|
Post by Elfie on Jul 5, 2004 23:39:21 GMT -5
This is a policy that Canadians are quite proud of. It's basically free medical treatment for all at the cost of additional taxes. What do you think of this policy? I remember Static refuted it once by saying it was socialist and therefore bad, but I'm looking for other opinions. Should a person's health subject to capitalistism?
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Jul 5, 2004 23:41:17 GMT -5
there's no such thing. somebody's paying for it somewhere. In reality, free healthcare often serves to benefit people who don't take care of themselves at the expense of those who do. Obviously, this isn't always the case, but is it fair that someone who is an IV drug user get health care for free at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer? (I, btw, am speaking as someone who has astronomical health expenses and would benefit greatly from free health care)
BTW, Nancy Pelosi is my representative (from other thread)
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 5, 2004 23:54:21 GMT -5
That's why I say universal in the title, though I'll admit to using free later.
First, I've got to ask a question about drug users for you guys. In some places in Canada, there are programs that will provide fresh needles to anyone using drugs that needs them. The logic behind this is that no one takes up a drug because they can get the needle for free so it doesn't encourage usage, but the damage drugs do to an individual can be reduced by making sure they don't share needles and spread diseases, like HIV/AIDS for example, and thus reduces expenses on the health care system. What do you think? Is this too forgiving an attitude to take with drug users, or is this an appropriate step to take.
In regards to the actual comment about free health care, I've got to ask you, why does it matter if the person is a drug addict? Should we say no to this person and let them suffer or die because of a few wrong choices? I believe even Locke and Jefferson would agree that people have a right to life. (That one's for you Devo.) And even if you don't feel particularly compassionate to those who have made mistakes in the past, try not to forget all of those who haven't done anything to deserve the problems they're afflicted with. At what point do we say "No, it's not worth my money to see you live."? Is it when they're an addict, or maybe just if they had unprotected sex? Can we really just say "It's your own damn fault." to the person who stood too close to a can of bug-spray that they through in a fire to watch it explode or to a person who gave into peer pressure? I would say no, but then again, maybe every human life does have a price.
EDIT: And I, by the way, am speaking as someone in really good health who loses out by paying for Universal Health Care.
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Jul 6, 2004 0:14:23 GMT -5
please believe me when I say that not a second of my life goes by where I forget that.
However, how it shakes out is like this:
In a situation where health care is free, the health care is also generally not high quality. That's because regardless of whether or not free health care exists, there will always be a market for higher quality health care at an elevated price. This is where all the qualified doctors would go. Private practice>government funded job. (I know this from semi-personal experience and research)
So what happens is that everyone is being taxed for crappy healthcare. The added tax will impact the poor more than the rich, even with a graduated tax rate. The rich, on the other hand, will still buy their uber-elite health plans, and the poor are left to be treated by doctors from Band-Aid University, albeit for free.
Trust me when I tell you that the greatest motivator for one who is unemployed to go out and seek a job is for health benefits. Most full-time jobs in the U.S. have a health care plan. In fact, you can continue on that plan for up to 18 months after you have left that job (C.O.B.R.A.) So the people who generally have no health care have been unemployed for at least a year and a half. Students get covered by their schools if they are full time, kids by parents, spouses cover each other, etc. Under free healthcare, employers would cease providing for healthcare, since the government has it covered. This would mean that HMOs such as Blue Cross, Kaiser, Aetna, etc would cease to be. The only private healthcare insurance one could get would be astronomical in price. To get the kind of health care that I have for free now under my employment coverage, I would probably have to spend an extra $300/mo on top of the increased taxes that I would be paying.
Ultimately, the way the U.S. economy works, free health care would only serve to destroy middle-America.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 6, 2004 0:22:45 GMT -5
Ah, but that's a two tier health system, not a universal one. The Canada Health Act prevents doctors from charging patients, and while this means many of them go to the US where they can charge patients, many stay here out for the same reason why the average Canadian does. We make less money, but we help more people. Believe it or not, there are actually some people think about it. It's why I'm living in a modest house in the suburbs with a pool with two lawyers as parents instead of a mansion in the US. It's something they chose to give up because they thought it was the right thing to do.
You're right though, this is why a two-tier health care system fails. However, if the US and Canada both adopted Universal Health Care Programs, any doctor who wanted to charge more money than the government offered (and believe me, the government offers quite a bit), would have to go overseas or take their chances in Latin America. Basically, in Canada right now there are no private hospitals. You can't have surgery done except through the public system, which means that good doctors treat everyone, not just the wealthy, unless they head south.
