House Passes "Health Care" Bill

[nova]

First and foremost, a single-payer system is not socialized medicine.

Well, I guess the discussion is over. There's no way to have a rational discussion when one side has gone so far off the effing deep end as to claim gov't mandated single payer isn't socialized medicine. :24:

source...

Oh yeaaah, another "study" from the Cambridge Health Alliance, that pushes the case for socialized medicine. Yet again the guys going in the hole who stand to benefit to the tune of millions of dollars in a socialized system.

No ulterior motives there. :24:

*shakes head* You are going to quote from Reagan's propaganda filled record written by the insurance lobbies? That piece of garbage is so filled with misinformation it's pathetic.

Are you seriously gonna sit here and spout bullshit like that?

The only lies and mis-information I see come from the guys want a socialized system, everybody else be damned.

The socialists will never be happy until everybody is forced at gunpoint to live in their own personal utopias, eliminating any semblance of freedom of choice by the individual. The blatant lies are just another example of the "ends justify the means."

 

[retro]

First and foremost, a single-payer system is not socialized medicine.

There is a slight difference between the two systems. A single-payer system like Canada's Medicare system is simply single-payer where the government contracts with outside companies to provide health care. Whereas a pure socialized system is one where the hospitals, clinics, doctors, and ancillary staff is all employed and funded by the government. But, seeing as how you've used the so-called successes of the VA as a health care provider, I thought you were a proponent of pure socialized medicine. The VA is a perfect example of socialized medicine, and its many failures are well-documented. A single-payer system isn't all that far from moving to a pure socialized system either. There is a distinction between the two, but not as much as you seem to think.

As far as the survey goes, as I've said many many many times in the past, I doubt you will find very many physicians who think that the health care system is perfectly fine the way that it is. The vast majority of them will tell you that the system needs change. But as you can see from your own survey, the majority of those who are proponents of change do not want single-payer UHC. Furthermore, that survey does nothing to disprove my statement that there are a significant number of doctors who will strongly consider early retirement or movement into other facets of health care such as research or consulting if we were to move to a single-payer system or if Obama's health care "reform" legislation gets passed. In addition, look at who funded the survey, I believe you'll find that they are strong proponents of single-payer health care.

*shakes head* You are going to quote from Reagan's propaganda filled record written by the insurance lobbies? That piece of garbage is so filled with misinformation it's pathetic.

Please, detail exactly to me what "propaganda" is in that statement? Also, please provide facts that prove Reagan's comments were written by the insurance lobbies. I'd love to see those.

 

[retro]

Well, I guess the discussion is over. There's no way to have a rational discussion when one side has gone so far off the effing deep end as to claim gov't mandated single payer isn't socialized medicine. :24:

There are distinctions from the original definition of socialized medicine, which originally referred to completely government run health care, where the hospitals are owned by the government and the staff is directly employed by the government. But that definition has been expanded to cover most single-payer systems at this point in time as well. I'm going on the assumption that Tim is referring to a more original definition of socialized medicine.

 

[Tim]

Whether all doctors or even a majority of them agree with a single payer system or not does not dissuade my preference to such a system.

There is no system out there that completely covers my views on the subject. But the single payer system comes closest for me. I do not wan the doctors and hospitals to be be government run, I like that I have choices and they aren't all cookie cutter facilities all playing from the same handbook. I also feel that making profits at the expense of peoples health is morally wrong. There are a million ways to make money off the American people that I fully support but there are things I just see as off limits. Like basic health care, police protection, basic education, fire protection, public transportation, etc. There are certain things that "I" consider the "commons" that should be shared by everyone. It doesn't matter if you own property and pay property taxes on it to fund the local schools, your children should have basic education available to them at no charge, paid for by the "commons" The same can be said for when it comes to having the fire department come to your rescue or the police. My hard earned tax dollars are funding the roads, police, fire department, schools etc and I don't care since I would never be able to fund these things for my own personal use. It works because we all put into the system and use it as needed. I'm a firm believer that basic health care should also fall under the "commons" Where all the costs of health care are spread across the community. The larger the pool, the greater the savings for everyone. Right now we billions upon billions of health care dollars going to things other than health care. Doctors need to hire billing specialists, hospitals have entire departments dedicated to dealing with the numerous payer systems and the paperwork that goes along with it. Then there are health insurance companies that are nothing but middlemen eating up the health care dollars.
I would much rather those dollars go to the health care field. I want the doctors, nurses and hospitals to make good money to be the best they can and I want their day to be dedicated to dealing with patients and not with insurance companies or billing departments.
A single payer system where the costs are shared by all is the absolutely most cost effective way to do it. It has one system for collection and payouts to the health care community.

