- This topic has 36 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
K7, the whole idea behind “socialized healthcare” is that everyone is guaranteed healthcare, no matter what. Are you saying that such as system cannot work, or what is the issue? No system is perfect, but all in all it works just fine in many countries (one of them being Sweden, where I lived for my first 30 years or so).
It’s not more expensive… with privatized healthcare a huge portion of the money goes to insurance companies and lawyers, money that could be better spent on doctors, nurses, medical equipment, medication… i.e. stuff that actually cures people.
To me healthcare is a human right. Just like everyone should have the same right to freedom of expression, or equality before the law, everyone should have the same right to get adequate medical treatment when falling ill or being injured.
Hey Maxini,
Long time no talk.What I am saying is…
Our current system is broken, but I have yet to hear any compelling arguments as to why we should convert to a socialized system rather then revamping our own.
You mentioned that much of the cost under a privatized system goes to insurance and lawyers. My question is, why do we need insurance and lawyers? What factors contribute to healthcare being so expensive? It seems to me that if cost is the issue, socializing it isn’t the answer, because you will still have lawyers, and frivolous lawsuits, and doctors who still want make millions a year. So whether I pay outrageous rates independently, through my employer, or through a socialized system, I am still paying for it, yes?
My other argument with cost is that currently 40% of Americans don’t pay taxes. I agree people should have access to healthcare, and the typical re-active rather then pro-active approach to how we handle healthcare (and prisons and the drug war and so on) needs to be changed. But my question still is (as Tonas also asked), who pays for it? I guess in this case, I have a larger problem with the fundamental issue of people taking from the till while contributing nothing to it. So I’m not against socializing it, but I want people who take to also contribute.
My other question is “what guarantees are there to coverage or access to treatment under a socialized system?” Previous posts on this thread addressed concerns of not being able to get the coverage needed, or having to pay outrageous amounts in premiums for it. I have countered (in my previous post) that even under a socialized system, people are not guaranteed access to coverage or treatment just because they participate in a socialized system.
If any of our English counterparts would like to contribute…
If I understand correctly, the English socialized dental system is atrocious. Dentists who participate in the socialized program refuse to treat people or are unwilling to provide adequate care because the system doesn’t pay well enough? Many dentists will not accept or treat patients unless they also carry private insurance which can be billed? Many dentists decide not to participate in the socialized system because there is no money in it. This in turn has lead to a void in available dentists creating a dentist to participant ratio that prevents many from even getting treatment under the social plan?I’m not saying I’m against socializing healthcare, and in your case, maybe Sweden would be a model to follow.
As you said, “no system is perfect”, so I am trying to weigh which is better, which is worse. Mostly I am just trying to promote even more conversation on the subject because thus far, I have yet to hear any compelling evidence (and also see disadvantages) that a socialized system would be any better then our (the USA’s) current system.
Quote:If any of our English counterparts would like to contribute…
If I understand correctly, the English socialized dental system is atrocious. Dentists who participate in the socialized program refuse to treat people or are unwilling to provide adequate care because the system doesn’t pay well enough? Many dentists will not accept or treat patients unless they also carry private insurance which can be billed? Many dentists decide not to participate in the socialized system because there is no money in it. This in turn has lead to a void in available dentists creating a dentist to participant ratio that prevents many from even getting treatment under the social plan?The dental system here is pretty good. My dentist is brilliant and I have been her patient for years now.
However saying that I live in London and there are loads of dentists in my area to choose from. I have heard that outside London it’s a bigger problem finding an NHS dentist.
For some reason the pricing system has changed recently and there are three fixed price bands. The problem is that no matter how much work you have done, the dentist is only supposed to charge you that amount. Which I guess means that dentists lose out. I have heard some people say that with their dentist that was a problem, but it isn’t a problem with mine. But my feeling is that if most people don’t need a lot of treatment and they pay the basic flat fee, then their over-payment should cover for the few who do need more treatment… Maybe?
My hygienist, who works downstairs at my dentists’ used to be NHS and private, but about a year ago she went over to fully private prices and to be quite honest, her prices didn’t go up by that much.
So I guess what I’m trying to say is that we still pay money but at a subsidised rate and we can choose who we want to be our dentist. And most importantly the fact that it’s a subsidised system is a good thing because more people have access to dentistry than if it was fully private.
Barack said it best they day before the election while sitting next to Clinton.
"We are to be our brothers keeper"
When my taxes go to helping another less fortunate than me get to see a doctor…..I’m good with that.
One thing we have to realize…folks talk a lot about those who are getting "free money" with the system….medicaid, food stamps, welfare…..trust me those folks are not living "high on the hog" while we work hard to give them the good life. These folks are not vacationing in beach houses or driving new cars. They just are not.
Also, yes, everybody has the ability to better themselves but the truth is (at least I believe it to be) the first three to four years of a child’s life contribute more to their final outcome that three or four years of college. These are the years that are setting the foundation of brain development.
