begging the question. confirmation bias.



suppressed evidence. selective observation.

there are several descriptions in this thread about how the government option would be different & if you were actually informed (i.e. read the news or something), you would already know the answer to this question. you can't blame us for your ignorance, you actually have to have some sincere interest in this debate...



false dilemma. you're neglecting several options, most important being that you're just an ignorant fool.



begging the question.



my comparison was important because of the fact that all the CHEAPER, OUT-PERFORMING systems that i was referring to, they're all systems of socialized medicine. many are actually universal, single payer systems (which also permit private competition, ex. canada).

I'M IGNORING YOUR POINTS BECAUSE THEY AREN'T ADDRESSING MINE OR BECAUSE THEY ARE OBVIOUS EXAMPLES OF LOGICAL FALLACIES.

LOGICAL FALLACY LOGICAL FALLACY

I'm not going to be intimidated because your posts read like a robot

Make an argument other than "LOL UR JUST 2 DUM 2 UNDERSTAND"

i have no idea what you want from me.
you say the quality will be poor, i show you that other countries have high performing, high quality socialized medicine. i show you, even further, that america's highest performing medicine is actually socialized medicine (i.e. medicare and medicaid).
you say that government can't do anything right, i show you that sometimes it can.
you say that we shouldn't trust government, i ask why we should trust corporations.
you say that you want reform, but don't describe what sort of reform that may be.

you just suck ass @ debating. it's sickening trying to discuss an issue with you; you're so obviously uninterested in what the opposition has to say.

how about engaging my arguments rather than cherry picking and regurgitating talking points from liberal blogs?



You ignored my point about the fact that many of those countries have a population smaller than California.



If systems that are going bankrupt within the next decade is the best socialized medicine can do, then we need LESS of it.



Putting words in my mouth much? I say that government involvement introduces inefficiencies and higher costs. You ignore this.




Wanna keep a running tally of the evils governments have introduced to the world vs the evils corporations have? How often have corporations committed genocide? It's not even close.

If I think a healthcare insurance company is being unfair and no longer wish to pay for it, I can simply choose to stop buying their insurance. If I don't want to pay for a government service, and quit paying my taxes, my ass gets hauled off to prison.



Again, you ignoring me. Sure I have. LESS GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTHCARE. Allow the free market to regulate prices.



Says the guy who's been ignoring me this entire time.

shut the f*ck up. i have pages and pages worth of posts in this thread that account for nearly all of your arguments & advance my own in much more detail & in much more accuracy than any of your arguments. your posts can only be found right here & in the first page, & half of those posts are bad jokes.

what you continuously refuse is the fact that socialized medicine outperforms private medicine all over the world & even in america. CONSUMER SERVICE SATISFACTION IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID THAN IN COMPARISON TO PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE.

p.s. what does the size of population have to do with anything?
p.p.s. we need to put more money into systems that are not adequately funded; it's no different than paying the highest prices in the world for mediocre healthcare.
p.p.p.s. what inefficiencies & higher costs do government regulations contribute? how are these related to the inefficiencies and high costs of our private industries?
p.p.p.p.s. how many people have the tobacco industry killed? how long have they been trying to hide the fact that their product kills? how have they designed it to addict people? and it's all legal! & cost efficient! wow, capitalism is so cool! because efficiency & profit are more important THAN f*ckING ANYTHING?!?!?! right.
p.p.p.p.p.s. explain EXACTLY how deregulation would fix healthcare in america.

No you don't, you merely parrot off the same things over and over again. And when people don't buy your bullshit, you repeat it in capital letters. The only bad jokes are the incoherent rants that you call your argument.



And what you continuously ignore is the fact that they're unsustainable. If I had the ability to borrow basically unlimited amounts of money/print money out of thin air/forcibly take money from the most productive members of society, I bet I could beat medicare/medicaid in customer satisfaction. The country would implode, but at least we'd have universal healthcare before that happen s, and that's all the matters, right?



Try the same scheme in China. How's their healthcare system compared to the US?



I love how you keep talking shit about our quality of care when people from countries which supposedly have world class healthcare systems come to the US for treatment. I think most people agree that the quality of US healthcare is world class; the problem is availability of that care. Allowing the free market to work means lower prices, more efficiency and greater availability.



