|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jun 5, 2004 15:30:35 GMT -5
Is there anyone else out there who believes health care is a personal responsibility, not a government responsibility? I'm sick of the liberals in this country looking to the government to take care of them. Too many people are giving up freedom in exchange for government-provided security, be it health care, retirement, etc. Where does it stop? Legislators looking to give you something are themselves looking for something in exchange, usually votes and power. A government that gives you everything you need has complete and total power over your life. That is not freedom. This is why I will never in my life ever again vote for a democrat, or even some republicans for that matter. We cannot as a free society look to government to solve our problems. I'd like to hear your opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 5, 2004 15:59:18 GMT -5
How exactly does allowing poor people access to healthcare that otherwise may have been unavailable to them hurt "freedom".
We have had a nationalised health system since 1949 in the UK, and you would be extremely hard put to find anyone, from any corner of the ideological spectrum, who would want to change it (even Thatcher didn't dare touch it). Why? Because it works. Full stop.
Countires with nationalised health services consistantly come top of international health care studies. (I beleive Canda and Sweden are widely beleieved to have the best healthcare currently). This is contarry to Bush's arrogant claim that America has the best healthcare system in the world.
Listen up any liberals who come across this post, living in the UK I can safely say that a nationalised health system DOES work! It has done here for the last 55 years, and no one feels their "freedom" is at stake. Keep fighting for one in the US.
From here your arguments seem to be advocating the laissez-faire liberalism of the nineteenth century. The gradual injection of socialistic ideals into liberal democracies over the last 100 years (a minimum wage, a welfare system, trade unions, progressive taxation) has produced better living conditions for their populations.
Lets keep it that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 5, 2004 16:47:49 GMT -5
I agree with you, TNRighty, and welcome to the board. Never underestimate the power of the US government to intervene in a troubled industry and make it worse. It's government involvement that has caused most of the problems in the health care industry. Most of the problems that exist are because it is already 60% socialized. We can't look to them to fix it.
Why people from other countries always feel the need to jump in and cheerlead for the US to go socialized medicine, I'll never understand. One of the reasons your governments have medicine to socialize is because the US has not gone that route. There would be serious, negative research and development implications for the whole world.
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 5, 2004 17:01:50 GMT -5
How exactly does allowing poor people access to healthcare that otherwise may have been unavailable to them hurt "freedom". We have had a nationalised health system since 1949 in the UK, and you would be extremely hard put to find anyone, from any corner of the ideological spectrum, who would want to change it (even Thatcher didn't dare touch it). Why? Because it works. Full stop. Countires with nationalised health services consistantly come top of international health care studies. (I beleive Canda and Sweden are widely beleieved to have the best healthcare currently). This is contarry to Bush's arrogant claim that America has the best healthcare system in the world. Listen up any liberals who come across this post, living in the UK I can safely say that a nationalised health system DOES work! It has done here for the last 55 years, and no one feels their "freedom" is at stake. Keep fighting for one in the US. From here your arguments seem to be advocating the laissez-faire liberalism of the nineteenth century. The gradual injection of socialistic ideals into liberal democracies over the last 100 years (a minimum wage, a welfare system, trade unions, progressive taxation) has produced better living conditions for their populations. Lets keep it that way. You don't live here, so your used to substandard conditions. Same with the liberal programs;Welfare in particular.(which don't work here btw). We pay taxes to support people who have no incentive to do anything productive since they are on the government tit. It's worked so well here that were actually trying to get rid of it. It's not helping in the way that it was intended. Charitable organizations and the church have always been good resources for people if they're used. How does taxing people to death help anyone. I know that some tax is necessary, but I don't think that we should pay for ridiculous attempts at social engineering. (see Welfare) The trade unions (see Extortion) Minimum wage: Worthless. Since when has that improved anyone's living condition? Have any statistics on how these have helped anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 6, 2004 5:18:06 GMT -5
Because we cannot possibly understand why any country wouldn't want a socialised health service.
If I ever fall ill I simply go to my local GP, and he perscribes me with medicine I need for free. Be it hayfever medicine or cough syrop. Each time I do so I thank God for Anaurin Bevan.
Do you think people who don't have very much money should just suffer with hay fever... or cancer?
Except that British healthcare is actually better than American healthcare. My parents are academics who work closely with counterparts in the US who regularly come over here. They never cease to be amazed with the quality of British healthcare.
Because charity organsiations and the Church did a very good job dealing with poverty during the industrial revolution...
What if people are non-christian? Do they not deserve help?
My statistics on how a minimum wage, trade unions and a welfare system have helped people is a simple knowledge of history.
Compare the living conditions of people before they were implemented, to after.
I ask again. Do you beleive in reverting back to the laissez-faire liberalism of the 19th Century?
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 6, 2004 5:38:30 GMT -5
And I asked you for some data,
not your opinion.
I'm in the health care field, so I know a little bit about it.
I have also heard some horror stories about your health care system. I would also like to see some data showing that your's is better than ours.
Are you in Acedemia as well?
