PK Arms Ad

Nationalize Healthcare

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    Archaic_Entity

    Archaic_Entity

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 9, 2008
    626
    16
    Venture Surplus Banner ad
    First off, I apologize for placing this here, if it's not supposed to be here. I figured... this is politics, so why not? Move if necessary...


    Anyway, I'm debating with a friend of mine about nationalizing healthcare. The only issue is that I'm not too up and up with it. I don't know nearly the entire system, nor the advantages and disadvantages of nationalizing it. I can only go off of my personal guesses in response to his statements. I was just kind of looking for some pointers, and some knowledge on the matter.

    Thank in advance.
     
    rambone

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Please for the love of God NO

    Just look at Britain. They've had National Health care for more than 50 years. Anyone who wants their life to be saved comes to America to avoid the "free" system, that gives such crappy care.

    Socializing health care would be the worst thing we could do. We recruit the brightest medical students, and the best doctors in the world. People come from everywhere to be treated in our hospitals because of our outstanding chance of survival in the USA. Despite the "healthcare crisis" that the liberals invented, our system works just fine for the majority of Americans.

    Government health care will become more about saving money than saving lives. The staff will be underpaid and over worked. Each nurse may have 50 patients to monitor. The neglect on the patients will be remarkable. It is just not possible for quality care to be given in these conditions. Britain has a staggering number of people who die in hospitals of different reasons than they we admitted for.

    You lose the freedom to choose a doctor that you feel comfortable with. Instead of calling your family doctor and seeing if you can get in this week, you will call a government office and let them tell you who to go to. Hope its nothing serious, because we're not going to be able to see you for another 4 months. The government will be all over your business and will be more overbearing and expensive than ever.

    Health care will become so backed up by people abusing the "freeness" of the system, you may wait a year until you can be seen by a doctor. People will die waiting for their next cancer treatment or dialysis.

    And if that weren't enough, there will be rationing of health care. The government will decide based on certain factors - including age and health and your ailment - whether it is worth it to treat you. If you are too old, too fat, a smoker, you can be denied treatment based on that. And if the treatment is too expensive they may ban the treatment all together. So much for free. In Britain there are certain cancer drugs that could prolong people's lives that are banned from use because the "free" health care system can't afford them. Too bad, you get to die.

    Every year the care will stink. Every year people will go untreated and complain. Every year they will try to put more tax money towards it. Every year your taxes will go up, and your paychecks down. Every year the system will still go "over-budget". Every year the crooked politicians and bureaucrats will snatch their share of the money. And every year the system will continue to suck. The greedy politicians will grow the system any chance they can, and the care will only worsen. American life expectancy will deteriorate along with morale of the hospital staff and patients.

    Do not fall for this socialist takeover. "Nationalizing" anything is a very bad idea. Once the competition goes away, there is no need to try harder than anyone else. There is no reason to be efficient. Don't leave it up to politicians to decide what diseases are cheap enough to treat.

    There is no such thing as a perfect system where everyone gets all the treatment in the world and lives forever. We have the best system there is, because we have competition and Free-Markets, something socialized countries gave up long ago. Competition creates winners. The best comes out of everyone in a Free-Market society. When the Government is the only option, they won't care how many people die waiting in line and won't care how much taxes it takes to keep their lousy service running. Doctors will retire or leave the country to avoid becoming a government employed doctor. And the pay will be so crappy that no one else is going to want to bother spending 8 years of their life to become a doctor.

    If you want to help people, donate to charity, like the Arthritis Foundation or do a "Cancer Walk" and donate your time and money. The liberals are such generous humanitarians, aren't they? Except they are only about helping people when they are FORCING you to pay for their causes.

    Do you like standing around at the Department of Motor Vehicles? GAG ME! Thats just a whiff of the stink to come.



    Read this.... its a sad and scary story about one person's experience in Britain's National Health Service (NHS).

    Time for the NHS to go back to basics - Telegraph
     
    Last edited:
    Hoosier8

    Hoosier8

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   1
    Jul 3, 2008
    5,032
    113
    Indianapolis
    The debate is over Health Care Insurance and not really health care. We have the best health care in the world. Everyone can get some kind of health care in this country; though, it may not be the health care they want but the health care they need immediately.

    The debate will be whether the Govt shall take over health care insurance coverage where everyone is covered by insurance. Some say this is good because people will get preventative care and lower the overall costs. This has not been proven. Detractors will say that this will stifle innovation and limit care once the govt starts dictating what will be paid for and what won't by their standards. It has already been discussed that older people may not get the care they want because the govt will decide whether it is "cost effective" or not.

    I am a detractor. Just think about standing in line waiting for your health care, just like at the Dept of Motor Vehicles. The system ain't perfect and can be improved. I don't mind the govt helping, I just don't want them in charge of the improvement lest we become Canada. Remember, in Canada, everyone loves their healthcare system, until they really get sick. It has been suggested that Natasha Richardson, the actress, died of Canada care.