And this is not socialized medicine. For that, you need to go to Cuba and see what it actually means to have socialized health care.

As far as the VA goes. I like the VA because they are very specialized. It makes sense to have government doctors and facilities to take care of the vets since they have very specialized needs. And the VA is a good example of socialized medicine.

 

[edgray]

Firstly, you repeat the fallacy that denial of payment = a death sentence, which its not. Yet again, you can still go get health care on you're own.

Firstly, you repeat the fallacy that denial of payment does not = a death sentence. If you're an average working person, where will you raise the money for a serious operation, or years of expensive medication?

No its not evil. My relationship with my insurance company is one I can end at ANY point in time I wish. I stop paying them and they'll be happy to GTFO out of my life. At the same time, their decisions don't carry the force of law.

I can't say the same for my gov't. I stop paying them, they put my ass in prison. If I don't follow their decisions, they put me in prison.

The govt does indeed have the upperhand. We look at this very differently I think. I'm happy to pay my govt to run the things I need. I do not trust private, profit driven enterprise to do the same, not when it comes to issues like my life.

But its STILL fucking rationing. I don't care if you think of it that way or not, it is what it is. You and you're gov't have no busines, no right and should have no fucking power to determine what is "cost effective" about my health care and my life. Its none of you're fucking business.

Ok so you're system doesn't have any rationing in it? What about all those poor sods who die? Are they not being rationed out of existance?

Interesting point though and really highlights the crux of this debate. All this is down to perception of society, government and where you sit inside that. You seem to be viewing your existence as an island. Unfortunately that just simply isn't the case. As a member of society, which there is no escaping the fact that you are a member, you have obligations, just as society has obligations to you.

But that does not and has not ever mattered to the socialists of the world. The ends justify the means after all.

What has universal healthcare got to do with socialism?!! Is the UK socialist? Germany? Austria? France? No, not one of them!

Is there 100% agreement amongst you're populace that they want universal health care? If there's not, then guess what, you're forcing some people into it at the point of gun giving them no other option. Kinda makes the "we would change it" argument bullshit. Statist hate it when thats pointed out, but its simple as that.

No, not 100% agreement, but pretty close. Even hardened conservatives understand the necessity for universal healthcare, it's a no brainer for the far majority of the country. It isn't a partisan issue in most countries you see. There are private options available for those with the means and desire to purchase them.

Its called raising premiums to cover costs.

Another great reason why you should stick with your privately run schemes! Love those rising premiums and lowering care levels!

Again, another ignorant assumption.

We spend a lot more per capita on tons of things here in the US than the rest of the world does. Cars, vacations, big screen TVs, etc etc etc. Hell we spend more per capita on Vet bills than any other nation on earth.

Does that mean that each of those are huge problems that need gov't intervention? No it doesn't. For some reason all of those are seen as a sign of affluence but spending money on health care isn't.

We spend money on health care because we have it to spend and because we WANT more and better health care, on demand.

Nothing ignorant about it. I understand that in the US bigger is better, buy buy buy etc but really? You wouldn't want to cut your nation's health expenditure in half by cutting out the middle men? And furthermore, get everyone health coverage at the same time? It seems more than absurd and arrogant to just say "this is america, we buy more" as a good reason for complete and utter fiscal lunacy. And incredibly unsympathetic to all those unable to exert your financial confidence.

-----

What this all boils down to is whether or not you want to help your fellow man. I for one would hate to think that anybody would die in my country for lack of health cover. What would that say about me if I were to tolerate that? Does it not bother you at all that a) so many people die unnecessarily and b) it could easily be solved, and most people want it to be solved?

I have followed this debate with huge interest, read all the lies and propaganda spurted from both sides. I dont' know if a universal system will work in the US. It works in most other developed nations, with bugs to iron out of course, but it's there and I think it's something for you all to look forward to, not run away from.