Connections are being made in the brain between axons and neurons that stop around age 7. Children who grow up stimulated at a young age, in our family, that meant hearing other languages, learning the fundamentals of music, going to art museums, going to the ocean, going camping, traveling on airplanes, cooking with Mama, going to work with Daddy, Montessori pre-school, Learning about our spiritual ideas. Not every child has these options….unfortunately many children are in environments for the first few years that are unproductive…..add to that a family that is broken and struggling financially or one in which there is substance abuse that causes further neglect to the child and those children can find themselves in a hole that is difficult to climb out of. Yes, an education is available for everyone in this country but when a neglected child starts school at 5 or 6 years old, often they are intellectually behind many of their peers. Here in Georgia most parents who can afford private school, don’t place their children into public schools, which means that many of those children with deficits are now grouped together and bouncing ideas off of each other. (Oh, what fun) My kids are all brilliant (every Mother should believe that) but that doesn’t ensure financial success. I have a couple of dreamers, who tend to be "a million miles away" especially my son with autism, he is a bit of a genius in some regards but bless his heart, he would get into the car in the morning on warm days with a shirt, socks, shoes and his boxer shorts. "Juan, I would shout out, Where are your pants?" he would reply "I thought I put them on"……Lord help my little guy. When he was little, insurance would pay for 60 mins of therapy, one day a week, for 16 weeks. Insurance would not pay for "sensory integration therapy" which was showing lots of success for children with autism. I paid out of pocket for 6 sensory integration sessions, then would stay up until 3 am reading books until I had a grasp on the therapy and started sessions with him each day with me as his therapist. I had a friend who like me could not afford to pay for this therapy and together we worked with our children starting at 24 months. Both my son and her daughter are very high functioning and in regular education classes making all "A’s" but what about all of those Mothers who couldn’t stop working and stay home to help their children. Insurance gave us very little….in fact, the therapy that insurance was offering was designed to help him learn to put on his shoes and use a fork….I kept thinking….I want more for him that to learn to put on shoes. I want to help his brain to get better. Insurance is a scam. Thanks insurance for all of the money we put in and what do we get. 60 mins of therapy one day a week for 16 weeks. Something has to change.
Yes, Yes, I want to see good health care for everyone regardless of income, regardless of what they have "put into the system" and we have to remember that contrary to what one might think, all children do not come into the world with equal chances for success. The brain connections/development are in place by age 7 and using those foundational connections children build skill and intellect. Some kids have all the cards stacked in their favor and still drop the ball as far as becoming financially stable. Talk about ramble on, yikes, it’s time for me to stop. Regardless, let everyone have a chance to see a doctor…why not!Proverbs 19:17 “He who lends to the poor lends to God, and will be rewarded for what he has done.”
Proverbs 22:9 “A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares what he has with the poor.”
Rambleon, thanks for the contribution and insider insight on the English dental system.
Annastefka, I understand your plight. My mother was diagnosed with brain cancer 5 years ago. We almost lost her. She had a recurrence a little over a year ago that caused quite a bit of brain damage. She has uncontrollable compulsions, dementia, bi-polar bouts and a variety of other issues. Insurance premiums for her are through the roof. And we can talk about these things all we want, but it still avoids a question I keep posing over and over again echoing what Tonas said in the beginning and has yet to be given a good answer.
“Who pays for it?”
But we can revisit, because I do want to address some other points you made.
As for the poor, living the “good life”, whoever said that? Who said they were living in beach houses or driving new cars? My only claim was that people take without contributing, and I have a problem with that. Not because I don’t understand people sometimes need and those more fortunate can give, but because if everyone takes, and no one gives, it doesn’t work.
I’m not discrediting what you are saying about stimulation at a young age, or that children may be at a disadvantage because of their childhood upbringing. But to say that these individuals can’t then contribute to a society from which they take, which I believe is the direction you’re going with this (please correct me if I’m wrong), is bull. To say that an individual can’t learn anymore because their exposure and neuron connections weren’t properly stimulated as a child is baloney. The human brain is a phenomenal and magnificent thing, with capacity that we can only begin to imagine.
Now I know you said, you would pay higher taxes if it “helps your fellow man”. So 3 out of every 5 Americans should give a free ride to the other 2?
I’d like to know what percentages of the populations under the various socialized systems contribute. Anyone know where I can find some stats like that?
Has anyone ever heard of the “tragedy of the commons”? That is exactly what you have here. Now you can quote the bible all you want, but in reality, when more people take then they give, we’re all fudged. And with 40% of the U.S. population not giving, that gravy train is going to run out real soon. On the same note, how long before you give and give and give while someone else takes and takes before you say enough is enough? I’m sorry, but this sounds like the roommate who never has the rent. Guess what, after he misses a payment or two, the whole house gets evicted.
I agree, our system could use a good overhaul, but to just say, “socialize”, doesn’t really address the root causes of why our system is failing. Nor does it ensure that under another system we are guaranteed success.
So, once again, what are the root problems and shouldn’t we really be addressing those issues? Statements such as “insurance is a scam” or “I can’t get coverage” really aren’t the root problems, they are the final outcomes.
And to address your Obama quote, if I am to be my brother’s keeper, then my brother is also to be my keeper. I expect my brother to act accordingly.
So…
Where is the outrage at the lack of govenment intervention in the electrical outages that affected Kentucky?
Where is the outrage about the 2nd stimulus bill trying to be passed in Washington?
Let me get this straight. Hurricane Katrina hits and everyone flips out at the lack of governmental response when Bush is in office. A stimulus bill gets passed and everyone flips out when Bush is in office.
Obama runs into two of the exact same circumstances and not even a whisper on this board.
Interesting, interesting indeed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.