    CANADACARE MAY HAVE KILLED NATASHA - New York Post
     
    zimzum

    zimzum

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 15, 2008
    182
    16
    Chesterfield
    To add to what's already been said. It doesn't work anywhere else. Other nations who have tell us not to do it. The quality of care declines. Whenever siamese twins are born joined at the eyesocket, where are they taken to be separated? Here. When Cuba's leader Fidel Castro, was on his death bed he was flown halfway around the world to get medical care.

    But, let's look at everything else the govt. runs. The BMV, Post Office, IRS, Dept. of Ed., Medicare, Dept. of Ag, Social Security, etc., etc., etc. They don't exactly do a bang up job with all of that. The fact is the govt. can't do anything right! Why would we trust them with our healthcare, or that of our kids? Healthcare is a business/service. The govt. has no business sense. Why? They don't have to worry about losses like the private sector does. No need to worry about competition and thus quality. Healthcare and insurance for it are both a business/service. However health insurance is not a "right". In many cases, it may be expensive, but so are a LOT of things in this country that aren't "rights"...like auto insurance or homeowners insurance...which are things we are forced by law to have, but the government doesn't provide.

    It's an entitlement mentality for the citizens who want this. Is a permanent place to live ALSO a fundamental right? Some people don't own a car. If they cannot afford one, should one be provided for them by the government? Where does it end? Flat screen TV's? The right to keep and bear a washer/dryer set? If you do not have a lawnmower, one will be provided for you by an illegal alien? How much can or SHOULD the government do? It's not as if health insurance is something that only the privileged few enjoy, as some would have you believe. The fact is, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 84% of Americans HAVE health insurance. Health Insurance Coverage: 2007 - Highlights

    Do we really need it?:dunno:

    It is against FEDERAL LAW to deny health care to someone who needs it. It is illegal in this country. In addition, there are in nearly every city in America, hospitals who treat patients every day who have no way of paying. There are also thousands of clinics and programs to help those who can't pay catastrophic medical bills.

    Well, there you have it. That's the ammo I typically use to shoot holes in the argument for socialist healthcare.:draw: Have fun at the range.:D
     
    Last edited:
    A

    antsi

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 6, 2008
    1,427
    38
    People come from everywhere to be treated in our hospitals because of our outstanding chance of survival in the USA. Despite the "healthcare crisis" that the liberals invented, our system works just fine for the majority of Americans.
    Click to expand...

    I'm not excited about the prospect of government run health care, but these statements are misleading/untrue.

    The US health care system does not excel at the kind of health problems that most commonly affect people's lives.

    We do excel at high-tech, high-cost treatments for rare conditions. In many cases, these treatments are unavailable elsewhere. Just one very typical example: the US is leading the world in experimental in-utero surgery to correct open neural tube defects diagnosed in the fetus when the woman is pregnant. Operating on a baby when he/she is still inside the womb is an extremely expensive and complex procedure. It's not even clear whether or not the kids actually benefit from the surgery (most research to date says it usually doesn't work, and there are lots of complications). As far as I'm aware, the US is the only place this surgery is being done.

    So, yes, if you're a wealthy pregnant Swedish woman who just got an ultrasound showing your baby has an ONTD, then sure, you're probably going to come to America to have this surgery done in a desperate attempt to help your baby.

    But if you're an average Swedish woman having a normal pregnancy, or even a Swedish woman having one of the more common complications of pregnancy, you would be much better off staying in Sweden and having your baby there. Sweden far outperforms the US in both maternal and newborn perinatal outcomes, and does so for about half the cost.

    And this is where your statement that the US health care system serves the majority of Americans well really breaks down. We do a very poor job at addressing the health problems that really affect large numbers of people's lives. Most developed countries spend about $2-3000 per citizen per year on health care. In the US, we spend over $6,000. Despite paying twice as much for our health care, our health care outcomes are very mediocre. On any list of health care outcomes - life expectancy, health-adjusted life expectancy, perinatal mortality - we rank near the bottom of developed countries.
    (This is a great website to look at country-by-country comparisons of health outcomes, BTW)

    Now, I do not happen to think that nationalizing health care will solve these problems. I think the political forces pushing for nationalization are probably irresistable at this point - we will have universal government health insurance before long, but I don't think that's going to lower costs or improve outcomes.

    If you're really interested in these issues, check out my blog. Based on my professional experience in the health care system plus a bit of research, I'm hashing through the issues of cost and quality in health care this week.

    One hint: if you think there is any politician or political party that is talking sense on health care, you've been had.
     
