USA health system... umm... what the hell?!

[Justin_Drew_Bieber]

HA! I live in Canada! I don't have to worry about that. I bet you wish you were me now don't you?

I find your name, avatar, and statement very amusing .

Really? then you should click on my badge.

oh and check my profiles gender. of course now that I've said that you probably don't need to.

 

[orangeban]

Can I just say that I come from a country where the proposed healthcare system is in place. It's HORRIBLE. Yes, it's that bad. Waiting times (in the emergency room no less) often exceed 7 hours, oftentimes you have to wait weeks to get admission, the service is just plain bad, the system is over-exploited and the private hospitals get no patients. I know of people who DIED because of these flaws, and others (like me) who had to stay in hospital longer because their injuries worsened over time. My Grandmother was recently diagnosed with Cancer. After waiting for weeks to get a result from the (public) hospital, she finally got sick of the waiting and went to a private hospital. The results suggested that if she continued to wait in the public hospital, her condition would have worsened...badly. To top it all off, expect a big increase in taxes.

America's healthcare system needs to change, but they shouldn't adopt a Socialist system. Maybe they should consider the Swiss system (i.e. make getting health insurance obligatory. Free healthcare only goes to people who genuinely cannot afford the cheapest insurance)

Which country?

Malta.

Well, I'm sorry that Malta's system doesn't work too well but what about Britain and Canada and Australia and Sweden and so on where it works so well? Also, a big increase in tax is not necesarrily to be expected. America already spends a hell of a lot of money on health care, and here's the thing, if they got free health care, because of the attitude of some many Americans they probably won't use it, sticking to private instead.

Fun fact: More money per person in the USA is spent on health care than anywhere else in the world. (source: Wikipedia)

 

[orangeban]

I agree. I think it's ridiculous that USA doesn't have socialized health care, nearly all other developed country has it. It has something to do with USA's deep-rooted fear of socialism and "Dem evil reds!" I think.

How many times have people from other countries flown to America to get the best medical service possible? Plenty. The problem isn't a secret agenda, but the American citizens themselves. We have 'insurance', so we don't really care all that much about the cost. That and our law-suit happy ways tend to scare medical facilities.

What we need is NOT socialized health care but more competition, something that simply won't happen until the majority of the public asks "How much?" and "Can I get it cheaper/better elsewhere?".

Well, yeah, those that can afford it fly over to America do so, but what about those who can't afford it?

Maybe you don't care about the costs right now, but what about, like Allisons, if your insurance refuses to pay?

 

[Elburzito]

HA! I live in Canada! I don't have to worry about that. I bet you wish you were me now don't you?

I find your name, avatar, and statement very amusing .

Really? then you should click on my badge.

oh and check my profiles gender. of course now that I've said that you probably don't need to.

I'm not pressing that button

 

[GodofCider]

It's pretty sad that a lot of the American stereotype is true.

PS:I live in the USA.

Depends on where you live within the US.

 

[orangeban]

snip

...That's it. I'm moving to the UK. I'm in Canada so I've never had to pay for medical care (Thank God for that or I'd be either dead or on the street...which would likely kill me once winter arrives). But my glasses and the Optometrist cost me a fair bit of money and I currently can't have any dental work done (even though I'm positive that one of my molars has a cavity) because I don't have any dental insurance so I have to pay for it out of pocket.

snip

Don't come here looking for free glasses and dental work, because you'll be barking up the wrong tree!
"Hero in a half shell" is clearly under 18. As an adult in the UK the cost of eye tests is subsidided to £22, and kids/OAPs/those on benefits get the test free, but getting free glasses on the NHS, even for children, is unlikely. There is a system of vouchers which are available to some unemployed people, kids, people on some means tested benefits and those with very complex prescriptions, but these vouchers rarely cover the full cost. My last pair of glasses cost me nearly £600 - but then I did splash out a bit too much.

As for dental care, this is one of the things that the NHS does exeptionally badly. To get free treatment as an adult you need to be registered with an NHS dentists practice. There are never enough of these, as dentists make much more money working in the private sector. There is such a problem that when new practices open it's not unusual for there to be a queue several hundred yeards long to register.

