Someone has to do something about health care in America. There's a large number of people that can't afford insurance. Then again, why bother if the insurance only covers a small fraction of the bills.

So, how does this work now? Each state has a caucus? When do those happen?

Huckabee is to being a baptist minister as Giuliani is to 9/11. And that's bad, especially considering that he's a crappy immoral minister.

He's also an idiot; he clearly has no idea what's going on, he's just pushing the whole minister thing to appeal to evangelicals. I'm pretty disgusted that so few people see through him too.



Really? I've hear bad things from people who have major health problems. It seems to me that works ok for the average joe, but is absolute hell for anyone with major reoccurring problems.

The scary (but unsurprising) part is how many people are willing to vote for this guy.

Some people think the Humanitarian answer is the only sane one. I can see people not trusting the government to use the money correctly. I can see wanting more localized government to handle healthcare and people's health. I can see several other conservative arguments against healthcare. I cannot see a humanitarian answer being a bad one, and quite frankly it scares me that you'd be so selfish. Disagree with the way it's done, sure. Disagree with the meaning behind it? You're saying that health is not a human right.

I wasn't implying he made a big serious deal out of it. I'm implying that it's entirely inappropriate, and shows that he has no plans of separating his religion from his work. That's a bad thing.

Bush has claimed he seriously has conversations with God, and that God tells him to do this stuff.

...
And some people believe him. I'm not Hitler, but you might think these people are bad for our society?

They don't have an easy ride, they're subjected to long waiting times more than anyone else. It's pretty damning that the world record for the longest time spent waiting on a trolley in hospital is held by a British diabetic. Thankfully that's ridiculously far from the typical waiting time for most people (I've been to A&E enough times myself) and I haven't heard such horror stories in several years, despite the Daily Mail loving to latch onto that sort of thing.
There are, however, a couple of things that I'd argue make the NHS better for long term health complaints.

Firstly, a lot of these conditions have warning signs that can be caught early on by a doctor and can save a lot of pain and reduce the need for further medical care in the long run. When it's free to go to the docs, you have no qualms about going to have a relatively minor problem looked at, whereas if you have to worry about premiums and deductables, you're more likely to shrug it off and hope it goes away. Ultimately, preventitive care is better than leaving it till you're sick or injured much worse.
Secondly, in a private healthcare system it's often difficult to get health insurance in the first place since many on-going problems like these (eg. diabetes) are considered pre-existing conditions for which you cannot get health insurance.
In the face of these, the NHS doesn't seem so bad in my opinion.

I think there's a lot to be said for how our healthcare would be handled by the government, though. If it's anything like our school systems, hospitals will be sold to fix budget issues.

I have worked in a city hospitals and private hospitals.

City/county hospitals are almost universally ****ty, understaffed, use old *** medications, have a dearth of supplies and in general just have less than private hospitals do by a long shot. Oh yeah, they're crowded as hell, and people abuse what free healthcare there is to a great degree already.

I dunno if nationalized health care would improve the quality of care provided as opposed to current solutions. However from what I've seen of state run deals, it's not a pretty sight.

I love how people point out the flaws in other nations universal HC systems (as if they were all one same type of system) and assume that we would do it exactly the same for some reason. You know we would make our own system and make it work how we wanted right?

As for the public vs private current hospital situation, same thing goes. It doesn't have to work that way if we reform our current public hospital situation (which I don't think is as bad as you make it sound)

Aye, I hate the thing where people are all "OH NOES THE POOR PEEPLEZ R GETTIN HELF FUR 3!"

They would be paying the exact same amount as you would.

:/

Part of Obama's plan for nationalized healthcare is for a complete changeover from paper documentation to an electronic health record.

I'm not biased.

No, not at all.

In all seriousness, though, having read Obama's book has convinced me of the need for nationalized healthcare.

Exactly. Let people choose whether or not they want to buy private insurance, but provide a government alternative for those without the finances to pay for private insurance.



Assuming you live in the US and pay taxes, you are already paying for healthcare for other people. Who do you think pays for Medicare and Medicaid?


Also, Huckabee is crazy.

more like iowa cock us amirite?

Anyway, congratulations to Obama who's more palatable than the other Democrats, and I hope the momentum helps him win New Hampshire as well. Huckabee is, as mentioned, crazy but still has a good chance at being the Republicans' candidate. McCain will win New Hampshire but it probably won't matter. Fred Thompson should just stop spending money now.

To respond to the health care dealy: I simply do not trust the nat. government to deal with the health and well-being of all 300M+ Americans. I do not think that Congress and the Executive branch are that competent. I would much rather this be done at the state level. If the state wants to socialize their health care system, let the state do it. That leaves the rest of the 49 states to implement some form of health care system according to the state's needs.

What Congress should do is have this vat of $$ for the states. For the state to receive the federal funds for their health care programs, they have to demonstrate that their health care program is efficient, functioning, and actually going towards health care.

...That would be a horrible idea.

"Jimmy broke his arm!"
"Oh well, looks like we're driving to idaho, I'm not paying a couple thousand dollars."