 

[edgray]

Please, detail exactly to me what "propaganda" is in that statement? Also, please provide facts that prove Reagan's comments were written by the insurance lobbies. I'd love to see those.

I've heard that thing, hilarious. Within the first minute he claims that socialised medicine is one of the most common ways of imposing socialism or statism on a people, and I'd love to hear an example of that! If that's not propaganda, then what is?!!

 

[retro]

I've heard that thing, hilarious. Within the first minute he claims that socialised medicine is one of the most common ways of imposing socialism or statism on a people, and I'd love to hear an example of that! If that's not propaganda, then what is?!!

Socialized medicine would in fact be a way of imposing socialism or statism on the populace as a whole. The government would be mandating that people have health coverage, without a choice in the matter, and that doctors see every patient, without a choice in the matter.

Statism
Definition: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of government often extending to state ownership of industry.


Purely socialized medicine would be the very definition of statism, the state ownership of a specific industry, in this case that industry would be health care.

 

[nova]

I also feel that making profits at the expense of peoples health is morally wrong.

Those scumbag insurers making money off assuming our health risks. Next thing you know those evil farmers will be charging for life giving food and the utility company will make you pay for water. Is there no end to the madness? :sarcasm

Firstly, you repeat the fallacy that denial of payment does not = a death sentence. If you're an average working person, where will you raise the money for a serious operation, or years of expensive medication?

Seriously? Do you honestly equate refusal of payment with unavailability of service? That is easily the biggest false equivalency I've ever seen.

The only entity that can deny you care is the provider and insurance companies are NOT providers.

If they refuse payment they are simply following the bounds of the contractual assignment of risk which YOU agreed to.

And as I've repeated MANY MANY MANY times, for expensive procedures, payment plans are provided. If you're too poor to afford medication, then we already have a program for that called Medicaid and on top of that, nearly every major Pharma company, has programs of their own to provide free medications for those who can't afford it.

My wife is a Dr. and sends the indigent down both pathways for medications.

The govt does indeed have the upperhand. We look at this very differently I think. I'm happy to pay my govt to run the things I need. I do not trust private, profit driven enterprise to do the same, not when it comes to issues like my life.

And I REALLY don't trust the gov't who lacks even the profit incentive to operate effectively.

Ok so you're system doesn't have any rationing in it? What about all those poor sods who die? Are they not being rationed out of existance?

I'd dare you to try and prove that they die for lack of health CARE, much less a lack of health INSURANCE. Not having someone else to pay your bills will not kill you.

For the truly poor among us, we do provide a certain minimum amount of care, its called Medicaid, so nobody in true need is going without.

On top of that, we provide lifesaving care for those who need it. If you are dying, you can not be denied care, period.

Interesting point though and really highlights the crux of this debate. All this is down to perception of society, government and where you sit inside that. You seem to be viewing your existence as an island. Unfortunately that just simply isn't the case. As a member of society, which there is no escaping the fact that you are a member, you have obligations, just as society has obligations to you.

What simply doesn't exist is my "obligation to society" as it relates to health care. Thats a bullshit statist idea cooked up by a bunch of socialists to justify pounding the individual into submission to build their utopia.

The ONLY obligation the individual has to society, is to refrain from infringing upon the liberties of other individuals in that society. My refusal to buy into your socialist statist ideas is not infringing upon anyones liberties. Far from it, its preserving them.

What has universal healthcare got to do with socialism?!! Is the UK socialist? Germany? Austria? France? No, not one of them!

Uh, duh, if you practice socialist principles then yeah you are.

I've never understood why so many socialists don't like being called that. At least be proud of the fact that you want to

No, not 100% agreement, but pretty close. Even hardened conservatives understand the necessity for universal healthcare, it's a no brainer for the far majority of the country. It isn't a partisan issue in most countries you see. There are private options available for those with the means and desire to purchase them.

All that shows is just how far off the left wing deep end so much of the rest of the world is.

So you readily admit to forcing some people into a system they don't want at gunpoint? Thats certainly not something I would be proud of.

Private options? I guess thats why the UK NHS cuts people the fuck off if they dare to go buy care on their own.

Another great reason why you should stick with your privately run schemes! Love those rising premiums and lowering care levels!