As has also been mentioned, mental health services are not great. You have to be barking at the moon to get a referal to a specialist and GPs are likely to dish out drugs without offering talking therapies - something that is known to be less effective than combining treatments. I don't think mental health being neglected is uncommon in any health systems though. It has always been a "cinderella service" throughout the world.

On the other hand, the main body of the NHS is currently doing sterling work with per capita spending on health being less than half of that in the US, and offering a broadly comparable service, with a life expectancy two years longer in the UK than across the pond. This is despite the best efforts of the current government to ruin the system, but thats another story.

For kids it's alright in terms of glasses. I think up to a certain age (16 maybe?) you get free glasses provided you have a prescription from a doctor, and for a few years after I suspect you get a discount if you provide a prescription. So if you come over be careful not to break your glasses.

Mental health care does suck, my mother has been on it for ages, and people have been pretty shit. The doctor's are alright, but it's other services that suck at dealing with it, e.g. the non-doctors/nurses/other direct healthcare providers in hospitals. Also, there seems to be a big dislike in hospitals against people who self-harm which is troubling.

W

 

[Elburzito]

Can I just say that I come from a country where the proposed healthcare system is in place. It's HORRIBLE. Yes, it's that bad. Waiting times (in the emergency room no less) often exceed 7 hours, oftentimes you have to wait weeks to get admission, the service is just plain bad, the system is over-exploited and the private hospitals get no patients. I know of people who DIED because of these flaws, and others (like me) who had to stay in hospital longer because their injuries worsened over time. My Grandmother was recently diagnosed with Cancer. After waiting for weeks to get a result from the (public) hospital, she finally got sick of the waiting and went to a private hospital. The results suggested that if she continued to wait in the public hospital, her condition would have worsened...badly. To top it all off, expect a big increase in taxes.

America's healthcare system needs to change, but they shouldn't adopt a Socialist system. Maybe they should consider the Swiss system (i.e. make getting health insurance obligatory. Free healthcare only goes to people who genuinely cannot afford the cheapest insurance)

Which country?

Malta.

Fun fact: More money per person in the USA is spent on health care than anywhere else in the world. (source: Wikipedia)

How ironic .
Doesn't Sweden spend about 50% of it's funds on welfare? Funds which can be allocated elsewhere? I also hear a ton of shit about the British system, usually regarding the quality of the service and waiting times. I'm not sure about the Canadian or Australian systems though. Still, I wouldn't suggest switching to a Socialist system, it just doesn't seem to work well in my eyes. I prefer the Fascist system (which is similar but I find it preferable). I'll try and research the Canadian and Australian systems though.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Oh you, everyone knows the Americans are fighting the good fight against Socialism!

Once the Commies infiltrate our medical care, it's gonna be Red Dawn all over again, and this time we don't have Patrick Swayze!

 

[orangeban]

Can I just say that I come from a country where the proposed healthcare system is in place. It's HORRIBLE. Yes, it's that bad. Waiting times (in the emergency room no less) often exceed 7 hours, oftentimes you have to wait weeks to get admission, the service is just plain bad, the system is over-exploited and the private hospitals get no patients. I know of people who DIED because of these flaws, and others (like me) who had to stay in hospital longer because their injuries worsened over time. My Grandmother was recently diagnosed with Cancer. After waiting for weeks to get a result from the (public) hospital, she finally got sick of the waiting and went to a private hospital. The results suggested that if she continued to wait in the public hospital, her condition would have worsened...badly. To top it all off, expect a big increase in taxes.

America's healthcare system needs to change, but they shouldn't adopt a Socialist system. Maybe they should consider the Swiss system (i.e. make getting health insurance obligatory. Free healthcare only goes to people who genuinely cannot afford the cheapest insurance)

Which country?

Malta.

Fun fact: More money per person in the USA is spent on health care than anywhere else in the world. (source: Wikipedia)

How ironic .
Doesn't Sweden spend about 50% of it's funds on welfare? Funds which can be allocated elsewhere? I also hear a ton of shit about the British system, usually regarding the quality of the service and waiting times. I'm not sure about the Canadian or Australian systems though. Still, I wouldn't suggest switching to a Socialist system, it just doesn't seem to work well in my eyes. I prefer the Fascist system (which is similar but I find it preferable). I'll try and research the Canadian and Australian systems though.

