NHS
- Thread starter Zukonub
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Tax paid healthcare is a good thing.
However, Billions of Dollars are invested in the Insurance companies. Making a state paid healthcare system would badly damage the economy.
At least, thats what I was told.
However, Billions of Dollars are invested in the Insurance companies. Making a state paid healthcare system would badly damage the economy.
At least, thats what I was told.
As a UK citizen, could I please clarify on something: I saw on the news an American girl say that she's seen loads of British people on the news all the time saying they've had to wait 6 weeks for doctors. She's a fucking liar, I've never had to wait that long and neither has anyone else I've ever known.
This plan isn't a bad thing, it's just that sadly a lot of Americans don't really understand what is being proposed.
This plan isn't a bad thing, it's just that sadly a lot of Americans don't really understand what is being proposed.
For the 43 million American with no provision for health care it can only be a good thing.
From what I understand the proposed system is closer to Canada's than the NHS or other European health services.
Under the proposed system the Insurance companies and hospitals are not going anywhere, it's just giving a much better provisition for those who can't afford health insurance.
From what I've read so far (in the news) the main opposition arguments seem to stem from either.
i) Not understanding the NHS or what Obama wants to do (most common).
ii) Not fully understanding the costs/benefits.
iii)Opposing it because it's change.
iv) Opposing it because that n###er in the oval office wants to do it.
It's all a bit odd.
From what I understand the proposed system is closer to Canada's than the NHS or other European health services.
It's more likely to drive the economy than damage it. The NHS is the biggest employer in the world and a constant source of employment and business for hundreds of thousands after all. Same goes for all governmet health services, massive guaranteed cash flow.Fat Man Spoon said:
Under the proposed system the Insurance companies and hospitals are not going anywhere, it's just giving a much better provisition for those who can't afford health insurance.
From what I've read so far (in the news) the main opposition arguments seem to stem from either.
i) Not understanding the NHS or what Obama wants to do (most common).
ii) Not fully understanding the costs/benefits.
iii)Opposing it because it's change.
iv) Opposing it because that n###er in the oval office wants to do it.
It's all a bit odd.
Thirding this had the same bullshit argument with people just buying into the news about four times on these forums now no more, hell theres entire articles online debunking most of the shit republicans are spewing out piece by piece go read and do your homework rather than parroting talking points about hurting the economy bullshit.xmetatr0nx said:
America won't get universal health care for decades, because the republicans are fucking crazy, and the democrats are fucking spineless.
a thread on another forum has a bunch of stories about socialised health care, the stories are overwhelmingly good. I think that this thread alone [http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3175649] is a good argument for UHS.
either way, whatever america, over here in the UK we have the NHS, and about eight people in this country oppose it, yes there are problems, but shit's cool, it's affordable, we still have private insurance (Bupa), glad I live in the UK really. it's nice knowing that if something unforeseen happens, no-one will be bankrupted in the process.
a thread on another forum has a bunch of stories about socialised health care, the stories are overwhelmingly good. I think that this thread alone [http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3175649] is a good argument for UHS.
either way, whatever america, over here in the UK we have the NHS, and about eight people in this country oppose it, yes there are problems, but shit's cool, it's affordable, we still have private insurance (Bupa), glad I live in the UK really. it's nice knowing that if something unforeseen happens, no-one will be bankrupted in the process.
Is it more healthy to have free healthcare available to all, or to make people pay to get treated.
It obviously isn't up for debate which is healthier. Though you might want to look at cost too. Try to come up with a hybrid system if you can.
When the NHS was first set up in Britain there were people walking in to get illnesses, lumps, aches and pains treated that they had been living with for years because they couldn't afford to get seen by a doctor.
A sliding scale of tax where the wealthier pay more money than the poorer. All to be paid into a system where anyone can go in and receive healthcare. It is unquestionably more healthy than a fully private system.
The only people who lose out are rich people who can easily afford private care and chose to pay extra for private so they can go in straight away and have better hospital food and such. What are they going to spend their tax money on otherwise? A slightly bigger house? Another extra car? Another holiday? Give me a break. That doesn't help the nation at all.
It obviously isn't up for debate which is healthier. Though you might want to look at cost too. Try to come up with a hybrid system if you can.
When the NHS was first set up in Britain there were people walking in to get illnesses, lumps, aches and pains treated that they had been living with for years because they couldn't afford to get seen by a doctor.
A sliding scale of tax where the wealthier pay more money than the poorer. All to be paid into a system where anyone can go in and receive healthcare. It is unquestionably more healthy than a fully private system.