Again, you confuse health CARE with health INSURANCE. The fact that my INSURANCE goes up or pays less does NOT chance the level and quality of health CARE that I get. I may have to pay more out of pocket, but I still get the same CARE.

Nothing ignorant about it. I understand that in the US bigger is better, buy buy buy etc but really? You wouldn't want to cut your nation's health expenditure in half by cutting out the middle men?

JFC, I don't know how many times I have to prove that its NOT the fucking insurance companies driving up the amount we spend.

The one and ONLY way we're going to cut our spending on health care, is if we start cramming down the actual PROVIDERS, at which point we stifle innovation, and guess what, its our $$$ here in the US that fuels the medical innovations used all over the world.

And furthermore, get everyone health coverage at the same time? It seems more than absurd and arrogant to just say "this is america, we buy more" as a good reason for complete and utter fiscal lunacy. And incredibly unsympathetic to all those unable to exert your financial confidence.

Its absolutely NONE of anyone's fucking business how much we as indviduals spend on ANYTHING.

I'm so sorry that your socialist "utopias" have stifled economic growth to the point that you simply can't spend what we spend in any one area, much less all areas, and have to resort to equally providing inadequate piss poor care to everyone, but thats no reason to try and tear down our system that provides the absolute best care in the world.

There's a reason that the people with the means, fly from all over the world, including your socialist utopias in Europe, to the US to get the BEST care.

What this all boils down to is whether or not you want to help your fellow man. I for one would hate to think that anybody would die in my country for lack of health cover. What would that say about me if I were to tolerate that?

What it boils down to is a bunch of bleeding hearts who want to force me to help at gunpoint to the detriment of our free society and everyone in it.

It would say you're a rational human being that realizes that making people dependent on others is not the way to help them in any way shape or form.

QUOTE=edgray;1358740]
Does it not bother you at all that a) so many people die unnecessarily and b) it could easily be solved, and most people want it to be solved? [/quote]

The same stupid "all those poor people are dying" argument. Just as untrue as it was earlier in your post.

People do want it solved but not by gov't takeover. Most of us want the gov't to get OUT of our lives, not more into it.

I have followed this debate with huge interest, read all the lies and propaganda spurted from both sides. I dont' know if a universal system will work in the US. It works in most other developed nations, with bugs to iron out of course, but it's there and I think it's something for you all to look forward to, not run away from.

It works in a piss poor and half ass manner and only works as well as it does because you can piggy back off the medical innovations our dollars buy.

 

[nova]

I've heard that thing, hilarious. Within the first minute he claims that socialised medicine is one of the most common ways of imposing socialism or statism on a people, and I'd love to hear an example of that! If that's not propaganda, then what is?!!

Try the entirety of Europe. You live in one of the most statist areas in the world and are so deep in it, you can't even see it.

If the gov't is paying for your healthcare, then guess what, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING YOU DO in life becomes a public health issue, within the authority of the gov't to regulate.

What you eat, how much you excercise, what activities you do, even who you fuck and how many kids you have.

I'm sorry but I don't want that. I want the gov't to protect the rights (and real rights, not the bullshit positive rights that socialists have invented) of the individual and otherwise stay the hell out of my life.

 

[nova]

Socialized medicine does have one benefit. The wounds you suffer when the gov't thugs beat the shit out of you for daring to question their authoritai are covered.

Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez detained, beaten on way to march - Cuba - MiamiHerald.com

 

[Accountable]

This is true, I am in Spain. But it seems as though a large percentage of your country disagrees with you and it's only right-wing propaganda and misinformation that is standing between your nation and the only morally-correct answer to health care - universal coverage.

I have visited the US, and even lived there briefly, and would love to do so again, but without the worry and expense of health insurance. I respect cultural differences but I don't think that's the issue here. I also feel it's my duty as a human being to tackle social injustices and try and help. This whole issue is down to private interests and profit and the control large companies excerpt on politicians, the media and the general populous.

If in one breath you claim moral superiority and then claim respect of differences, then both claims are shit. Fuck you and your moral superiority. To think that ceding liberty to a bureaucracy to make life and death decisions is morally superior to taking responsibility for your own life is completely foreign to me, to the USA.

You want to live your life with the government in charge, knock yourself out. Just don't fool yourself that you respect anything different from yourself again.