The British system has troubles sure, though they're not as bad as everyone says. What's the facist system? Is that the Swiss system you mentioned? Cause that sounds... okay. I guess, but I still worry about hospitals being for profit organizations, doesn't sound right to me.

 

[godofallu]

I'd pay 20,000 dollars to keep my arm in good condition. Hell i'd pay 100,000. If anything the surgery is drastically underpriced considering in the U.S. most adults can make 20,000 dollars in a few months.

Plus there is clearly some sort of reason why her individually hired healthcare provider didn't pay for the surgery. That of course is unknown to everyone including the OP.

Yeah, all that money isn't being used on other things they need to live like food or shelter.

Yeah when you spend money you usually don't have it anymore. I'm aware.

The thing is you see it as someone must be broke after spending 20,000 on a surgery. I see it as a small enough amount that almost any adult could pay that amount and still live decently.

 

[orangeban]

Because the right wing in this country loves to oppose any kind of reform the left wants. They employ fear tactics (something that is so petty and infuriating in its effectiveness it frankly makes me want to scream) and for some reason, every idiot in the country believes them. They keep prattling: We have the best health care system in the world!

No. We don't. Not by a long shot.

Everyone deserves coverage. Except no one is really willing to pay for it. I swear to god, I have no idea why people are so deathly afraid of raising taxes in this country. IT'S HOW LITERALLY EVERYTHING GETS PAID FOR. And the rich have absolutely no leg to stand on. Shut up, if you're worth more than $10 million dollars, you're never going to poor, your money makes more money than you could ever possibly spend it, and it's your duty as a citizen to help your countrymen. You know, it's a very basic concept we're taught to do at a very young age: Share. I will never understand the irrational behavior that is greed.

Haha, your reasoning is exactly what is wrong with America. How old are you? Just because some people take risks with their money and their risks pay off don't mean YOU should be rewarded with their money. They worked hard to earn their money, it is THEIR right to do with it as they please. Raising taxes is terrible. The more "free" programs are there, the less incentive there is to work hard and get ahead in life. If we lived in a socialist, "free" country, then we'd have no iPhones. Oh, you think we would? Well, if Steve Jobs didn't get any money from inventing the latest and greatest in technology, what incentive is there to do it? To help out his fellow countrymen? Please. Stop being so ignorant.

Yup, this right here is why no-one in Scotland invents anything or in fact works at all. I mean, we have free health-care, medication, schooling (including university), dammit the council even provides housing! Since we get so much for free we all just sit around, refusing to do anything, 'cause if anything goes wrong then we just get the government to pay for it! I mean, forget that if we all attempted to earn no income the government would have no money (the government uses taxes to fund itself remember) then the government couldn't provide all these things for free, that doesn't matter. [/endsarcasm]

Yeah, actually, "to help out your fellow countryman" is exactly the incentive why many people do stuff: see charity work, sticking to a job that doesn't pay great due to it being an important job despite having other options (for instance, teaching).
This is classic fear-mongering. "If we had socialized services then we'd have no iPhones! NONE! What's the point of poor people being able to life their lives if we have no iPhones?!?!?!?!?!?!"

 

[Wicky_42]

On top of that, this country has so many people (illegal immigrants, for example) that don't pay taxes. This means that people would be leeching the system while making everyone else pay for it.

Or you could have a national insurance card or other form of citizenship identification. Then again, what do you do about all those illegals using your roads ...

You dont really Pay for a road. I mean, you pay taxes on it for the maintance, and occasionally a toll road, but to actually charge someone for using a road, that would mean that every connecting intersection would involve a toll post, and no country would do that.

Kinda my point. Socialised roads are a given pretty much everywhere, without concerns about non-tax payers using them. I was drawing a loose comparison across to socialised healthcare, though obviously the situation's a bit different.

 

[Devil's Due]

Most countries have their unique forms of medicare because of one reason: They tax the hell out of their citizens. Most "developed" countries with this have such extreme taxes to pay for every idiot-Joe going out and replaying that awesome move he saw on Wrestling and getting seriously disfigured for it. Most Americans don't like the idea of already getting less cash than we already have as many are unable to buy their meals with their current salary, how will they handle a massive tax hike?

