I don't think I want socialized medicine, but I do want something better than what we have today. People shouldn't die because they don't have enough money, that's just wrong.

No. The quality of free medical care sucks bad enough in the military. Imagine trying to make it free for 300,000,000 people.

I agree with both Kiki and Harold.
The government needs to keep it's hands off of health care, and a better system needs to be put in place.
If it were sold more like other forms of insurance, the competition would be betterm making for a better product, in my opinion.

first come Universal Health care then come Socialism, and the dictation.... I want my damn first and second ammendment!

On 12/31/2007 7:12:08 PM goodguitar wrote: first come Universal Health care then come Socialism, and the dictation.... I want my damn first and second ammendment!

It's good to know that our young people are listening closely to Rush and Hannity instead of learning grammer.

It's "grammar," yank.

"Socialism" is a canard. We already have socialism in public schools, police, and fire depts. We wouldn't stand for those industries to be completely privatized. Healthcare shouldn't be any different.

Under socialism, the govt calls the shots. Under capitalism, the people with the most money call the shots. Unless you are the top dog, you're still just a pawn, regardless of the system.

On 1/1/2008 9:13:26 AM IRLITeach wrote: "Socialism" is a canard.

Quoi?

Looking at how successful the model for universal health care is in the rest of the civilized world and how terrible our system is, I have to say yes.

Yes, please!

No,our system of government changes every 4-8 years which means that depending on which party is in power my healthcare would change.One party would refuse to pay for a treatment then when a new party took over power they might approve.In the mean time I wait and maybe even die doing so.

On 1/1/2008 1:43:52 PM Abzurd wrote: On 1/1/2008 9:13:26 AM IRLITeach wrote: "Socialism" is a canard. Quoi?

I should have said that *crying* "We're going to be taken over by socialism!" is a canard, or that it's like "chicken little."

On 1/2/2008 2:31:39 PM lives4him wrote: No,our system of government changes every 4-8 years which means that depending on which party is in power my healthcare would change.One party would refuse to pay for a treatment then when a new party took over power they might approve.In the mean time I wait and maybe even die doing so.

As it is, you wait while big business decides whether they will pay for the treatment or not anyway. At least you can vote the govt out.
And there's no way any govt who aspires to get re-elected would ever hang up the system that badly every 4 years.

No, I think that healthcare should be purchased from private providers with little government intervention, with the exception of helping lower income families who are not able to afford it.

On 1/2/2008 2:41:58 PM raisinman wrote: No, I think that healthcare should be purchased from private providers with little government intervention, with the exception of helping lower income families who are not able to afford it.

What about middle-class families that can't afford it? Health care is so expensive these days, you don't have to be poor or in poverty not to have it.... either that, or we need to re-define poverty.

That's true catchall.

As an example, when my mom had cancer she was getting free treatment and then the year turned and my dad got a raise that put him over the level required to get free care by about $1000.

We had to start paying and if we had continued we would have creeped into debt but a financial worker for the hospital helped us make a case and we started getting the care at a VERY reduced price.

I've seen how a health problem can take you to bankruptcy so yes, universal healthcare is necessary.

And then there are the people (like myself) who actually are employed and do have health insurance but it coveres so little that if I actually got hurt it wouldn't help and I probably wouldn't be able to pay for it.

On 1/2/2008 2:50:01 PM catchall wrote: On 1/2/2008 2:41:58 PM raisinman wrote: No, I think that healthcare should be purchased from private providers with little government intervention, with the exception of helping lower income families who are not able to afford it. What about middle-class families that can't afford it? Health care is so expensive these days, you don't have to be poor or in poverty not to have it.... either that, or we need to re-define poverty.

Additionally, it's a bit of a bait-and-switch when you pay a premium to a company for years, then find out they won't cover something like an emergency ride to the hospital because it wasn't pre-approved or something like that.

Private insurance companies' goal is to make money first, and that is often at odds with helping people.

Hell yes, I feel like I'm living in the third world.

Survival of the fittest. You want to be able to pay for medicine, make more money.

On 1/2/2008 4:43:28 PM wiseNsexy wrote: Hell yes, I feel like I'm living in the third world.

Suddenly I agree with you...

On 1/2/2008 5:01:30 PM Oblivious wrote: Survival of the fittest. You want to be able to pay for medicine, make more money.

On 1/2/2008 5:01:30 PM Oblivious wrote: Survival of the fittest. You want to be able to pay for medicine, make more money.

So only the wealthy are worthy of surviving?

Bullsh*t.

I work 40-60 hours a week driving a taxi. No benifits.

I checked. For me, the cheapest insurance would cost $500 per month ($6,000 per year), have a $5000 deductable, and a 20% co-pay. I'd have to spend $11,000 per year of my own money (more than a third of my total yearly income) before I'd see a penny of help. And that's only for me - it doesn't include health care for my husband.

Yes, I'd love to see universal healthcare.

On 1/2/2008 5:01:30 PM Oblivious wrote: Survival of the fittest. You want to be able to pay for medicine, make more money.

Are you really a 20-year-old maintainance worker?

It is an unacceptable national policy for the govt and healthcare providers to try to sell that line to us. It's rather ironic, too, as healthcare is supposed to be about those who aren't fit in the first place.

On 1/2/2008 5:01:30 PM Oblivious wrote: Survival of the fittest. You want to be able to pay for medicine, make more money.

How about we quit spending all the money I make on killing people and start spending it on helping them?

I pay for my healthcare, because I can afford to. And I'm happy to do it.

I'm glad that my country has a 'no person left behind' system, as imperfect and expensive as it is. How a country treats its most vulnerable is a measure of civilisation, to my mind.

Just a personal perspective from outside.

Absolutely. I view healthcare as a basic human right. I am not a socialist by any stretch, and I see the securing and promotion of human rights as the primary role for government. That any sick or injured person is denied treatment because of their inability to pay is unconscionable.