible to provide amazing health care to EVERY American, rich and poor alike, as well as a top drawer education, a HUGE massive military, alternative fuels and cars that use them and cures for cancer seeping out of every university and research facility in the nation. The amount of “fair share” taxes that are NOT paid by the wealthy would knock you to your knees.
2. “And it’s not just money, it’s also about making decisions about people’s health care”.
You need to re-read the propositions out there, my friend. Right now, the only health care bill being debated on the floor that calls for ANY stipulations or treatment oversight whatsoever is the one put forth by co-authored by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif and Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., whereby insurance companies “shall have the oversight to limit medical coverage based upon a medical review by the insurers quality assurance representitives”.
3. “The move toward this government-administered health care is based on the new-found premise that health care is somehow a right.”
This one kills me more than just about anything. Please explain something to me. If the “right’, the conservatives are supposed to be the moral, the “Christ-like”, the “party of God”, then why is it that, almost to an issue, they always seem to bypass the answer to the question Cain asked of God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The long-held tradition of Judaism and Christianity is that people do have this responsibility.
So, while legally it may not be written into the Constitution that affordable healthcare is a protected right, it most certainly IS a human one, and I am compelled to ask you Neal…Do you REALLY want to take the opposing argument and state categorically that we, as people, as Americans, as the “shining light on the hill” should not find a way for every man wouam and child in our Nation to receive the best healthcare available?
Now, I do agree that there are certain situations, smoking for instance, where there is a limit to the type of coverage a “universal” plan should cover. That IS a choice with long-known results. However and by the same token, this brings us to another decision, and I’ll let you choose which one. Either make smoking illegal, because it kills nearly 400,000 people a year. Oh, you say, that would be unconstitutional and illegal and wrong to keep them from producing a product that kills. No one MAKES people smoke. Fine, I’m with ya all the way. The IMMEDIATELY legalize marijuana. For several reasons, but mostly becuase it would cut the prison cost for states like California by almost 40% (that is BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR) and because NO ONE, nada, nuco, zip, zero….not ONE person has EVER been killed, nor has a life been ended by the use of marijuana (By the by, this FACT comes from the websites of the FBI, the Justice Department AND the CDC. Look it up.
And finally…to answer your questions…
– Should we be raising taxes on the wealthy — those most likely to hire people and invest in business expansion– to fund health care reforms, while the economy is struggling? First, don’t look on it as raising taxes on the wealthy, look at it as moving taxes back to where Ronald Reagan had them (or are you suggesting that RR, the guru of lower taxes had them too high?). No, what sho9ld happen, as I have long held is that the tax code should be changed to one page…10% for everyone, ZERO LOOPHOLES OR EXEMPTIONS FOR ANYONE UNDER THE POVERTY LEVEL. That happens and everyone is paying less and we have more money. Or, is it possible that there MIGHT be a selective group of people, say well financed people who just MIGHT have some special exemptions inthe tax cose that prevents them from paying their fair share? Maybe even…NOTHING?
– Aren’t you worried about moving toward a system that has created problems in providing care in other countries? (Undoubtedly you’ve heard the stories of waiting lists in Canada and the UK). Of course we’ve heard the stories…if we listen to Rush and Hannity. My brother lived in canada for 17 years and absolutely screams with joy when he talks about the healthcare he received when he lived in Manitoba. And besides Neal, there are lines here, now. Ever wonder why it is people in Idaho Falls drive to Blackfoot rather than go into EIRMC?
– If health care is a right, then what level of care corresponds with this right? The latest, most expensive treatment? Is plastic surgery part of the right to health care? And who makes those decisions? As i stated, yes, there should be prescribed “basic care” limitations to a universal plan. No liposuction, no botox, no lung transplants where smoking has been a determinate factor, etc. But it SHOULD include preventive medicine, prenatal care, vaccines, and the best avaiLable care ANYWHERE. A woman gets cervical cancer, she gets the same treatment as Melinda Gates…or Senator Feinstein. Absofrigginlutely. Oh and here’s a little newsflash for you to chew on…make the coverage the Senate gets available to EVERYONE in America…not just the needy, but you and me too, and guess what happens…the cost of medical service AND insurance drops through the floor. KNow why…THE FREE MARKET, my friend. The good ol’ Free Market. It would be great if the people who so publicly support it would actually let it work in every field, and not circumvent it for their “well off” friends.
– What gives you the idea that government would do a better job than the private sector in managing medical care?
*laughing hysterically* Neal, could they possibly do any worse?