Besides, why should we pay for those random idiots who get themselves hurt? I don't. What people are mistaking here is that it's NOT the health care system's fault, it's the insurance companies fault, because so many of them refuse to pay for whatever reason they can weasel themselves out of. If we leave the health care system alone, and forced the medical insurance companies to actually earn their damn pay, then a lot of these issues would be fixed.

Lastly, people are seeming to misunderstand the idea of American emergency care. You don't walk in half-dead and have to fill out waivers and pay up front to get that life saving treatment, no. American medical staff are required by law to treat you and save your life using anything they're able to use, and only after you are alive, stable, and getting ready to go home do they even talk about any sort of bill, if there is on. Which is course should go back to our lovely insurance companies who will then deny it.

To sum up: The American healthcare system is fine. It's the American medical insurance system that's gone to hell.

 

[Elburzito]

Can I just say that I come from a country where the proposed healthcare system is in place. It's HORRIBLE. Yes, it's that bad. Waiting times (in the emergency room no less) often exceed 7 hours, oftentimes you have to wait weeks to get admission, the service is just plain bad, the system is over-exploited and the private hospitals get no patients. I know of people who DIED because of these flaws, and others (like me) who had to stay in hospital longer because their injuries worsened over time. My Grandmother was recently diagnosed with Cancer. After waiting for weeks to get a result from the (public) hospital, she finally got sick of the waiting and went to a private hospital. The results suggested that if she continued to wait in the public hospital, her condition would have worsened...badly. To top it all off, expect a big increase in taxes.

America's healthcare system needs to change, but they shouldn't adopt a Socialist system. Maybe they should consider the Swiss system (i.e. make getting health insurance obligatory. Free healthcare only goes to people who genuinely cannot afford the cheapest insurance)

Which country?

Malta.

Fun fact: More money per person in the USA is spent on health care than anywhere else in the world. (source: Wikipedia)

How ironic .
Doesn't Sweden spend about 50% of it's funds on welfare? Funds which can be allocated elsewhere? I also hear a ton of shit about the British system, usually regarding the quality of the service and waiting times. I'm not sure about the Canadian or Australian systems though. Still, I wouldn't suggest switching to a Socialist system, it just doesn't seem to work well in my eyes. I prefer the Fascist system (which is similar but I find it preferable). I'll try and research the Canadian and Australian systems though.

The British system has troubles sure, though they're not as bad as everyone says. What's the facist system? Is that the Swiss system you mentioned? Cause that sounds... okay. I guess, but I still worry about hospitals being for profit organizations, doesn't sound right to me.

The Fascist system is like the Socialist system, but the free healthcare only goes to productive members of society (I.E. has a job, contributes to society) who genuinely cannot afford the payments. Some made getting insurance obligatory (like in Switzerland). I like the system tbh, it seems like a decent mix between capitalism and socialism. I agree that hospitals shouldn't become profit machines, but I think they should be able to sustain themselves without being funded purely from the people's taxes.

I kind of thought that the British system couldn't be that bad. Honestly, the people I heard acted as if it was hell on earth :/. The media likes to take jabs at it I believe...

 

[Chevy235]

Last post on this thread for me, but let me just put this one response back up here: Ludeius: I don't know who you think hates gays. I certainly don't. I don't think the government shouldn't even be involved in marriage all, and I think it certainly doesn't have the right to determine what two consenting adults agree to do. Interference with Freedom of Contract is a big no-no to me (another reason why I hate Obamacare).

That's a minor point, but it leads into a larger one. Judging from what you've said throughout this way, I don't think you're objective at all. I came to the conclusion a while ago that you are far enough to the left that your assumption of teh BIAS from Fox more comes from your mistaken belief that you are impartially deciding the truth, when in fact you are squarely left and victim of massive confirmation bias. And if you agreed with me about how biased MSNBC is, why single out Fox? I suspect your agreement is a fig leaf to maintain some appearance of impartiality.