EDIT: I just talked to Devo about the typical American mind-frame. I feel so bad for you guys.
|
|
|
Post by stalin on Jul 6, 2004 0:37:37 GMT -5
I think a good medium would be best for starters. I have always favored free health care like the Scandanavian states but at this point its impracticle in the US. The only way it could succesfully work is if it were introduced in a step ladder form, a lil at a time. First would be a ceiling on all medical costs so prices cant be jacked up. Second would be the placement of government run free clinics that wouldnt offer any surgical help but rather the basics that you could find at a doctors office. From there you could move on. This would give both the people and the economy time to adjust to the changes.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Jul 6, 2004 11:36:07 GMT -5
The reason I believe that free healthcare is better is for this.
If a family lives in poverty, and just say one of their children has a serious accident or is diagnosed with a serious illness that needs professional treatment. There is no way that they can afford to pay for this, so what? The child dies, just because a family doesn't have enough money to have him or her treated? This is wrong. You can't put a price on someone's life. Even if free healthcare is lesser quality than private healthcare, it's still better than having a family like that having to chose between losing their child or losing their life savings.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Jul 6, 2004 11:59:18 GMT -5
Both Devo and Elfie make extremely good arguments. 10pts. each.
As for me, I'm still torn about the issue. It seems like a good idea, much for the reason that DA stated, but at the same time it would destroy a lot of HMOs and benefits packages and such, as Devo said. I think, for the time being, I'm gonna stay out of this argument, untl I can think about it a little bit better. Right now I'm swaying towards universal health care...but still.
PS - Elfie, if you could post the convo, or at least give us a brief synapsis of it, that you and Devo had about the American mindframe, it'd be much appreciated. Maybe even another new thread, if you're up to it. I'm really quite interested.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 6, 2004 12:08:10 GMT -5
With Devo's permission, I'd be happy to.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Jul 6, 2004 12:28:03 GMT -5
Damnit, my posts never get points *sigh*
Devo and Elfie have alot of intelligent convos don't they?
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Jul 6, 2004 13:17:13 GMT -5
Yes, yes they do.
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Jul 6, 2004 14:30:40 GMT -5
go for it.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 6, 2004 14:45:27 GMT -5
Tony: I deleted our last threads in the 9/11 thread and moved my statement Matthew: Okay. Tony: I'm not quite as conservative as my post would lead one to believe, but it'll get the thread rolling Matthew: Indeed.
Matthew: Well I gave you a response. Tony: so I see Matthew: It's a typical bleeding-heart liberal answer, so it'll get both sides going. Matthew: Still, as liberal as it is, I do believe in it. Matthew: That's why our governing party is The Liberals I guess...
Matthew: You adressed a two-tier health care system. Matthew: In Canada there is no private sector for Health Care. Tony: no, I addressed a free health care system on an open market economy Matthew: Then perhaps I need to be more clear. Tony: the Conservatives in America would simply not allow a restriction on free enterprise Matthew: And what do you think of the idea? Tony: wouldn't work here Tony: too much social stratification Matthew: What do you mean? Tony: there is too much of a gap between the rich and the poor Matthew: Okay. Matthew: Yeah, my vocab could use some work. Matthew: So it wouldn't work because the rich would never support it? Tony: right Tony: they'd be taking a health care hit whichever way you sliced it Matthew: True. Matthew: Wow, you guys are really greedy. Matthew: I mean that in the nicest way. Tony: true Matthew: I mean, we do it here because it's the right thing, in our minds, even if the pocket book takes a hit. Matthew: Whether or not it's right doesn't seem to enter the equation there though, just how much it costs... Tony: yup Tony: that's what gets candidates elected here Matthew: Which is why you guys need an electoral college to I guess. Matthew: Because people really would vote for the candidate that promised them all the good stuff at others' expense. Tony: yes Matthew: I'm sorry. Matthew: I actually find that really disheartening. Matthew: I mean, wow. Matthew: Anyway, I should get some sleep. Matthew: Good night. Tony: good night
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Jul 6, 2004 21:58:05 GMT -5
Yep. Behold the glory of Capitalism + greedy motherforkers. People really suck sometimes. Forkers...
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Jul 7, 2004 13:16:05 GMT -5
They used alot of big words that really confused me, but I think I got the jist of it.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 7, 2004 18:06:36 GMT -5
Don't worry about it. I thought stratification meant layering of some sort; I didn't apply to society like Devo did, so I was confused there too.
|
|