Thanks again for a great topic. Here’s hoping for some thoughtful submissins.
Dennis
Neal – the questions you used to prompt the discussion clearly show your bias and illustrate your perspective. There will be no argument that will make you favor nationalized (not socialized … come on, people) healthcare. Your questions are arguments, not conversation starters, and they’re tired questions. They’re the same old “let the free market take care of everything” arguments.
Look, no amount of discussion will sway people who are afraid of nationalized health care. No argument, no matter how solid, will change these peoples’ minds about Obama or his policies.
The fact is, nationalized health care will happen in America, and very soon. We’re one of the few modern nations that don’t have some degree of nationalized health care. It’s going to happen, it’s going to be for the better, it’s going to make this country a better place to live.
So let’s stop squabbling already.
Squabble squabble!
The health care that I pay monthly for is pretty much meaningless. In the bills that I’ve had for my entire family over the last 4 years, I would have been better off paying out of my pocket with money set aside monthly in the place of a coverage plan. Nationalized health care is a measure required for the idiots without enough sense to put money away in the bank for an emergency. I was planning on dropping my coverage and doing just that close to a year and a half ago, but I figure I’ll ride it out so I’m at least used to the increased cost that I’ll be forking over for lower-grade care through taxes.
If you protect the idiots, the idiots breed. In my opinion, that’s not the best thing to do to better America.
For someone whose JOB it is to keep track of national issues, it’s surprising that you don’t even know what the word “socialized” means.
Why the personal attacks? We’re talking about health care. Ease up a little. This doesn’t have to be a hostile environment.
It’s not a personal attack. The word “socialized” or “socialism” is a polarizing term used by the right to attack Democrat policies.
If you follow national issues as you say you do, you would know that, and you wouldn’t use the term, especially when the Obama health plan (love it or hate it) is not socialized medicine.
I’m being perfectly honest and non-attacking when I say it’s either very surprising to me that you didn’t know that or your being intentionally disingenuous with your post.
And while I pleaded to rid this all important discussion of the S.O.P. attack-like coments, I have to agree with James here Neil.
From the outset (as I stated), using the “talking points” catch phrases we can all get from Sean and Rush (and can we ever get anything else from them?) starts the conversation off on a bad note.
While I WANT to continue this conversation, perhaps the next one should be about getting people, all people fom all sides of the aisle, to make their arguments without the tired old labels which, as I have stated before, are more abut courting advertisers than being open and honest and trying to find the best possibkle solution to a problem.
Now, that said, Neil, would you find it possible to address any of the points I made in my first comments?
This topic has been discussed before on this forum and I see this one heading exactly where the other one did. Right in the toilet. The right won’t persuade the left and visa versa but you kids have fun tryin.
Marcus, many years ago, I used to think like you about the insurance money I was paying out each month. However, one major illness coupled with hospitalization could wipe you out in a heartbeat without insurance. A very dear friend of mine did not have insurance, became ill, put off going to the doctor because of no insurance. When a doctor was finally visited, her illness was terminal, and after 30 days of radiation, four hospital stays with an average of 4 days stay each time, three chemo treatments she passed away. If she had had insurance and gone to the doctor earlier, chances are she might still be with us. And did I mention, her total medical bills amounted to more than 1/2 million dollars? And, no insurance.
I realize that the above is an extreme case, but what about a case of appendicitis, broken arms or legs? You have small children, so any number of things can happen at home, in the school yard, or at the playground. Please do not give up your insurance. Each year that passes and your children get older, your chances of needing medical treatment increase both for yourself and spouse and especially for your children.
Okay, I’m off my soapbox now.
Simply dismissing legitimate concerns about nationalizing our health care, because they’ve been discussed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, doesn’t do anything to deteriorate their legitimacy. It’s the left’s version of an ad hominem attack.
DJ —
On point one, you talk about the rich paying their “fair share”. The top 25 per cent of income earners (see: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6) pay about 85 per cent of the taxes. If that isn’t their fair share, I’m not sure what is. How much more do you want them to pay?
On point two — Issa’s bill is just one item being discussed. I’m not talking just about bills in the hopper. President Obama was on ABC’s town hall meeting on health care talking about the government making decisions about end-of-life care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D8PXAt8HEY&feature=related
Move in to about 3:15 and watch for two or three minutes.
On point three — In terms of health care being a right. You’ve confused our obligation to take care of those who legitimately need help with their right to receive it. If I see a little old lady with heavy grocery bags — it’s certainly my and your obligation to help her. But I wouldn’t make the leap to it being her right to have that help. Even worse, it’s certainly not the government’s right to confiscate the resources to make sure the lady gets the help.