Calling Fox a fear monger (to the exclusion of other groups that could easily match its "fear-mongering" status, like the DNC, the View, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, etc.) DOES warrant a response. And it was inflammatory because you called me an idiot. I don't know why you expected differently when you insulted me.

I don't know about you, but when I see opinion pieces, I expect at least arguments from one direction and personal extrapolation of data, so I don't count opinion pieces for when I account for bias. Which leads me into my final message (not that either of you might not have a rebuttal worth listening to, I'm just really tired of this. It's not like we're going to convince each other or anything.) for Cadet:

One, I disagree that raising taxes will help. It hinges on the assumption that people will continue to work just as hard, but fork over more money to the govt. They won't, and they never have to this day. High taxes depress economic activity - at some point the burden of making the pie becomes such that the pie gets smaller. Even if the gov't gets a larger portion of the pie (and it's averaged out to about 20% over the last half-century, which is less than President Obama's rosy unrealistic fantasy budget's assumptions) the pie will shrink and result in lower revenues. I also am no longer certain what is meant by trickle down, because if anything could be considered trickle down, it'd be funneling it up toward the government and then letting it trickle down onto whomever the government decides deserves it, which is the central platform of the Democratic Party. I'm for bottom up economics...where there are low barriers to entry for entrepreneurs, meaning minimal regulation and taxation...which only Republicans now support (well, when they aren't lying through their teeth, which is for politicians is like breathing).

As for CNN's bias, I mostly noticed it during Katrina. Constant editorializing in the middle of so called hard news segments, concentrating on stories deleterious to then-President when Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco deserved a fair share of the blame, being the ones in charge of first response. In fact, if it weren't for TEH EBIL FOX, their incompetence would never have been noticed. Not to mention the narrative they were crafting about the Iraq War was unfair and incomplete, seemingly engineered to discredit Pres. Bush (not that, in hindsight, the war was a good idea. IMHO, it probably wasn't.), and one which didn't jibe with the accounts of my many friends in the service. CNN's bias doesn't come from any overt method, it comes from story selection, which is a particularly insidious form of bias.

As for accounts of bias, Stewart didn't manage to point out lies without referencing the lies of the other side. Numerous polls have found that Fox News viewers are not less or more well informed than viewers of other networks - Politifact.org agrees with this assertion, and rates Jon's claim false. In fact, according to a Pew Poll last year, Hannity viewers are better informed than Stewart viewers (how anybody can listen to the personality-less Hannity for an hour is anyone's guess). And a Youtube channel devoted to pointing out errors at Fox is not only a good thing, but not limited to Fox. There are websites like Mediaite that perform the same service for other networks - frankly, I don't think there's any news outlet without some bias, but the froth and vitriol aimed at Fox and Fox alone is undeserved IMHO. But suggesting that having a youtube channel about it is evidence that Fox is TEH EBIL BIAZED means that ANY website that finds mistakes in any news outlet is evidence that all networks are TEH EBIL BIAZED.

 

[DracoSuave]

Yeah, america's debt is out of control, but it ain't healthcare that's doin' it.

Wrong! Kevin Spacey's "wrong" in Superman Returns isn't even strong enough for how wrong you are.

Class is now in session.

First off, do I hate our current system? Yes. Who's to blame? Our politicians and lobbyists. Are all Americans uneducated bible-reading gun-toting hicks? Some, but not me. Now with those platitudes out of the way....

Medicare (federal medical supplement) is an enormous outlay of federal spending. Medicaid (state-based supplement) is an enormous outlay of state spending. If you combine the present liabilities of US government entitlements, you get a number higher than the combined GDP of the entire planet Earth. Look up the numbers. It's in plain black and white, and is non-arguable.

Yes, but for that expendature you're not getting the same amount of health care as other countries that can balance their budgets.

That ALSO is in black and white. Spend more and get less... isn't that the antithesis of the american way?

It's not as easy as flipping a switch. (I wish it was!) There are huge logistical barriers the US has that Europe doesn't. European countries are generally geographically small. The US is geographically WAY larger than any non-Russia European country, and has at least 3 times more people than the most populous non-Russia European country. I could go on about the logistical differences between the US and Europe for ages, but I don't think I owe you that much evidence.