Barriers to competition artificially lower the supply of things like doctors and drugs. Lower supply leads to higher prices.



Because someone choosing to smoke tobacco out of their own free will is just as wrong as the government putting a bullet in their brain, right?

Unbelievable.



See above. Removing artificial barriers for competition leads to greater availability and lower prices.

IT STILL OUTPERFORMS PRIVATE INDUSTRY! so, if we want good healthcare, tax people as much as we need in order to have it. i haven't ignored the fact that it costs money, i have continuously addressed that: tax people! you, on the other hand, completely ignore the fact that it works better than private insurance; people like it more than private insurance. what we need is healthcare that works, &, ultimately, the cost of socialized medicine is LOWER than that of PRIVATE medicine. so, your entire problem is with taxation? notice how i'm arguing for the best healthcare for everyone, & you're arguing against taxation? notice how this isn't a thread about the moral quality of taxation?



like france and germany imploded? talk about alarmist bullshit. you sound like f*cking glen beck. go read a book you moron.



i have no f*cking clue, i'm not an expert on chinese healthcare. are you? how about you stop ignoring my question and answer it: what EXACTLY does population have to do with it? why does universal healthcare work so well in germany and france? why would a similar system not work here in the states? give me some details, please.



exactly what barriers to competition exist that are contributing to such high costs? explain exactly what would happen if we removed said barriers & exactly how that would work.

1) Raise taxes, and people will leave/hide their income, leaving your shitty system horribly underfunded.

2) Giving medicare more funding does not solve the problem of higher costs. You don't stop a leaky bucket by pouring more water into it.

I don't understand how you can complain that Americans spend too much on healthcare, and then follow this up by saying that we need to raise taxes so that we can spend even more than we already do.

Which is it, do we spend too much, or are we not spending enough?

3) The reason medicare can lower their costs is because they are subsidized by the private industry. I worked in the billing department of a dialysis laboratory. Medical tests charged to medicare cost pennies on the dollar. The lab made up this difference by overcharging private insurance. Eliminating the private insurers means there will be no one left to subsidize medicare payments, and you'll see costs RISE.



Read your first post again.

You want to fund your scheme by forcibly taking money from the most productive members of society. I am simply commenting that this is not only wrong, but counterproductive to your goal.



You sound like Michael Moore.

French system is going bankrupt. Germany is the #2 creditor nation in the world. Guess where the United States is. They can afford to do things like that. We cannot. I don't know why you simply cannot understand that what works (or appears to work) for one country might not work for another. It's not as if the only variable involved is the type of healthcare system each country is using.



Yet you seem oh so eager to share statistics about France and Germany. Might it be possible that you're only selectively choosing statistics (such as the horribly biased WHO rankings) that support your argument? Nah, couldn't be!

I'd figure you'd have enough common sense to figure this out, but since you seem to be denser than lead, I guess I'll spell it out for you: Universal Healthcare is MUCH easier to implement in a smaller population than a large one. It's a lot easier to cover 30 Million people than extending coverage to 300 million, let alone 1.3 Billion.



Remove government enforced licensing for medical practice and replace it with voluntary licensing. The supply of healthcare professionals now increases, eliminating employee shortages which lead to high costs. Get rid of the FDA, so that more cures and treatments can come to the market, allow the import of foreign/generic drugs, etc. Decrease regulations for the insurance industry. Allow insurance to compete across state lines (seriously, what is the reason for banning this in the first place? The only people it helps are the insurance companies).

im going to put my own 2 cents in here.

My mother was talking to her friends cousin who is from Toronto. Canada has universal health care. The one thing he said was
"Americans don't really realize that if they get universal health care then they're going to have to wait longer for the most simplest medical needs. Like if you break something, surguries, dentist, therapies , transplants you're going to have to wait possibly weeks or months even though it should take maybe minutes or days. They're more concerned on how much they don't have to spend."

Which is true because you have to get that accepted by the government. I mean if i had to get a transplant i wouldn't want to wait months, i shouldn't have to and there have been people who have had to wait that long.

The government can't control the availability of donated organs/tissue (I'm assuming that's what you mean by transplant). Besides, a lot of that is done on a case by case basis.