One more thing. Since your an athiest(as you have said), you probably wouldn't understand this, but churches have been known to help anyone who needs it, regardless of thier beliefs. It's a God thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 6, 2004 5:46:31 GMT -5
Because we cannot possibly understand why any country wouldn't want a socialised health service. If I ever fall ill I simply go to my local GP, and he perscribes me with medicine I need for free. Be it hayfever medicine or cough syrop. Each time I do so I thank God for Anaurin Bevan. If anyone falls here, they simply go to the emergency department, and are seen and treated, pay or no pay. No one is refused treatment. |
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 6, 2004 6:25:38 GMT -5
The best data that shows the quality of life for people improved since the injection of socialistic ideals into western liberal democracies is life expectancy.
Throughout Europe life expectancy was around 30 in the 19th century. Now in many places it is nearing 80.
I've heard some horror stories about yours.
If somebody found say, a lump on their breast/testicle, in the UK then they would go immediatly to the their GP because they know that both the advice, and the treatment if necessary would be free.
The World Health Report (published by the WHO) (http://www.who.int/health-systems-performance/docs/articles/lancet_mathers.pdf) ranks the UK at 14th in the world, and the USA at 24th.
(Its about the fourth page of this document)
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 6, 2004 10:37:52 GMT -5
I know a few people who moved from Canada and a few that moved from England who are much happier with healthcare in the US. Our socialized medicine military men usually think their medical care is better after becoming a civilian again.
It's a welfare program!
In Canada it is universal and compulsory. There is no way to opt out. Otherwise, only the very sick and the poor would want anything to do with it. It is just more forced redistribution of wealth- theft. Wealthy Brits also buy private insurance, so the wealthy are still getting better care. Canadians don't even have that option, which is why wealthy Canadians flock to the US for better, faster health care. The average two child family in Quebec pays 5,000 in COMPULSORY (taxes) for health care insurance. That is more than my family pays.
Life expectancy rates mean very little. There are cultural and diet differences. The US leads the world in research and development. If the US went socialized, new medical treatments would come to a screaching halt.
When will people learn that these schemes exist not for the poor but to feed the elite who have fallen into the black hole of bureaucracy.
|
|
ldd
Pup
Posts: 4
|
Post by ldd on Jun 6, 2004 11:41:57 GMT -5
I totally agree with you TR. I lived in Germany for 9 years off and on and saw first-hand the "wonders" of socialized medicine. The Germans have great health care and it's FREE!! Or is it? They are currently taxed about 65% to enjoy the system. That being said, there will always be those, who for one reason or another cannot afford healthcare -- and they should receive it. However, the liberals of this country have duped so many into believing that they are getting something for nothing and because they think they are getting it for nothing, that they vote the ones who "provided" it for them back into office. Unfortunately, an entire generation has grown-up believing that there are more entitlements in life than responsibilities....
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 6, 2004 14:00:29 GMT -5
These, of course, are people who can afford healthcare.
It may be "theft" but a progressive tax system is going to help more people that it will hurt. That is what matters.
I have pleanty of rich freinds, (ususally freinds of the family), and I know absolutely no one who is in private medical care. To say that "wealthy Brits also buy private insurance" is not true because a lot, if not most of them don't. Britians health system is 14th in the world remember - the US's is 24th.
The life expectancy figures I used were to show that standards of living have improved since the age of Laissez-faire liberalism. And surely you don't beleive that standards of life better back then?
And why shouldn't this be the case?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 6, 2004 14:53:57 GMT -5
Ahh! The liberal motto!
1. Character doesn't count.
2. The end justifies the means.
History and current reality show this to be false.
America already provides for disabled and poor people to get healthcare. We care for our "poor" too well! The American poverty class are the fattest people in the world, and have a very good standard of living. Your concern for America's poor is just a thinly veiled push for global socialism, much like the very socialist WHO.
The Brits I know have their own insurance and resent expensive bureaucracy. Higher taxes means less people can afford their own health care.
"The proverb warns that you should never bite the hand that feeds you, but maybe you should if it prevents you from feeding yourself."
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 6, 2004 15:14:16 GMT -5
MO, you listen to too much Rush Limbaugh. "Canada's healthcare system is actually run by its 10 provinces and three territories, but is governed by federal guidelines set out in the Canada Health Act. In exchange for following the five principles of the act - universal access, portability, public management, coverage of all medically necessary services, and no additional user fees - the federal government pays a share of the costs...
(snip)
... the same poll found that 75 percent of Canadians were willing to make "compromises," such as paying higher taxes to ensure that all Canadians have equal access to healthcare. More important, 99 percent of Canadians fully supported the Canada Health Act's five governing principles. Overall, 90 percent of the public rates the current system good to excellent."(this even surprised me!  ) Christian Science Monitor www.csmonitor.com/2002/0228/p07s02-woam.html |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 6, 2004 15:39:22 GMT -5
Nothing in that disputes anything I have said.
I really don't care how Canadians decide to spend their money. If they are convinced it is a good thing, more power to them. Most are probably not all that familiar with free market systems for anything, at this point. One of the reasons they are able to do that is because they are dependent on our far superior research and development. Just another one of many ways they are like a parasite on the US.
I don't listen to Rush! Once again, your inference is way off base. I would appreciate it if you would knock it off!
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 6, 2004 15:54:04 GMT -5
What? Rush Limbaugh is a conservative guy who talks about and demeans Canada's healthcare all the time. I thought it was a good guess.
|
|
)