That would only be so if the government owned the health care facilitiesFor anybody interested in what government run healthcare would look like, go to your local health department. Do you want every healthcare facility to look and be run like that?
I do not know if your post has protectionist sentiments, but if you do, aren’t you for regulation? I thought free trade was an act of deregulation. Well, it is worth noting that other countries spend a lot less on their military than the US (even China with its large population).Hi All,
The mention of military expenditure by our gov’t being out of line, or excessive because we should have social needs ahead of the military is short sighted at best. If we don’t stop our enemies, we have no country to love, live in or be free in. There will never be another opportunity in world history for a nation to forge its own destiny the way we have had the opportunity to do the last 200+ years. The idea that most Americans need the “help” of the federal gov’t to force us to pay for our own healthcare is ludicrous at best. We need gov’t to manage trade with foreign powers, keep our roads maintained and safe, a strong military, and to promote the general welfare of the public- NOT promote welfare in general. The US economy is (soon to be was) the most productive economic engine (per capita) in world history. Heavy gov’t regulation in some areas is driving companies out of the US to stay afloat in the international world economy. We no longer dominate the world economy in several wealth producing areas- manufacturing our own standard of living is now done by Japan Inc, China Inc, India Inc, Mexico Inc, and Indonesia Inc. We are lazy, and are placing our sovereignty in others hands at our own peril. National healthcare will not force us to take care of our personal health anymore than public assistance has helped lift single mothers out of poverty (as anyone who has studied this one knows, quite the opposite happens). The last thing the US working class needs is another gov’t scam/ economic millstone around their necks.
Jonhi
JFK was a terrible Catholic, but he was arguably a worse American.So then, you are first and foremost a Catholic? Not first an American? Were you in the military? Or maybe an elected official? You must take an oath to be in the military or to hold public office.
The first thing is to protect and defend the United States of America. Then you can be Catholic, as long as your religion doesn’t interfere with your service.
Would you actually argue that JFK was not a good Catholic because he refused to take orders from the Vatican?
I want it, I can’t have it in any way useful to me. I have filed for bankruptcy once in my life for medical debt. I will do it again as soon as I am allowed to file again. In my lifetime I have had over 300,000 of medical debt.About 20% of our citizens do not have coverage, and many of those DO NOT WANT OR NEED IT!
For those who don’t have, but want it (a freebie, if you will) , they are not going to work for it, YOU ARE.
:clapping: Bravo, and welcome to the forum.Hi All,
The mention of military expenditure by our gov’t being out of line, or excessive because we should have social needs ahead of the military is short sighted at best. If we don’t stop our enemies, we have no country to love, live in or be free in. There will never be another opportunity in world history for a nation to forge its own destiny the way we have had the opportunity to do the last 200+ years. The idea that most Americans need the “help” of the federal gov’t to force us to pay for our own healthcare is ludicrous at best. We need gov’t to manage trade with foreign powers, keep our roads maintained and safe, a strong military, and to promote the general welfare of the public- NOT promote welfare in general. The US economy is (soon to be was) the most productive economic engine (per capita) in world history. Heavy gov’t regulation in some areas is driving companies out of the US to stay afloat in the international world economy. We no longer dominate the world economy in several wealth producing areas- manufacturing our own standard of living is now done by Japan Inc, China Inc, India Inc, Mexico Inc, and Indonesia Inc. We are lazy, and are placing our sovereignty in others hands at our own peril. National healthcare will not force us to take care of our personal health anymore than public assistance has helped lift single mothers out of poverty (as anyone who has studied this one knows, quite the opposite happens). The last thing the US working class needs is another gov’t scam/ economic millstone around their necks.
Jonhi
When did I ask for national healthcare? Don’t put words in my mouth. Single payer is not national healthcare. Making plans available for me is not national health care. I am WILLING and ABLE to pay, but I CANNOT because the free market offers NOTHING for me. The free market has FAILED me. That is the problem. It is perfectly legal in almost every state to deny me health care because of my ‘lifestyle’. I have no options outside of continual bankruptcy, which certainly doesn’t endear hospitals and doctors to treat me and offer me deals, when they know well that I already owe them nearly half a million.Right now, you cannot sue the gov’t for malpractice, and you certainly won’t be able to with “national healthcare”. However, the doctors you rail against will be protected by default because they cannot be sued- they will work for uncle Sam!
Jonhi
My mother is dead. She did not survive the current system.Sorry about your travails. Many people are in your shoes and survive.