But you're not even close to as large as Canada....

By the way, one of the logistical differences is actually not debt. Most European countries are swimming in debt, and some are far worse off than even the US. Luxembourg, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, with the UK not far behind.

I agree, per capita-wise. Which is why there's a movement in europe to create balanced budgets, in order to begin tackling the problem.

See, if you don't have a balanced budget, you will NEVER address the debt problem and it will destroy the country. The problem is the States has one of the worst external debts in the world, 1st by total debt, and 19th by per capita. It cannot afford to NOT raise taxes. At some point, it will be a necessity, particularily because the country's idea of debate is two budgets with billion dollar deficits.

After over a decade of balanced budgets, I think my country is very much in a position to judge.

Of course there are other reasons for the US's debt. The Pentagon doesn't need as much as it gets. There is so much bloat and waste that it's criminal. Credit-based economies (the entire western world) are experiencing a system-wide shock cycle right now, while production and export economies (what the US used to be and China is now) are weathering the storm much better. Income taxes are historically low, and corporate taxes are effectively zero due to cost-shifting and tax loopholes. It's a mess.

Low revenue coming in, high spending going out, high corruption in the private sector for health care.

Seems the problems are pretty obvious to anyone.

But don't sit up there in Canada and tell me that "health care ain't doin it." Our government already shells out an obscene amount of money to attempt to supplement medical costs. Look at the numbers.

Except... health care ain't doin it. It's not the money being shelled that's the premise, it's the result. The result is abject failure. I mean... you saying there's a ton of money going in... why... isn't that just more PROOF health care ain't doin it?

You're not getting what you're paying for. I don't see how that can't be more clear to you. Again, the numbers don't lie. You're paying more, and getting less. It's a failed system by any capitalist standard.

 

[DracoSuave]

Regardless, America needs more revenue. Somehow. It simply cannot keep running trillion dollar deficits, or deficits at all. And cuts are at the point it just can't do so any more without majorly destroying the country's infrastructure. If it hasn't already.

 

[Jake the Snake]

Because the right wing in this country loves to oppose any kind of reform the left wants. They employ fear tactics (something that is so petty and infuriating in its effectiveness it frankly makes me want to scream) and for some reason, every idiot in the country believes them. They keep prattling: We have the best health care system in the world!

No. We don't. Not by a long shot.

Everyone deserves coverage. Except no one is really willing to pay for it. I swear to god, I have no idea why people are so deathly afraid of raising taxes in this country. IT'S HOW LITERALLY EVERYTHING GETS PAID FOR. And the rich have absolutely no leg to stand on. Shut up, if you're worth more than $10 million dollars, you're never going to poor, your money makes more money than you could ever possibly spend it, and it's your duty as a citizen to help your countrymen. You know, it's a very basic concept we're taught to do at a very young age: Share. I will never understand the irrational behavior that is greed.

Haha, your reasoning is exactly what is wrong with America. How old are you? Just because some people take risks with their money and their risks pay off don't mean YOU should be rewarded with their money. They worked hard to earn their money, it is THEIR right to do with it as they please. Raising taxes is terrible. The more "free" programs are there, the less incentive there is to work hard and get ahead in life. If we lived in a socialist, "free" country, then we'd have no iPhones. Oh, you think we would? Well, if Steve Jobs didn't get any money from inventing the latest and greatest in technology, what incentive is there to do it? To help out his fellow countrymen? Please. Stop being so ignorant.

I'm 17. Almost 18. Clearly you are a cynic, and have a very limited understanding about how people and government work. Don't give me that "I earned everything I made, and I deserve every last penny of it". Please, give me a break, you're a human being. Just like the rest of us. If you're rich you either knew the right people, were driven, and worked hard, and let's face it, you definitely had help from lots of different people along the way, or you were born into it. You didn't do it all by yourself. Either way, are you seriously going to tell me 1 person out of a world full of billions of people, deserves to be obscenely rich, while there are millions of people who can barely afford to eat? You stop being naive. I'm not saying you have to give away your entire fucking fortune, but who the hell do you think you are? Human life is human life. Your status in society doesn't somehow make you better than the rest of the populace. And if you think it does, frankly, you disgust me.