    Last edited:
    hoosiertriangle

    hoosiertriangle

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 17, 2008
    356
    16
    Avon, IN
    Comparing the Swedish healthcare and cost to the US has a major problem. Sweden doesn't suffer from massive amounts of abuse to their system by illegal immigrants as we do here.

    Granted that I have no data, but our costs of healthcare would decrease substantially if the burden of providing healthcare to over $20 million illegal immigrants was removed. The expense of free treatment for these persons is passed on to insurance companies in higer expenses and the higher expenses get passed on to those who pay premiums.

    Last time I checked, millions of people were not flocking to Sweden to take advantage of their social welfare programs like has been happening here. California's impending bankruptcy, however, is driven in large part by their state mandate for social programs for all regardless of citizenship.

    Compare any nationalized healthcare program to the US but account for all the proper variables.
     
    Last edited:
    redneckmedic

    redneckmedic

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    8,429
    48
    Greenfield
    Worldwide Experiments in Socialism
    Links, articles and figures detailing widespread and specific problems in countries with varying degrees of socialized health care. </B>
    Great Britain
    Other European Countries
    Canada
    Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
    Cuba
    New Zealand
    Australia
    Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates1 as Britons saturated the so-called free system.

    Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens2.
    Unfortunately for those requiring care, a mostly socialist health care system has problems. The articles and commentaries in this section identify some disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system. I also recommend reading David G. Green and Laura Casper's economic report, Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer to see the inevitable outcome of the necessary rationing of government health care.



    Straight from the newspapers
     
    redneckmedic

    redneckmedic

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    8,429
    48
    Greenfield
    Worldwide Experiments in Socialism
    Links, articles and figures detailing widespread and specific problems in countries with varying degrees of socialized health care. </B>
    Great Britain
    Other European Countries
    Canada
    Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
    Cuba
    New Zealand
    Australia
    Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates1 as Britons saturated the so-called free system.

    Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens2.
    Unfortunately for those requiring care, a mostly socialist health care system has problems. The articles and commentaries in this section identify some disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system. I also recommend reading David G. Green and Laura Casper's economic report, Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer to see the inevitable outcome of the necessary rationing of government health care.



    Straight from the newspapers
     
    IUGradStudent

    IUGradStudent

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 1, 2008
    812
    16
    Bloomington, IN
    Antsi is right that our system has a lot of problems, too.

    Still, it's pretty clear that socializing the industry won't fix it -- we have historical evidence for that plus plain common sense. The question is what government policies will help drive down the cost of health care. The only way to do that is to promote competition and transparent information. So, policies like allowing people to buy insurance from other states would help, as would eliminating the tax subsidy of employer-provided health care. If there were a universal health care tax-exemption of, say, $3,000/person, that would be better than the employer-driven system we have.

    But, again, how do you get high-quality, low-price stuff? Free competition and may the best man win -- that's how we get high-quality, low-price everything else, why wouldn't it work for health care? It would, if we could get the government to stop distorting the incentives. I have a feeling this is not what Obama has in mind...
     
    Archaic_Entity

    Archaic_Entity

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 9, 2008
    626
    16
    Thanks you for all the replies. I will definitely start looking into the links posted. Hopefully I'll have a more effective discussion with him next time we talk.
     
    dross

    dross

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    8,699
    48
    Monument, CO
    antsi said:
    So, yes, if you're a wealthy pregnant Swedish woman who just got an ultrasound showing your baby has an ONTD, then sure, you're probably going to come to America to have this surgery done in a desperate attempt to help your baby.

    But if you're an average Swedish woman having a normal pregnancy, or even a Swedish woman having one of the more common complications of pregnancy, you would be much better off staying in Sweden and having your baby there. Sweden far outperforms the US in both maternal and newborn perinatal outcomes, and does so for about half the cost.
    .
    Click to expand...

    I've read a deconstruction of these numbers, and while I don't have every detail at my fingertips, the jist is that you can't compare these types of numbers between countries because they don't use the same methodology to get them. The European countries use different definitions of live birth, and premature babies before a certain period are not counted, whereas they're counted in the U.S. Also, they don't take extreme measures for infants the way we do, which also affects the numbers. Again, I don't have every detail at my fingertips, but I will try to find, if requested.

    The biggest argument to me about socialized healthcare isn't that it doesn't work and it must necessarily create shortages - that is not in dispute by anyone who has looked at this issue. (By not worked, I also include the economic impact.)

    The biggest issue to me is the moral one. You do not have a right to another's property. My responsibility is to pay for my family's healthcare needs, not my neighbor's. If you want me to pay for other people's healthcare because they can't afford it, persuade me, don't force me. Theft is theft, and making it a government program doesn't change that. And yes, that applies to all the other ways government steals from its citizens.
     