 

[Azazel]

​

 

[edgray]

Socialized medicine would in fact be a way of imposing socialism or statism on the populace as a whole. The government would be mandating that people have health coverage, without a choice in the matter, and that doctors see every patient, without a choice in the matter.

Statism
Definition: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of government often extending to state ownership of industry.

Purely socialized medicine would be the very definition of statism, the state ownership of a specific industry, in this case that industry would be health care.

Then clearly you misunderstand the what socialist philosophy is, it has nothing to do with people not having a choice in the matter.

Read about Socialism

 

[edgray]

Try the entirety of Europe. You live in one of the most statist areas in the world and are so deep in it, you can't even see it.

If the gov't is paying for your healthcare, then guess what, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING YOU DO in life becomes a public health issue, within the authority of the gov't to regulate.

What you eat, how much you excercise, what activities you do, even who you fuck and how many kids you have.

I'm sorry but I don't want that. I want the gov't to protect the rights (and real rights, not the bullshit positive rights that socialists have invented) of the individual and otherwise stay the hell out of my life.

The govt doesn't pay for our healthcare, we do through national insurance contributions.

The govt DOES NOT have any say in what we eat, how much we exercise, what activities we do (except of course when it comes to illegal activities) and how many kids we have.

Please tell me about the "bullshit" rights the socialist have invented. Also I'd love to know why we're talking about socialism all of a sudden, what does socialism have to do with healthcare?

 

[edgray]

Socialized medicine does have one benefit. The wounds you suffer when the gov't thugs beat the shit out of you for daring to question their authoritai are covered.

Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez detained, beaten on way to march - Cuba - MiamiHerald.com

Damn that state intervention.

 

[edgray]

If in one breath you claim moral superiority and then claim respect of differences, then both claims are shit. Fuck you and your moral superiority. To think that ceding liberty to a bureaucracy to make life and death decisions is morally superior to taking responsibility for your own life is completely foreign to me, to the USA.

You want to live your life with the government in charge, knock yourself out. Just don't fool yourself that you respect anything different from yourself again.

I don't think taking responsibility for you own life has anything to do with this. You put your life in the hands of the insurance industry who have a vested interested in profit. I put my life in the hands of my doctors. And what's more, EVERYONE else here has their lives in the hands of doctors, not insurance men.

The govt isn't in charge of my life, it makes no decisions for me. They represent my interests in a democratic manner. It's not a perfect system, not my personal choice, but its ok. I'm not told what to wear, where to go, where to work or what to eat. I'm given help when I need it. Those less fortunate than myself are given help when they need it. It's a nice arrangement.

 

[Meirionnydd]

The govt doesn't pay for our healthcare, we do through national insurance contributions.

The govt DOES NOT have any say in what we eat, how much we exercise, what activities we do (except of course when it comes to illegal activities) and how many kids we have.

Please tell me about the "bullshit" rights the socialist have invented. Also I'd love to know why we're talking about socialism all of a sudden, what does socialism have to do with healthcare?

Yeah, all those bullshit rights and "social progress". You know, things like free public education, universal suffrage and the 8 hour working day.

I think that's what he's talking about.

 

[edgray]

Those scumbag insurers making money off assuming our health risks. Next thing you know those evil farmers will be charging for life giving food and the utility company will make you pay for water. Is there no end to the madness? :sarcasm

I would consider healthcare to be something that shouldn't be profited on.

Seriously? Do you honestly equate refusal of payment with unavailability of service? That is easily the biggest false equivalency I've ever seen.

The only entity that can deny you care is the provider and insurance companies are NOT providers.

So you think that if an insurance company refuses to cough up, you think everyone would be able to afford the cost? Many can't, so they've essentially been sentenced to death. Show some compassion for those less fortunate than yourself.

If they refuse payment they are simply following the bounds of the contractual assignment of risk which YOU agreed to.

Well when there's no other choice, you're pretty much forced into it, aren't you?

And as I've repeated MANY MANY MANY times, for expensive procedures, payment plans are provided. If you're too poor to afford medication, then we already have a program for that called Medicaid and on top of that, nearly every major Pharma company, has programs of their own to provide free medications for those who can't afford it.