How in the world can you bring in Christ’s teachings about being our brother’s keeper, when it was clear Christ was teaching us that we are expected to voluntarily serve our fellow man. He never advocated having some powerful third party entering the picture forcing us to be our brother’s keeper.
If you’re going to use scripture — particularly the teachings of Christ — don’t twist His teachings into something they’re clearly not.
Simply because we don’t want Government flexing their very big muscle into health care doesn’t mean we don’t have charity. I take exception to that assertion.
Neil,
Let me explain this a different way.
When you title your post “What think ye of socialized medicine,” it’s pretty clear what your agenda is. Your agenda is to attack, based not on facts, but on throwing around the same old tired, inaccurate arguments the Republicans have been trying to use since the general election last year.
News flash: it didn’t work in 2008, and it’s still not working today. Taxes do NOT equal socialism, no matter how much you and Rush and Sean Hannity would like it to be so.
Ok, I feel pretty stupid, but I don’t quite understand the difference between socialized and nationalized medicine. I also don’t completely understand what government assisted medicine would entail.
What I do understand is that I am thankful that my teenage son has medicaid. No one else in our household has any insurance at all. The only insurance that we could even begin to work into the budget right now is a catastrophic policy, which in itself is a good idea, but it just hasn’t been a financial priority.
Both of us adults in the house are behind in medical care and regular checkups, and I honestly fear going to to the doctor because I can’t pay for whatever could possibly be wrong with me. Don’t slam me for that, I already know it’s silly.
I don’t want a handout, but it would be nice to know that I could at least go the doctor when I need to and not have to file bankruptcy. I’m not asking for a house, a new car or any luxuries, I can save and work for those if I choose to have them. I would just like some peace of mind regarding my health.
I’ve learned first hand that you are entitled to the justice and health care that you can afford.
The sad reality is that the majority of people will never be rich, and you wouldn’t want them to be. Think about it every time you go out to eat, or you see the street sweeper, or the garbage man picks up your refuse, or you get your oil changed. If everyone had high paying jobs, who would do these things? Definitely not the rich, they will hire someone to do it for them.
And lo and behold, that person would not be able to afford health care.
Neil,
Interesting points. Lets discuss them…
1. I never said the concerns should be dismissed. What I said was, if people continue to use the “talking points” provided by Fix News, there will never be a substantive discussion, nor any real change. It also doesn’t help you personally, as acting as a minah bird for the far right does as much for your credibility as it does for Olberman’s or Limbaugh’s…nothing.
2. I make more than my brother, and therefore I should pay a higher amount. What I find interestng about your response is how you failed to even address my suggestion that we reduce EVERYONE’S tax burden to 10 and eliminate ALL deductions and loopholes. But I’ll give you an exact example of where I was going with this so you and everyone else can get my meaning…
Last fiscal year, Exxon/Mobil (the #1 largest contributor to the Bush/Cheney campaign in BOTH 2000 and 2004) posted year-end PROFITS of more than 92 BILLION dollars…and paid $112 Million in taxes. Do the math and tell me THAT is their “fair share”.
3. Obama suggested that we should all fill out living wills to determine our decisions, said that the choices are NOW being made by insurance companies and HMO’S and suggested we need to all make better decisions for how we live our lives. He also said we should eliminate waste that DOCTORS decide will not be helpful treatment.
YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS?
4. I didn’t confue anything. I stated plainly that it may not be a guaranteed right, but that I feel we have a moral obligatoin to do so. I also asked you if you were against that, a question which you failed to answer.
As for Christ’s teachings…you state, and I quote: “it was clear Christ was teaching us that we are expected to voluntarily serve our fellow man”.
Then why are you against it? Put frankly sir, if those with the means to do so DID voluntarily offer to help their fellow man receive health care (or in any other manner, like, oh I don’t know…how about education, housing, etc.), the government wouldn’t have to, now would they?
5. You state, “Simply because we don’t want Government flexing their very big muscle into health care doesn’t mean we don’t have charity. I take exception to that assertion.”
“Having” charity is one thing and actually giving it (without griping or complaining) is a whole different thing. Take exception all you want, but until you can say, “Sure, I’ll help the less fortunate”…and do so, quietly, leave the pious comments for the Vatican, ok?