    A

    agentl074

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 5, 2008
    1,225
    36
    Cwood said:
    Until they can make the VA system work I will be strongly against national health care.
    Click to expand...

    I haven't had a problem with the Northern Indiana system. They have been really great to me. Some of the others ... I cannot vouch for. As far as nationalizing health care - we get VA benefits because we served. Citizens should be allowed to make their own choices in regard to insurance. There are programs on both the Federal and State levels which would allow the people who need nationalized/State health care to receive such care already: Medicare, Medicaid and HIP.
     
    cce1302

    cce1302

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 26, 2008
    3,397
    48
    Back down south
    dross said:
    The biggest issue to me is the moral one. You do not have a right to another's property. My responsibility is to pay for my family's healthcare needs, not my neighbor's. If you want me to pay for other people's healthcare because they can't afford it, persuade me, don't force me. Theft is theft, and making it a government program doesn't change that. And yes, that applies to all the other ways government steals from its citizens.
    Click to expand...

    This. Why should you pay for my doctor visits and prescriptions? Why should I be responsible for your medical bills?
     
    J

    Jeremiah

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Aug 26, 2008
    1,772
    36
    Avilla, IN
    Just think if the govt, taxed us on spending at a flat rate insteda of a progressive income tax people wouldn't (illegal immigrants) wouldn;t be as mucha draw on the system .

    I hate the idea of socialising health care. ^ I don't want to be responsible for anyone else medical bills. I do think we can find some money to help people who can't pay, but that is best don't by fundraising experts like riley's hospitals and the shriners network. I can't think of a single thing the govt. does better than a private company, can you?

    as far as anyone want s to go with the whole, we step on the poor, or we take advantage of the week or under privaliged, shouldn't that be incentive to get out of thos situations. I can't see where helping the ill of luck or those lacking in wealth can really help them as much as gie them reasons to remain impovershed.
     
    C

    _CY_

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 12, 2009
    5
    3
    our system is setup to bankrupt your life's work.

    on can work their entire life building up assets... only to have heathcare costs bankrupt your entire life's work
     
    A

    antsi

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 6, 2008
    1,427
    38
    The European countries use different definitions of live birth, and premature babies before a certain period are not counted, whereas they're counted in the U.S.
    Click to expand...

    I've seen some nit-picking of data collection methods, sure. I've also seen comparisons based on corrected data. The answers come up pretty much the same.
    Also, it is not just perinatal statistics. Stats like health adjusted life expectancy are calculated by international study groups and are directly comparable.

    Also, they don't take extreme measures for infants the way we do, which also affects the numbers.
    Click to expand...

    This is exactly what I'm talking about in my prior post - in the US we spend billions on high tech miracle cures for rare conditions. We do have amazing stats for extreme premature survival. We're very poor in basic prenatal and preventive care, though, one consequence of which is an extremely high rate of preterm births.

    Look, I am in no way an advocate of nationalized health care. My main issue is that however we handle the logistics of health care payment - in my opinion now we have the worst mix of public and private models - we are paying Rolls Royce prices that we cannot afford, crippling our economy and bankrupting our country - and getting very mediocre results for what we are paying.

    I am definitely not one of these lefty blissninnies who thinks all our health care problems can be solved by putting the government in charge.

    However, I thought as conservatives, we are supposed to be fiscally responsible and realistic in our evaluation of systems and programs. Simply sitting back and gloating that "we have the best health care system in the world" does little credit to us as supposedly rational, realistic, hard-headed conservatives.

    Sweden doesn't suffer from massive amounts of abuse to their system by illegal immigrants as we do here.
    Click to expand...
    Last time I checked, millions of people were flocking to Sweden to take advantage of their social welfare programs
    Click to expand...

    Going to have to make up your mind, boss. Either their system is strained by immigrants, or it isn't.

    Actually, all the European countries are having immigration problems, too, and it's straining their public services, as well.

    In any case, we have 12 million illegal immigrants in the US compared to a population of 300 million. I hardly think that accounts for DOUBLING the cost of health care in the US. Furthermore, my experience in perinatal medicine - and backed up by stats - is that Mexican immigrants have generally very good perinatal outcomes compared to non-Hispanic Americans of the same socioeconomic level. If the Mexicans are ramping up our costs by some fraction, they're making our outcomes look better by a similar fraction.
     
    S

    SigSense

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 30, 2008
    389
    16
    Louisville, KY
    All those numbnuts that want to Nationalize/Socialize medicine here should have to answer this VERY question: "If the rational thing to do is Nationalize Medical Care (Government Control), then why is Social Security and Medicare almost bankrupt?
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Latest posts

    Staff online

    Members online

    ... and 17 more.
    Total: 10,115 (members: 67, guests: 10,048)

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    530,636
    Messages
    9,955,704
    Members
    54,897
    Latest member
    jojo99
    Top Bottom