Ok so if that's the case, why are there so many medical bankruptcies? Imagine for a second you get really sick, your insurance company refuse to pay, you can't afford the treatment. That happens a lot:

"Unless you're a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you're one illness away from financial ruin in this country," says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. "If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that's the major finding in our study."

And I REALLY don't trust the gov't who lacks even the profit incentive to operate effectively.

If have to say you have a point there. There's no denying that govt run schemes are often less efficient that private enterprise. But they work, they function well.

I'd dare you to try and prove that they die for lack of health CARE, much less a lack of health INSURANCE. Not having someone else to pay your bills will not kill you.

Harvard Medical Study Links Lack of Insurance to 45,000 U.S. Deaths a Year - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com

For the truly poor among us, we do provide a certain minimum amount of care, its called Medicaid, so nobody in true need is going without.

On top of that, we provide lifesaving care for those who need it. If you are dying, you can not be denied care, period.

See link above.

What simply doesn't exist is my "obligation to society" as it relates to health care. Thats a bullshit statist idea cooked up by a bunch of socialists to justify pounding the individual into submission to build their utopia.

The ONLY obligation the individual has to society, is to refrain from infringing upon the liberties of other individuals in that society. My refusal to buy into your socialist statist ideas is not infringing upon anyones liberties. Far from it, its preserving them.

Again, universal healthcare has nothing to do with socialism.

Uh, duh, if you practice socialist principles then yeah you are.

Please do yourself a big favour and read about what socialism actually is.

I've never understood why so many socialists don't like being called that. At least be proud of the fact that you want to

Because most of the people you call socialist most likely aren't socialist at all.

All that shows is just how far off the left wing deep end so much of the rest of the world is.

No, just that they care. The "left wing" deepend would probably be communism, and I doubt you'll find many of those around.

So you readily admit to forcing some people into a system they don't want at gunpoint? Thats certainly not something I would be proud of.

As I said, there are private options. And very few people disagree with universal healthcare over here. Very few. Rich or poor, it's about making sure your fellow citizens are taken care of.

Private options? I guess thats why the UK NHS cuts people the fuck off if they dare to go buy care on their own.

No that's not true at all. Case in point: my mother lived outside the UK for many years, ended up getting too sick to stay where she was so moved back to the UK where, without having paid anything into the system for a long time, the doctors gave her 2 retinal transplants and a hip replacement. She was seen and operated on within a month of being back in the country. Never once was she, or anyone else, told to "fuck off"

Again, you confuse health CARE with health INSURANCE. The fact that my INSURANCE goes up or pays less does NOT chance the level and quality of health CARE that I get. I may have to pay more out of pocket, but I still get the same CARE.

I'm not confusing anything. I was saying that care has to be paid for, if an insurer pays less, less care is given. It's very simple.

JFC, I don't know how many times I have to prove that its NOT the fucking insurance companies driving up the amount we spend.

The one and ONLY way we're going to cut our spending on health care, is if we start cramming down the actual PROVIDERS, at which point we stifle innovation, and guess what, its our $$$ here in the US that fuels the medical innovations used all over the world.

Medical breakthroughs is one of the US's strongest points, and I doubt that would change should you bring in a universal system - I think it speaks more of the level of medical education in the US - that's why so many people go there to study medicine. There is no reason this should stop if the system is changed.

Its absolutely NONE of anyone's fucking business how much we as indviduals spend on ANYTHING.

True, but when there are so many people suffering in the hands of your system, that's when it becomes everyone's business.

I'm so sorry that your socialist "utopias" have stifled economic growth to the point that you simply can't spend what we spend in any one area, much less all areas, and have to resort to equally providing inadequate piss poor care to everyone, but thats no reason to try and tear down our system that provides the absolute best care in the world.

There is nothing inadequate or piss poor about the care we receive. It's highly arrogant to think you provide the best care in the world as well. Pehaps in some areas, less so in others.

There's a reason that the people with the means, fly from all over the world, including your socialist utopias in Europe, to the US to get the BEST care.

Many people "with the means" choose to stay and have care in their own lands. That's just a personal choice issue. And finally, Europe is anything but a "socialist utopia". It is a collection of sovereign nations with a mixture of forms of social democracies and other economic and political systems.

