Why does socialized medicine suck again?

[Orlong]

I'm sorry, are you looking for sympathy for having to pay taxes? To pay for constitutional laws created by a representative government?

I didnt vote for them so they arent representing my interests. I should have the option of opting out of medicare and saving for my own healthcare via a savings account. I can manage my own money better than the government can

[Endus]

Well... I imagine it sucked for the people who paid for your ($6000-$15) operation.

There's ~34 million people in Canada.

Let's say half of those people are kids/elderly. Let's say 25% of the remaining are not working (unemployed/welfare/homemakers/etc). That's 17 million adults, and almost 13 million taxpaying adults.

So, spread out evenly among 13 million people (to make the math simple; it would stratify a bit based on the tax brackets), that $5,985 works out to about 0.047 cents each.

Yep, I'm willing to pay that, thanks.

[Adam Jensen]

I didnt vote for them so they arent representing my interests

So? That's what happens when you lose a vote. You don't get your way when that happens.

That's how democracies and republics work. The things that are voted for are implemented regardless of who voted against it.

[Noomz]

This is a perfect illustration of the blissful ignorance of the socialist state. "In my socialist state this cost me 15 dollars, in yours it costs $6000. The $5985 difference just came from nowhere and helped me out so much."

All of these socialized European states pretend like their taxes are paying for their ridiculously expensive government budgets, and while you do pay a lot of taxes, it's still not paying for it. Every western European country is 2 1/2 times its GDP in debt. It's not a "strange coincidence".

Americans are already concerned about its federal govt's massive federal debt at 75% of GDP, we don't need it shooting up to European levels trying to make the government take on even more reponsibilities of dolling out everyone's personal prerogatives.

So ya, as long as we ignore where the money is going to come from, as every socialist country does and just runs up massive debt, socialism is great.

So you're saying European nations national debts are caused by socialized healthcare systems but the US that doesn't have the same system has a debt because...? You're killing your own argument.

You are so wrong I don't even know where to begin.

[geewhiz80]

I didnt vote for them so they arent representing my interests

Then don't pay taxes and wait to be audited by the IRS, and possibly sent to prison for tax evasion. It doesn't matter if you voted for the person that won, the majority did, therefore they are representing (or supposed to be) what the majority of the populace wants.

[Garnier Fructis]

I didnt vote for them so they arent representing my interests

Yes, why isn't the government catering exclusively to your interests? Oh wait, because the population consists of more than 1 person and has widely different interests.

[Endus]

I didnt vote for them so they arent representing my interests.

No, you voted, so they're representing the nation's interests.

If you don't like it, you're free to pack your bags and leave the country. Because it's not a tyranny. If you don't like it here, you're free to leave. If you DO like it here, then you get to suck it up when you lose elections.

[Orlong]

And then instead of $2 on the toll booth, they can charge us whatever they like.

Is there anything you think taxes SHOULD pay for, or should everything be paid for by private companies?

I here there's a city under the Atlantic Ocean made for people like you. Might be infested with splicers though . . .

governments only function should be national defense and police to enforce the law on basic crimes such as theft, murder, and rape

[obdigore]

Before Obama-care people who had insurance paid more for their premiums to cover the ER visits by people without insurance.

Post Obama-care people who have insurance pay more for their premiums to cover the ER visits by people on the Government system.

No, the government already subsidized ER's for people who came in without health insurance and couldn't pay, because legally the ER's cannot turn people away if they have life threatening problems. You and I (assuming you pay taxes) already payed for it.

[Kasierith]

governments only function should be national defense and police to enforce the law on basic crimes such as theft, murder, and rape

This argument was lost well over a hundred years ago, sorry to say.

[Masark]

So you're saying European nations national debts are caused by socialized healthcare systems but the US that doesn't have the same system has a debt because...? You're killing your own argument.

You are so wrong I don't even know where to begin.

I stopped reading and didn't bother replying after I saw the "Every western European country is 2 1/2 times its GDP in debt" bit.

Ofmany appears to have filed for a divorce from reality long ago.

[Twotonsteak]

Can you show me the trend of Insurance Premiums since... lets say 2000? Acting like your premiums going up (hey, mine did too, just like every year before that) is Obama's fault is laughable. Did you know that part of the ACA tells insurance companies they can only get between 15 and 20 percent of their premiums as profits, the rest has to be spent on medical care. Guess what, that is a drastic reduction in the profits of 40-50% most insurers have been making, but let me guess, you hate that too? Damn government! Everything they do is wrong because your life isn't perfect!

I don't see anything in my previous post, as quoted by you, that shows me blaming Obama for rising health care. I did say that his law did nothing for me.

Selective memory must be nice.

Remember when Obama said that insurance premiums would GO DOWN. Remember when he said that Obama-care would REDUCE the cost of health insurance? Because I remember that. And what I was highlighting is that he was wrong, again.

The only thing Obama-care does is change how the money is funneled. Health insurance premiums are still going up to cover "others" who use the ER. Only instead of going to the hospital now the money is funneled through the Federal Government, where it gets to pass through all the red-tape and paperwork, before, hopefully, findings it's way to the hospital.

Congratulations on adding another step to an already convoluted process.

Mean-while nothing has changed for me and the many, many, people like me who are screwed either way.

[obdigore]

This argument was lost well over a hundred years ago, sorry to say.