How many is enough to justify those who don’t?Sorry about your travails. Many people are in your shoes and survive.
You have some weird (and incorrect) ideas about what the current proposals for national health insurance are.Also, why would I as a taxpayer want to leave myself exposed to lawsuits on your behalf when I don’t collect if you win, but I do pay whether you win, lose or draw? Right now, you cannot sue the gov’t for malpractice, and you certainly won’t be able to with “national healthcare”. However, the doctors you rail against will be protected by default because they cannot be sued- they will work for uncle Sam!
Jonhi
A healthy, better-educated nation can produce a healthy, better-educated soldier and of course the economy to support him.Hi All,
The mention of military expenditure by our gov’t being out of line, or excessive because we should have social needs ahead of the military is short sighted at best.
Who are these enemies? and how exactly are they going to destroy our country?If we don’t stop our enemies, we have no country to love, live in or be free in.
never say neverThere will never be another opportunity in world history for a nation to forge its own destiny the way we have had the opportunity to do the last 200+ years.
But that is not the idea behind nationalize health insuranceThe idea that most Americans need the “help” of the federal gov’t to force us to pay for our own healthcare is ludicrous at best.
You make arbitrary distinctions about what you consider good for the general welfare.We need gov’t to manage trade with foreign powers, keep our roads maintained and safe, a strong military, and to promote the general welfare of the public- NOT promote welfare in general.
Hmmm…. since many nations have some sort of national health insurance why do you think companies would relocate there?The US economy is (soon to be was) the most productive economic engine (per capita) in world history. Heavy gov’t regulation in some areas is driving companies out of the US to stay afloat in the international world economy.
The US has about 5% of the world’s population but produces close to 30% of the global domestic product. We are far ahead of China, Japan, Mexico et alWe no longer dominate the world economy in several wealth producing areas- manufacturing our own standard of living is now done by Japan Inc, China Inc, India Inc, Mexico Inc, and Indonesia Inc. We are lazy, and are placing our sovereignty in others hands at our own peril.
it is not supposed to take care of your personal healthNational healthcare will not force us to take care of our personal health anymore than public assistance has helped lift single mothers out of poverty (as anyone who has studied this one knows, quite the opposite happens).
Nothing wrong with paying taxesThe last thing the US working class needs is another gov’t scam/ economic millstone around their necks.
Jonhi
How can the cost of coverage be lower when the tax load the gov’t will impose will dramatically alter your take home pay- assuming you work now? Canada raised the income tax for healthcare ALONE to 17% of payroll on top of all the taxes they already had in place. That is as much as you pay for social security now if factor in the 1/2 your employer contributes on your behalf. If there are no lifestyle restrictions to this coverage, peoples poor health habits will bankrupt the system since there will be no constitutional way to dictate personal behavior. In fact, the only dictate will be that YOU WILL PAY FOR IT WHETHER YOU NEED IT OR NOT AND WHETHER IT WORKS OR NOT. Hardly fair to anyone.A healthy, better-educated nation can produce a healthy, better-educated soldier and of course the economy to support him.
Soldiers aren’t the be all and end all; they are the product of the society that produced them.
The best army in the world is useless if it has nothing to fight for
Who are these enemies? and how exactly are they going to destroy our country?
Don’t get me started on the quantity and quality of defense spending
Adjusted for inflation the current US budget will be the highest since WW2
The armed forces are also the smallest they have been since the end of WW2.
True we have a much more high tech army but we are fighting a low tech enemy and the shortages of little things such as body amour or protected vehicles kinda makes one wonder where the money is actually going.
But don’t listen to me, listen to the general
“Our problem is to achieve adequate military strength within the limits of endurable strain upon our economy. To amass military power without regard to our economic capacity would be to defend ourselves against one kind of disaster by inviting another.”
Eisenhower’s State of the Union Address
February 2, 1953 (yes this was during the Korean War)
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. "
Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
never say never
But that is not the idea behind nationalize health insurance
The idea is that we are all paying for the uninsured one way or another already so why not try to do it more efficiently.
You make arbitrary distinctions about what you consider good for the general welfare.
Is not a healthier population better for the general welfare?
Is not a population that can work where its talents and skills are most suited rather than just where they can get health coverage good for the general welfare?
Hmmm…. since many nations have some sort of national health insurance why do you think companies would relocate there?
Do you suppose that maybe it because their costs per employee are lowered because they don’t have to pay for private insurance?