And finally…and please, if you don’t feel comfortable answering my questions (quite understandable), PLEASE answer this one…why it is that you want “less” government when it means they’ll take more of your money, or protect your antural resources, or try to keep big companies from unduly influencing the lawmakers, or give your kids a better education, but you have ZERO problem with the governemnt getting involved if it means they will take less of your money or give you less restrictions so you can do things like move jobs overseas (which hurts average Americans) but will give you a tax break for it, or wiretap your phones without a court order, or keep you from getting married if you’re gay?
Why is it only in your bank book or your gun cabinet that you want less government, but it’s ok for them to be in our (your) bedroom, or schools (to institute prayer)?
Now please note, I did not go off on a tangent here, but directly asnwered your comments and questions as you put them to me. I’d certainly appreciate it if you’d do the same. And so I don’t misunderstand anything, please place the question you’er answering directly above the answer, so I and everyone else will know exactly what it is you’re addressing and we can start to make some progress in this discussion.
Thanks,
Dennis
“Please do not give up your insurance.”
I’m really not planning on it. I make enough money, I can afford the cost. I could haggle my treatment with the doc without insurance as well though and make off a bit better.
I just don’t see the difference between putting $200 in the bank every two weeks and sending it off to the insurance company…especially after my benefits begin to be taxed.
You won’t be denied health care regardless, and payment plans are available…I don’t know why people that don’t want to put aside the money monthly (and it is a choice) don’t realize that.
These folks that end up being covered by a national plan are only going to be happy with it because they’re not going to see the bill. We’ll be out of pocket more with this garbage than with a normal policy.
Stupidity.
“Put frankly sir, if those with the means to do so DID voluntarily offer to help their fellow man receive health care (or in any other manner, like, oh I don’t know…how about education, housing, etc.), the government wouldn’t have to, now would they?”
People do, and our government doesn’t have to. It’s an in for expansion of power, and they’re lunging at it. If we’re not careful we’ll all be monitored 24/7 for actions of thought, restricted to a strict regimen of jell-o cups and beans to keep our brains nice and mushy, and if anyone is caught with a book, here come the firemen. But watch all the TV you want, especially the news channels! God help us.
I have been to England and seen socialized medicine at work. It is a big joke you sit in the waiting room for hours. you can’t pick which Dr you get . NO THANKS been there done that don’t want to do it again.
Employers know the system is busted. The feds know it’s busted. Medical professionals and hospitals know it’s busted.
And the insurance companies know it’s busted, too. They are staring down the gun barrel of the baby boomers, who are all aging and are becoming a bigger and bigger bunch of sick people daily. There is simply no way the insurance companies can bear up under this burden as it is today..
Insurance companies are now disallowing a wide array of treatments, surgery, and other medical care that they used to cover routinely. That’s just a desperate stopgap measure.
The aging boomers have the most extensive policies, but the generations following them do not, and medical insurance is now being dropped right and left by employers and individuals. Without a pool of healthy younger members, insurance companies will go bankrupt, and once it starts, even greater burdens are placed on those who remain.
… think about AIG, doubled in calamity, and there’s the picture. Being broke is one thing, but watching a sick family member get sicker is another. You can get over being broke, but you can’t get over being dead.
Like it or not, call it what you will, the United States will have to nationalize medical care pretty soon. Our neighbors to the North and the South both did it years ago, as has every other country in Europe. The only place remaining in the world where medicine is as un-regulated is in Africa. The rest of the world doesn’t see the necessity of selling everything and living a life in perpetual debt to a medical bill as acceptable for a happy society.
The current situation is in crisis, but not yet in collapse. I think there is still enough time to adjust any plan that comes along this year to make it a good fit for our country and our medicine, and I think it’s doubtful the plan will be good enough on the first try. But the attempt needs to be made before it all slides down into a wreck like the banking system did. Doing nothing at all is sure disaster.
As for me- I’m one of those boomers. I lost my health insurance in 2004, and if I get sick, I’ll be just one more of the multitudes who end up costing us all much more than if we got busy and fixed the system. My entire family, except for one member, is uninsured now. That’s 4 living generations who aren’t covered, and my family is not an exception. So far, we haven’t been able to find a family group plan that we can afford, and we’re a little better off than lots of other folks.
I heard somewhere that baby-boomers are becoming a $4 trillion liability on the health care system. When we finally realize the system is bust, what will we do then…triage? Will those of us so obese that we must use motorized conveyances to get down the aisles at the grocery store or those of us who are too winded by walking 100 feet and have to use the drive-up window at the tobacco store…will they be put at the top or bottom of that triage list?