What it boils down to is a bunch of bleeding hearts who want to force me to help at gunpoint to the detriment of our free society and everyone in it.

It would say you're a rational human being that realizes that making people dependent on others is not the way to help them in any way shape or form.

What it boils down to is that you're outnumbered on this issue, the majority of people in your country, as in all other western societies, understand the need for universal healthcare but people such as yourselves are selfishly keeping it from them. Any rational human being knows that sometimes people need help.

The same stupid "all those poor people are dying" argument. Just as untrue as it was earlier in your post.

No that was true:

Harvard Medical Study Links Lack of Insurance to 45,000 U.S. Deaths a Year - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com

People do want it solved but not by gov't takeover. Most of us want the gov't to get OUT of our lives, not more into it.

Having a universal healthcare system doesn't put the government into your life more. It just removes and obstacle between you and your doctors.

It works in a piss poor and half ass manner and only works as well as it does because you can piggy back off the medical innovations our dollars buy.

Actually it's far better than "piss poor". As for piggy-backing off medical advances, countries like Britain and Germany contribute massively to medical knowledge, albeit less so than the US, we excel in other areas. Britain, for example, excels in pharmaceuticals and thanks to the system over there, we pay only a fraction for them then you do.

 

[edgray]

Yeah, all those bullshit rights and "social progress". You know, things like free public education, universal suffrage and the 8 hour working day.

yeah, those blasted socialists eh? damn them and their bloody progress - conservatives unite and conserve our inequalities, social injustices and exploitation!!!

 

[Accountable]

Whether all doctors or even a majority of them agree with a single payer system or not does not dissuade my preference to such a system.

There is no system out there that completely covers my views on the subject. But the single payer system comes closest for me. I do not wan the doctors and hospitals to be be government run, I like that I have choices and they aren't all cookie cutter facilities all playing from the same handbook. I also feel that making profits at the expense of peoples health is morally wrong. There are a million ways to make money off the American people that I fully support but there are things I just see as off limits. Like basic health care, police protection, basic education, fire protection, public transportation, etc. There are certain things that "I" consider the "commons" that should be shared by everyone. It doesn't matter if you own property and pay property taxes on it to fund the local schools, your children should have basic education available to them at no charge, paid for by the "commons" The same can be said for when it comes to having the fire department come to your rescue or the police. My hard earned tax dollars are funding the roads, police, fire department, schools etc and I don't care since I would never be able to fund these things for my own personal use. It works because we all put into the system and use it as needed. I'm a firm believer that basic health care should also fall under the "commons" Where all the costs of health care are spread across the community. The larger the pool, the greater the savings for everyone. Right now we billions upon billions of health care dollars going to things other than health care. Doctors need to hire billing specialists, hospitals have entire departments dedicated to dealing with the numerous payer systems and the paperwork that goes along with it. Then there are health insurance companies that are nothing but middlemen eating up the health care dollars.
I would much rather those dollars go to the health care field. I want the doctors, nurses and hospitals to make good money to be the best they can and I want their day to be dedicated to dealing with patients and not with insurance companies or billing departments.
A single payer system where the costs are shared by all is the absolutely most cost effective way to do it. It has one system for collection and payouts to the health care community.

And this is not socialized medicine. For that, you need to go to Cuba and see what it actually means to have socialized health care.

As far as the VA goes. I like the VA because they are very specialized. It makes sense to have government doctors and facilities to take care of the vets since they have very specialized needs. And the VA is a good example of socialized medicine.

You contradict yourself.

• Private hospitals make profits, an immoral practice according to your post.
• You say you don't want the hospitals & doctors to be gov't run, then say the school system - where the schools and teachers are gov't run - is the way to go.
• You want all the costs of healthcare spread across your "commons," well that includes hospital overhead and doctor salaries.
• You like the ability to choose, yet advocate for a single payer system, which will by definition take away choice. Coverage will necessarily become "cookie cutter."

Choice is what you have now. Not only choice in which coverage to choose and which company to privide that coverage (which could be broader if it weren't for the anti-trust exemptions no one in Congress is truly willing to take away), but also choice in whether to be covered at all.

As you prepare your rant about expenses, remember that you also have the choice in how to budget your money to balance between health care and entertainment, at least until Uncle Single Payer takes that decision from you.