The US has about 5% of the world’s population but produces close to 30% of the global domestic product. We are far ahead of China, Japan, Mexico et al
We are even ahead in purchasing power parity
We’re doing quite all right.
The only reason we were so far ahead in the 20th century was that much of the world was either non industrialized or had been damaged by war. To suppose that situation is normal and sustainable is to be lead to disappointment.
it is not supposed to take care of your personal health
you’re on your own for that one
it is supposed to lower the cost of coverage
Nothing wrong with paying taxes
As long as you get what you pay for.
Yes, but then if it is in control of it, it is fascist (Nazi Germany anyone??)We need to first define what socialism is and we can then answer the question. Socialism is an economic system where the state owns and controls the means of production.
Now, there are several proposals out there, none of which are actually socialized medicine. There are proposals for single-payer, mandates to purchase private insurance or medical savings accounts…along with all sorts of in-between ideas.
As an editorial note, there are those who say that single-payer is socialism. What is ignored is the fact that the doctors and hospitals would remain as they currently are, whether public or private owned, which means that the state does NOT own and control the means of production; therefore, not socialist.
First, Godwin’s law is invoked. You lose.Yes, but then if it is in control of it, it is fascist (Nazi Germany anyone??)
This may well be the most disingenuous thing I ever saw.First, Godwin’s law is invoked. You lose.
Second, you wouldn’t know fascism if it tap danced across your nose. Consider what the father of fascism (Mussolini) said: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
We call that the Guild system (in Romance languages, Corpora-something) where I come from. Guess what? It works.Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies are known as corporations (not necessarily the business model known as a ‘corporation’ though such businesses are not excluded from the definition either). Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When the political and economic power of a country rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place.
Forgive me, but I happen to know that what you fetishize as “representative government” is nothing more than rule by a clique–the Parliament, called here and in most of the Romance-speaking world the Senate (generally because the Executive is separate–a slightly better system than the alternative). Those people are not us. Say to the man on the street, “The members of the Senate are exactly the same as you are, morally and culturally,” and you’ll get punched in the mouth.Third, in a democratic Republic, the government not some entity out there, but the agent of the people. Now I know that what you hear on the radio and on the cable news channel named after the canine with the bushy tail tells you that the government is some sort of autonomous entity that is eeeeevil and is out to get you but that’s not the basis upon which this country was founded.
Who sets the norms now?My concern with government run healthcare is who legistlates the norms?
That is a medical decisionWhat % chance to live do you have to have before they will approve a risky brain surgery to remove a tumor?
There are some pretty clear existing standards as to what is medically necessary and what is notWhat is elective surgery and what is important?
As I understand it nations that have a single payer system do not cater to everyone’s whim (the common complaint against Canada is the “rationing” of health care and having to wait in line for certain procedures)Either you cover everyone’s every whim, or you leave it in the hands of someone who’s morality will legislate your health care.
AgreedThe biggest danger in politics is oversimplification of an issue.
The suggestion is to have the government provide health insurance not health care.I’m not saying the system is great as is, but I doubt the government could do much better. Just look at FEMA and tell me that the government should handle healthcare.
WellHow can the cost of coverage be lower when the tax load the gov’t will impose will dramatically alter your take home pay- assuming you work now?
And yet they pay half of what we do for health care per capita and are a healthier nation too.Canada raised the income tax for healthcare ALONE to 17% of payroll on top of all the taxes they already had in place.
WHAT!?!?That is as much as you pay for social security now if factor in the 1/2 your employer contributes on your behalf. If there are no lifestyle restrictions to this coverage, peoples poor health habits will bankrupt the system since there will be no constitutional way to dictate personal behavior. In fact, the only dictate will be that YOU WILL PAY FOR IT WHETHER YOU NEED IT OR NOT AND WHETHER IT WORKS OR NOT. Hardly fair to anyone.
Jonhi
Of course it isHi again,
Single payer IS national health insurance-
Or the 50 states or some regional combinationsthe ONLY entity on the planet that is lined up to be the single payer in the US is the US gov’t. There are no other contenders.
Fascist? HardlyHillary Clinton tried 12 years ago to make the entire US a facist medicine country.
Once again the plan is not for government run health care but government run insuranceHer plan was to wipe out ALL private medical practice (as Canada has done) and force all doctors to practice through the US gov’ts control- read the definition of fascism. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THE US GOV’T running their healthcare, especially if they have any other choice, and since most of us do, we DON’T WANT IT!!!
Jonhi