Jerry Brady’s article about Intermountain Healthcare, a non-profit system from Utah, was an eye opener. Their operating costs are the envy of the health care industry. One of the reasons cited was that their LDS patients lead healthy lives, which drives down costs in Idaho as well.
Maybe your mother was right all along about eating your veggies and getting outside to get some excercise. There isn’t always going to be someone there to pick you up and carry you when you can’t make it on your own.
And there be the loonies.
Who are you kidding meso? There are plenty of sick, overweight, prescription drug addicted, smokers, and otherwise unhealthy LDS members out there. I see them all the time in my practice. Utah leads the country in prescription drug use and abuse.
and everyone from Utah is mormon
Could Utah’s young population have anything to do with it’s lower health costs? Utah has one of the youngest average demographics in the nation.
I didn’t understand your comment, Guest in IF. Of course, Utah is not all LDS. Was that snark, or what? ‘Splain yourself.
Well, I was just informed that Medicaid turned down the recommended extractions of my son’s wisdom teeth.
What they are saying is that regardless of the fact that pain is imminent, until he is actually IN horrible pain, they won’t even consider it. It took them almost a month to tell us that we had been turned down. When he is in pain, will he have to wait that long for an approval? I certainly hope not, but we all know what will probably happen.
So, instead of paying to get a healthy mouth (aside from the offending wisdom teeth) in the chair for a relatively easy procedure, they would rather pay more later for what could be worse procedure with infection and further moved teeth, resulting in longer recoup time and more medication, and risk.
Oh, but wait, there’s more…
They will only cover the teeth as they become a problem. So that’s 4 teeth, and if the teeth decide to take their sweet time and become infected and miserable one at a time, he is looking at 4 individual surgeries with 4 numbing sessions, 4 visits to the dentist AND the specialist… you get the picture.
Medical insurance itself is out of the reach of many millions of people (including myself), and I would bet that the amount of people without dental insurance (whether they have health insurance or not) dwarfs that number. That is very sad because problems with your teeth will effect your whole system, sometimes severely.
Seems pretty stupid to me.
Wow Dennis, that was an impressive answer and I agree for the most part with your take on things. I liked your comments on the flat tax option. I support that. As well as reduction of prison populations for non-violent, no victim, “moral” crimes. Total waste of money legislating one groups take on morality. I also don’t have a problem with the government providing competition to private businesses in a small percentage of areas where the services provided are too important to the health and well-being of every man to be left to a profit model where the dollar is the bottom line. It just needs to be regulated so that the level of competition has the effect of enhancing the industry not destroying.
I think it sucks and don’t like it all. Sloialized healthcare is not good for the country of America. I think socialized healthcare is a sour lemon and not zuss and should not be thought about. In my native countries of Germany and Austria I live in both countries. Anyways, I have to wait months and months before I can see the doctor. At first I thought he hated me but then I was told we have socialized healthcare. I want to eat bolgna because I do not like this. Tell Obama that I disagree with the government taking over of healthcare. He wants to take it over not fix it. I hope many Americans get this thru their head and react like dynamite. Also, I do not like talking to medicine it is not alive and I need to talk to real flesh known as a human doctor. So please I beg you to think and think and think some more until you come to a toll Ende.
Thanks for your comment Sauerkraut!
Look at that would ya? This person doesn’t even live in the US and he knows socialized or nationalized medicine is bad for the country. Not to mention it would be adding to our national debt by 1.7 TRILLION dollars. Yes I said Trillion. Obama is well on his way towards doubling out national debt without factoring in the cost of going to war. And people wonder why so many tea parties have been popping up all over the country. To recognize the gross misconduct of Obamas spending habits since being sworn into office.
I could see putting a percentage cap on insurance/medical profit margins, but I don’t see putting medical care completely in the governments hands. Look at the vets medical care…. hate to say it, but it’s crap. I don’t want that for me and my children… or for that matter for our vets.
No thanks to national health care.
You bring up some excellent points in this discussion. I am dead set against universal, socialized, or nationalized healthcare.
One reason I had not even considered was people who enjoy high risk activities. You pointed out hang gliding, which got me thinking about motorcycles. In order to keep medical costs lower will the government dictate what type of vehicles we will drive or will they just deny coverage to those who don’t comply?
Many medical conditions are the result of lifestyle. There are traumatic injuries, lung cancer and COPD as a result of smoking, then there are the sexually transmitted diseases.
The government watching out for “the greater good of the people” will put us on a slippery slope to totalitarianism.