It could if we imported more Indians and committed more legalized hate crimes. Jesus Christ, Dee. Why didn't you think of that? We could kill mexicans and a-rabs and take their organs. No more illegals, more organs, more living Americans, win win situation.

That wasn't what i was meaning. At least in Canada the government has to approve for the transplant.

You must forgive me, Steven, I'm from the north.



What other transplants are there besides organ and tissue transplants? State laws regulate organ donation, but it isn't up to the government to decide who does and who doesn't get transplants, so I don't know what the waiting time for getting a transplant has to do with universal healthcare. If it were an issue of paying for the transplants, then of course. There are both medical and non-medical financial issues that need to be dealt with. I'm just not sure what you're trying to get at when you bring up the waiting time.

Pretty much overall you have wait longer to get anything medical. That's just how it goes with universal health care. That's what i've been told.

Because it would be one of a million things we as tax payers already pay for and don't need.

The government protects, not provides. That is the communities, and churches responsibility.

This is true, we will have to wait longer. We had a discussion like this today in my American History class, don't know why but we talked about it. It was a debate, and neither of the side was stronger than the other. There was some strong points about the pros and cons, but in the end it balanced each other out for the voters to decide. For me, I am biased right now, I agree with both sides. My parents are fully against universal healthcare, because they are old, and everyone wants to be treated first.

Not only will we have to wait, but it will be easier for those who want to work in the medical field. They need medical workers now, but atleast they are challenged and are working hard. Once we have the universal healthcare the clinics and hospitals will need more workers. More chance of making those who want to work in that field easier, when it shouldn't be easy.

If we do have universal healthcare, that's great for those who are having a hard time to get insurance. Some people that I know who have jobs and are working very hard that are legal, do not have insurance because the companies do not approve them. The company says they are not able to afford insurance. I believe that is absurd because those who need them the most are rejected because of financial issues. Then again, it's the economy to blame.

so guyz... about that healthcare being passed.

LMFAO, WUT?!?!

Im not happy about it. Nor are my parents. Also just to add a little story.
My dad had a patient from Windsor tell him about their healthcare. Might as well share since we're in this doom.
Her daughter had a bad knee and had to get it replaced. So in May they talked to a doctor, the doctor said "You can get the replacement in August" to then they thought it was great, a new knee in three months. The doctor then said "oh no....not this August...next August".

That is all.

^what has that got to do with anything?

the delay of the passing of this bill is probably why the USA's HDI is still behind many european countries.

health care is a merit good, high demand and low supply. it's stupid that most of the USA's health care is in the private sector, since it doesn't help to protect the people with lower incomes.

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Why is Germany, which healthcare proponents often cite in arguments, lower than the United States in HDI?

HDI is a load of crap.



The fact that healthcare is a good is the reason why it MUST be left to the private sector.

Making healthcare a right means you force healthcare providers to give it away/provide services for free. Why discriminate against the healthcare industry then? Why not make food a right? Free food at the supermarkets for all. Do you think that would work?

healthcare should be in the public sector because everybody deserves to be treated. in the private sector it gets manipulated and people in the health industry will care more for what they earn that much many people they save.

Let's try it this way:




There are so many things you can fill the blanks with. Why stop at healthcare? Why not take food out of the private sector and make it public? Clothing? If everyone deserves healthcare, surely everyone deserves to eat and get clothed too, right? Isn't it unfair that some people get to buy $200 jeans while some people can't afford clothing? Isn't unfair that some people can eat gourmet foods while others can barely afford their meals? How about houses? Maybe the government should buy everyone a house. After all, everyone deserves a roof above their head.

Is that the society you're advocating for?

cmon, she lives in China

correction. hong kong. which adopts british's health care system. and if you had to know, it is one of the healthiest place in the world, with the life expectancy 2nd highest in the world. usa is the only developed industrialized country that does not have a universal health care system, well, not since march 23. usa is seriously lagging behind compared to other wealthy and developed countries.

the difference between health care, food and clothing is that health care is a necessity. with obesity being one of the most important health issues in the usa, lack of food isn't quite the immediate problem. it may be unfair for some people who can't afford expensive clothes but that certainly isn't a major problem.

do you really think that it is ethical to refuse a person medical needs just because they are uninsured?