The only people who lose out are rich people who can easily afford private care and chose to pay extra for private so they can go in straight away and have better hospital food and such. What are they going to spend their tax money on otherwise? A slightly bigger house? Another extra car? Another holiday? Give me a break. That doesn't help the nation at all.
It's one of those issues that is really hard to take a side on.
On one hand, the ability to access healthcare whenever would truly be great. I happen to be one of those people who just don't make enough to afford private healthcare. Between college and bills, I hardly have enough to eat. But on the other, the reason why America is the largest importer of goods, not only supporting our own economy, but the rest of the world's, is because we don't pay nearly as much in taxes as those in Europe. We have much more to spend on whatever we want.
The fact that people don't think ahead and put that money towards the care of themselves and their families shouldn't be circumvented by a mandated tax that people will undoubtedly abuse like they do with every other public service here. I have seen it plenty in my day and do not expect it to stop.
It's about responsible use vs. reckless use rather than practical plan vs. impractical plan.
Edit: I also worry we'll turn into Canada, where it takes 6 months to see a doctor if there are people with more serious illnesses or injuries. That's all fine and dandy to help those who are more seriously afflicted, but if minor problems aren't quelled, it's easy for them to turn into something serious as well.
On one hand, the ability to access healthcare whenever would truly be great. I happen to be one of those people who just don't make enough to afford private healthcare. Between college and bills, I hardly have enough to eat. But on the other, the reason why America is the largest importer of goods, not only supporting our own economy, but the rest of the world's, is because we don't pay nearly as much in taxes as those in Europe. We have much more to spend on whatever we want.
The fact that people don't think ahead and put that money towards the care of themselves and their families shouldn't be circumvented by a mandated tax that people will undoubtedly abuse like they do with every other public service here. I have seen it plenty in my day and do not expect it to stop.
It's about responsible use vs. reckless use rather than practical plan vs. impractical plan.
Edit: I also worry we'll turn into Canada, where it takes 6 months to see a doctor if there are people with more serious illnesses or injuries. That's all fine and dandy to help those who are more seriously afflicted, but if minor problems aren't quelled, it's easy for them to turn into something serious as well.
One side says european healthcare is disgraceful and can get you killed. The other side makes it out like the best thing since sliced bread. Someone's lying, I don't have the time to look up the statistics, but it's immaterial because there's plenty more reasons to disagree with nationalized health care besides second rate service.
Well, I don't see the problem as long as you can compete with the NHS but it'd be a good thing for people who are dying on the streets.
I think it'd be good with the exception that you can buy your own health care as well.
The USA is not rich enough to do this yet.
I think it'd be good with the exception that you can buy your own health care as well.
The USA is not rich enough to do this yet.
How do you figure sports fan?Fat Man Spoon said:
In basic terms, money is a portion of labour. Thats why you get paid to work.
If there a load of people with tonnes of money, spending it on getting works to build mansions, cars and all other crap. Then that is pretty much a waste of the workers talents. You take aware a small portion of that money and get skilled workers building hospitals, training people to be nurses and training young people to be doctors. Then poor people end up with better healthcare. They can afford to put more money aside for food, rent and education for themselves and their children. Therefore the workers of tomorrow are better educated and healthier, whilst the workers of today are healthier and happier.
If that all sounds a bit Socialist then think of it in basic capitalist terms. Money is invested in the countries infrastructure, ensuring skilled jobs, reducing unemployment and thereby stimulating the economy.
It is win-win whatever way you look at it. Unless you are rich and really MUST have that third home in Hawaii and don't care about the poor. Or unless you have health insurance under the current system and have no fears whatsoever about any of your family being left out of the system, no fears about losing your job or the insurance company screwing you over, plus you still don't care about poor people.
The only thing wrong with the private healthcare we have in the USA here now is the absurd legal action you're allowed to take against doctors. Anybody with any responsibility in a hospital has to pay unbelievably absurd malpractice insurance. A doctor who makes about 350 thousand a year has to go to school for 12 years, and 150 thousand of that goes to malpractice insurance. All because of the sue happy people in this country. If doctors weren't so worried about being sued then it wouldn't cost 400 dollars to get a checkup.
that and the pharmacutical companies charging unbelievable amounts of money... but thats a conspiracy i won't get into...
that and the pharmacutical companies charging unbelievable amounts of money... but thats a conspiracy i won't get into...
... and the fact that insurance companies will do whatever they can to weasel themselves out of paying for anyone too "expensive" or deemed to have "pre-existing conditions". I'd say that's a pretty bad problem.grimsprice said: