Soviet Union Rewind: Why Are We Praising Communism Again?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very few, if any, primary care physician and very few obg/gyn doctors perform abortions.
 
The problem with complete government takeover of health care is that it will then be up to the government, and not a patient’s doctor, to decide whether or not the patient receives treatment, the quality of that treatment, and the type of treatment which, since the government isn’t the doctor, may or may not be appropriate for that patient.

The government, under that system, can also set up “death panels” to decide who is “worthy” of receiving life-saving treatments, and who should just be left to die when they might otherwise be saved and perhaps even fully recover IF they were allowed to receive treatment.

In other words, such a system would put into the government’s hands life and death decisions,which only God has any right making. The patient’s own doctor can be overruled at any time, or even be forbidden to treat the patient.

Do we REALLY WANT the government playing God???
 
Last edited:
Are laws that allow a cancer-causing products like cigarettes a matter of playing God?
What about setting speed limits on highways?
There are lot of things that the government does that have an effect on our lives.
 
JanR said:
The problem with complete government takeover of health care is that it will then be up to the government, and not a patient’s doctor, to decide whether or not the patient receives treatment, the quality of that treatment, and the type of treatment which, since the government isn’t the doctor, may or may not be appropriate for that patient.
Click to expand...
How is that different to insurance?
 
In addition to the fact that the government could be making medical decisions for individual patients when it isn’t medically qualified, as a doctor would be, there’s also the very real danger of government bias, or prejudice, against a certain patient or groups of people based on political views, on race, or other discriminatory factors, and certain patients could be denied treatment for those reasons, as well.

Can we really trust the government to be fair to everyone under such circumstances?
 
Can we trust corporate entities to make moral decisions on who gets treated?
 
No, one can’t always trust private insurance companies to treat customers fairly, either. The redeeming thing about that is that the consumer has choices. If an insurance company isn’t honoring the obligations of its policy, the customer can fire that company and sign up with a different one.

Not quite that easy if the insurance is provided by one’s employer. There may still be recourses, however.

Not so if the government completely takes over healthcare. Then the choices are gone, as is the freedom to choose, and the patients and doctors are at the mercy of the state. If the state decides a 95-year-old man or woman is not “worthy” of being allowed to live or have his or her health restored or at least improved, then that’s just too bad for that patient.

I ask again – do we REALLY WANT to live under a system like that?
 
Last edited:
Prove I’m wrong.

Otherwise, you’re merely mimicking others who have no experience in having a serious illness or even choosing a doctor who’s not in your health insurance companies network.
 
Last edited:
Elf01 said:
How is that different to insurance?
Click to expand...
Because I have the opportunity to pay out of pocket, if insurance turns me down.

Or if it happens repeatedly, I can change companies.

Single payer doesn’t have that option.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Prove I’m wrong.

Otherwise, you’re merely mimicking others who have no experience in having a serious illness or even choosing a doctor who’s not in your health insurance companies network.
Click to expand...
You’re completely missing the point I made. Come back when you figure it out and then respond to that.
 
JanR said:
The problem with complete government takeover of health care is that it will then be up to the government, and not a patient’s doctor, to decide whether or not the patient receives treatment, the quality of that treatment, and the type of treatment which, since the government isn’t the doctor, may or may not be appropriate for that patient.

The government, under that system, can also set up “death panels” to decide who is “worthy” of receiving life-saving treatments, and who should just be left to die when they might otherwise be saved and perhaps even fully recover IF they were allowed to receive treatment.

In other words, such a system would put into the government’s hands life and death decisions,which only God has any right making. The patient’s own doctor can be overruled at any time, or even be forbidden to treat the patient.

Do we REALLY WANT the government playing God???
Click to expand...
Where are you getting these fantastical ideas?
Why do you think it is up to the government to decide your treatment?
 
Last edited:
JanR said:
In addition to the fact that the government could be making medical decisions for individual patients when it isn’t medically qualified, as a doctor would be, there’s also the very real danger of government bias, or prejudice, against a certain patient or groups of people based on political views, on race, or other discriminatory factors, and certain patients could be denied treatment for those reasons, as well.

Can we really trust the government to be fair to everyone under such circumstances?
Click to expand...
What are you basing these statements on?
JanR said:
Not so if the government completely takes over healthcare. Then the choices are gone, as is the freedom to choose, and the patients and doctors are at the mercy of the state. If the state decides a 95-year-old man or woman is not “worthy” of being allowed to live or have his or her health restored or at least improved, then that’s just too bad for that patient.

I ask again – do we REALLY WANT to live under a system like that?
Click to expand...
Again, where are you getting these ideas?
 
Last edited:
F_Marturana said:
The abandonment of the Kurds is not prolife.
Click to expand...
What about the abandonment of the American Indian or the abandonment of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, the Catalonians, the Basques, the Tartars in Crimea, the Serbs in Kosovo, the Palestinians, etc. Why should the Kurds have precedence ?
 
I don’t think it should be up to the government to decide medical treatment. I wouldn’t want the government interfering. The point of my post was to warn what our healthcare might be like under a socialist or communist system. There are those among the radical left candidates who are proposing exactly that – eliminating private health insurance and putting it all under a single-payer government system. If that were to happen, the consequences I am describing in these posts could very well become reality.

Have you been listening to some of these proposals?
 
Last edited:
JanR said:
I don’t think it should be up to the government to decide medical treatment. I wouldn’t want the government interfering. The point of my post was to warn what our healthcare might be like under a socialist or communist system. There are those among the radical left candidates who are proposing exactly that – eliminating private health insurance and putting it all under a single-payer government system. If that were to happen, the consequences I am describing in these posts could very well become reality.
Click to expand...
The most radical proposals are for the government to pay for medical treatment by privately employed providers, hence “Medicare for All”. That wouldn’t be government controlled health care, just government financed health care. It also wouldn’t eliminate one’s ability to privately pay for a treatment or service if able.

The points you raise simply have no bearing on what is actually being proposed.
 
JanR said:
If an insurance company isn’t honoring the obligations of its policy, the customer can fire that company and sign up with a different one.
Click to expand...
Prior to ObamaCare:

“Gee, my insurance won’t pay for the $100,000 heart surgery I need to survive, I will just switch companies.”

Obamacare:

“Gee, the insurance company won’t pay for the $100,000 heart surgery I need to survive, I’ll just wait until next January to have a different company”

Reality:

“Gee, I am one if the unfortunate few who don’t have insurance and I need a $100,000 heart surgery to survive”
 
HerCrazierHalf said:
I think there’s a disconnect. Yes, some are advocating for “socialism”. But most are simply looking for better social safety nets similar to some of the European countries.

As i said going towards the authoritarian ends of socialism is bad just as going towards the extreme free market ends of capitalism use bad. Heck, “pure” democracy is such a bad thing that we have a democratic republic with a constitution outlining what shouldn’t be done.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the socialists that are part of the Democratic Party are not actually offering what countries like the UK, Sweden & Denmark actually have.

Here are two short videos about the truth about Denmark Is Denmark Socialist? | PragerU

Is Denmark Really Socialist? | PragerU (this one is really a re-hash of select parts of the 1st one in direct response to Bernie Sanders)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top