And helping eliminate things like poverty and supporting things like health care for all people, and better education by giving tax money to them helps move society forward, and actually will make society MORE prosperous. And that's all that matters. The world doesn't care about you as a person. The world cares about what you can contribute to society. People can live their lives without fear, and do what they want to do. Poor people can actually be given a chance at doing something great, and have their potential for things like the arts, math and science realized. Maybe the next Albert Einstein lives in the ghetto, but has no way of achieving greatness because of the lack of opportunity life gave him.

Ambition is not created by competition. I'm a naturally driven person. I can't be the only one. I want to be a actor and a writer. I'm not doing those things because I want to be rich. I'm doing them because it's something I really want to do. If I'm good at it, society will reward me.

But I won't get paid, you say? Sir, I want you to do some research on the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway and Sweden). They're some of the happiest, lowest crime, lowest poverty countries and successful economies in the world. Socialistic free market capitalism can exist (eg IKEA). And it works quite well.

But what do I know? I'm just some naive young optimist.

 

[Laxman9292]

don't expect people to invest $20,000 dollars worth of equipment, space, and time, into your surgery if you can't compensate them for it.

It's called your fricken taxes, dude. If your taxes aren't getting you quality health care, OR getting you a proper government watchdog so that when you get sick health insurance actually does what it's there to do rather than abandon you because you didn't take the superplus plan...

then what the hell is your tax money going to anyways?

Taxes go to things like public works, military, research, and other shit like that. Now you're talking about a point that is still debated by politicians trying to get elected (Lower taxes but less government funded crap Vs. More government funded crap but higher taxes), and there is really no answer to that. I, personally, would rather have lower taxes and more freedom to do what I want, rather than pay higher taxes but have the government tell me what health care I get. But there are people who feel differently and that's what the argument is about.

 

[Jake the Snake]

Everyone deserves coverage. Except no one is really willing to pay for it. I swear to god, I have no idea why people are so deathly afraid of raising taxes in this country. IT'S HOW LITERALLY EVERYTHING GETS PAID FOR. And the rich have absolutely no leg to stand on. Shut up, if you're worth more than $10 million dollars, you're never going to poor, your money makes more money than you could ever possibly spend it, and it's your duty as a citizen to help your countrymen. You know, it's a very basic concept we're taught to do at a very young age: Share. I will never understand the irrational behavior that is greed.

Let me tell you a little story.

My brother once saved up all of his money and bought a ball. He brought it to school and would play with it with his friends. However, the teacher saw this, and decided that everyone should get a chance to play with the ball. For the next few days, my brother got next to no time to be able to use what he had earned. And the people who used it were not at all kind with it either. The next week, he didn't bring the ball back. So rather then a few people getting to play with it, no one did. Now, would you call my brother greedy? Or would you say that he was in the right for not sharing what he had earned because it was done so by force? Me? I think what he did was right.

Let me ask you something, if you could work for 6 months of the year, and take the rest off and earn only 10% less then you did if you worked year round, which would you choose? I mean, I don't think that gives people much of a reason to want to work more. But hey, that's just me.

I want people to get health care, I just don't think that raising taxes on the rich is the best way to do it. Perhaps reform medical malpractace and put damage caps back in.

But the deal with the ball is it involves ownership of a specific object. Your well within your right to own something. But wealth is something else. It's really, at its base, intangible. It's just a number. And right now the distribution of that number is severely uneven in this country, to the point where it's detrimental to progress. Unfortunately, humans are selfish and shortsighted by nature, and unable to see the long term benefits what raising taxes does. Now, granted, the government still needs to be responsible with the money its given. We have to live within our means, and stop borrowing money and spending more then we have. We should be using the money to pay back our debts, and ensuring basic things like the right to live (medical care) to all people. Taxes are the only way to pay for that. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

The funny thing is, if you look at socialistic free market governments like Denmark, Norway and Sweden, you'd see the good high taxes can bring. Hilariously low crime, low poverty, longer life expectancy, and they're some of the happiest countries in the world. Without causing all the problems of "laziness" and "no ambition" and "end of the economic world" FOX news would like you to believe.