Ironically almost all libertarians in the US are white, middle class, young males, which is pretty ironic to me.

[Noomz]

Why should I use up my resources to help out someone who isn't willing to gather his own?

Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.
Help those that cannot help themselves.
Protect the weak.
Solidarity and equality.
Leading by example.



It bothers me that a nation with so many Christians seem to have forgotten such values. No, donation isn't gonna cover it. Instead, everyone's hearts turn to selfishness, suspicion and even hate.

[Mortiegama]

Socialized medicine can be effective, just not in America. There's no reason that everyone should get treated the same when I have to work and they don't. Simple as that. It's selfish yes, horrible even, but I don't go to work every day so someone who sits on welfare can get the same care as me. That's all Americans do, leech off whatever system they can.

[Twotonsteak]

No, the government already subsidized ER's for people who came in without health insurance and couldn't pay, because legally the ER's cannot turn people away if they have life threatening problems. You and I (assuming you pay taxes) already payed for it.

It was my emergency visit co-pay that went up. Their reasoning (I did call the insurance company) was that my co-pay went up to pay for the visits other people were making.

Before I paid for it in taxes. (Speaking of, have your taxes gone done now that everyone will have healthcare? Is there any plans to lower them? Doesn't sound like it.) Now I pay for it via increased premiums. Either way I pay for it. The only difference is that my taxes haven't gone down and my premiums have gone up. Again, in contridiction to what Obama promised would happen.

[Noomz]

governments only function should be national defense and police to enforce the law on basic crimes such as theft, murder, and rape

And what a great place you'd be in if that were the case.

It's hillarious to see keyboard champions talking tough when they themselves benefit hugely from the systems they think are for the "weak".

[Lakrin]

No, the government already subsidized ER's for people who came in without health insurance and couldn't pay, because legally the ER's cannot turn people away if they have life threatening problems. You and I (assuming you pay taxes) already payed for it.

Which is EXACTLY what I said about 12 posts up, haha. The only thing "Obamacare" changed was the framework with which to pay for this already incurred cost.

[obdigore]

I don't see anything in my previous post, as quoted by you, that shows me blaming Obama for rising health care. I did say that his law did nothing for me.

Selective memory must be nice.

Remember when Obama said that insurance premiums would GO DOWN. Remember when he said that Obama-care would REDUCE the cost of health insurance? Because I remember that. And what I was highlighting is that he was wrong, again.

The only thing Obama-care does is change how the money is funneled. Health insurance premiums are still going up to cover "others" who use the ER. Only instead of going to the hospital now the money is funneled through the Federal Government, where it gets to pass through all the red-tape and paperwork, before, hopefully, findings it's way to the hospital.

Congratulations on adding another step to an already convoluted process.

Mean-while nothing has changed for me and the many, many, people like me who are screwed either way.

The 'law' isn't really in effect yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act

That lists the timeline the laws provisions will be rolled out. Most of the money-saving stuff doesn't come into effect for a couple more years.

2014 is when a bunch of the cost-saving stuff takes effect.

[Lilfrier]

No one specifically has to pay for it. Everyone chips in, and it's available to everyone. So when you are paying for socialized medicine, you aren't really paying for some guy's surgery, you are paying for the betterment of your entire nation. It comes down to social responsibility. If I am a member of a society that allows people to die hungry or sick on the streets, it reflects poorly on me, and it affects me.

My disagreement with the outcome from this stance is that you are socially responsible for the morality of others.

I agree that it is wrong to simply allow the sick and hungry to suffer. I do not agree that the answer is to take from those who are not without their say simply because YOU believe in that stance. I mean, for all of the left's claims to support evolution and survival of the fittest, shouldn't THAT belief system support NOT helping the sick and hungry at the expense of the fit and functioning in society? I'm not saying that is how I feel, simply what I think that the idea of evolution alludes to.

What I DO believe as far as these things goes is that no place on this planet is a utopian society, and that is because of the immoral behavior of folks. That can include greed, but many other things that are not related to this discussion. However, I do not think that legislation of morality is the answer. You can say that something is a social responsibility, but that might not be how others feel. Some think that things you are against are social responsibilities (for example, the UK recently passed something calling Internet access a human right, no? I find that absurd.).

With things like healthcare, this is tough. I believe that the socialization of healthcare should not be controlled by the government. If you want to support the well-being of others, you are free to make a donation of any size to whomever you please. That is how these types of things should be controlled, in my opinion. In fact, I believe that is how the entirety of government should function--on charity.

Let people keep their money, and if their insane greed keeps the government from funding the military, then that's on them when the nation is attacked/invaded. If greed prevents roadwork, then don't complain when the roads are filled with potholes and your car gets ruined and you are unable to make it to work as a result. If you are not willing to contribute to the betterment of society, then the problems of society are your own fault. However, the idea that charity/donations should be legislated and renamed "taxes" is simply wrong, in my opinion.

Currently, I am in school. Once I finish that and am in a situation to financially support myself, I am honestly concerned about the position I will be in. I would love it if I could be told I am getting hired for X amount of money and receive X amount of money, which I can use as I so choose. If it was something where the government was legitimately run on the funds donated by the people, I would not necessarily have a problem with donating 30-50% of my income for the betterment of society. I, however, do NOT support the concept of taxing me 30-50% of my income and using it without my approval.