Everywhere with a decent healthcare system would suddenly be swamped.

On the plus side the money-grabbing industry you lot have would die a little.

Man, I'm going to join the Obama campaign to meet some hottie co-eds, all the Ron Paul supports I met are neckbeards!

keep talking **** *****

Not really. In fact, I would imagine the private sector to compete more strongly against the government. Now if you're talking about doing away with the private sector or levying it heavily, you're asking for a world of hurt. The private sector is here to stay and they've been at this game longer than the federal government.

Way to not give an answer and skirt the point?



Let me distill your argument then: "DAH PUR PEEPULS SHULD GET EVERYTING FER FREE."

After we take care of housing, sustenance, healthcare, and the rest of the "basic needs" why the hell should a lazy person produce ANYTHING for society? I don't want to take care of a welfare class.

The idea that all poor people are poor because they're lazy is like...wrong.

Who said that.

I'll repost what is pertinent:



I like how you go the easy route and ignore actually producing an answer, and try an attack on a statement that was never made. It shows how well thought out your position is, and how able you are to defend it.

Or not.

I don't understand. I thought your argument against having government-funded health care was that people will just mooch off the system?

He's trying to say that he never mentioned poor people only lazy people.

Are you going to actually give any sort of argument, or are we just going to play 20 questions?

I know you can read what I wrote. It's obvious you don't agree. Provide a counter argument. I can repost, for a third time, one facet of my stance. This isn't to say anything for aspects that include the state's ability to run such a program, etc.

The betterment of humankind? Further discovery of the natural world? Personal fulfillment?

?

Your response to Baconfish was to say that he thinks that poor people should get everything for free, and then you added a sentance about how lazy people will just mooch off the system and that you don't want to support them.

I'm not being internet-sarcastic here...you wrote two things and I thought they went together. I guess I misunderstood you.

Well, and I know I'm going on a limb here, what if this person were say... lazy? As in, they are content to eat, sleep, and have intercourse. What reason would this person have to do anything other than the above three activities, and not, you know, decode DNA or save the whales?

I can imagine a lot of people who'd be happy with such a situation. I myself wouldn't mind it. Maybe once in a while I'd go and pick some weeds in a local garden to feel productive, but if I could shoot the breeze with my buddies, grab some free food, and sit around for most of the week... that isn't a bad life.



Pretty much. Yes, lazy people. Not poor people. Thank you. I was mocking his "distillation" of those against free health care.

I'm not liking the term 'lazy' to descibe a certain sort of person, but it will do.

Are you kidding? That's my life right now. I'm so BORED! I want to do something productive!

I don't think anyone grudges taking care of poor people who are poor due to some disability or illness that they did not bring upon themselves. The trouble lies in taking care of everyone belonging to the group defined by poor people, if a very large percentage of those people are poor due to their laziness.

(Alright, bear with me here, I go through a lot of careful and involved reasoning. All of this stuff in the below text isn't just the expression of my thoughts on this, but also their formation.)

The real issue with health care these days, is that the methods we have with which to take care of people are often very expensive in terms of R&D, equipment and the education of personnel. All of this consumes a substantial part of our nation's productive power; sometimes the cost of a procedure may take from the total productive pool of society more than a person could possibly return. For example, an operation could cost more money than a person could ever hope to repay.

We as a nation, no longer expect a distribution of health care equal to the amount we are able to pay for it. In other markets we consider it fair that a poor person might only be able to buy a canoe, while a rich person could buy a yacht. Everyone wants a yacht, but we as a nation do not have the productive capability to make a yacht for everyone in America, all other things remaining the same, so they have to be rationed by way of money. Health care is a different animal. If everyone is to be able to have a yacht worth of health care regardless of the amount of money they have, we must reallocate ourselves in order to make this happen. Since our productive output is limited and because distribution of this product is no longer to be rationed by money, the government must step in to effect this reallocation. If the free market cannot decide who gets health care, and we want to drive its production beyond that which the free market can provide, our only option is the government, which would accomplish this by levying heavy taxes and spending them on health care which we would all have unrestricted access to.

So the bottom line is, if we want everyone to have access to every sort of health service, no matter how expensive, health care must be socialized, there is no way around it.

This, though, is not necessarily the best choice for several reasons. Because our national productivity is a limited resource, we must divert productive resources from other parts of the economy in order to increase the production of health care services. This would be evident in the *drastically* increased taxes we *must* face if this is to happen.

Another problem to consider is the quality of the medicine itself. The free market is by far the most efficient method of harnessing the productive power of humans. As medicine becomes regulated by the government, the quality of health care we can provide and the rate at which we can advance medicinal science, *must* drop some amount, depending on how much less efficient the socialized system is than the free market system. The effects of this drop will be felt world wide because of the size of United State's contribution to medical research. It is impossible to say exactly how large this drop will be, but only that it will happen.

A third problem to consider is that, depending on how our nations economy does, and the direction that medicine advances take, it may, and likely will, be impossible to sustain this level of availability. For example, if we found a way to extend the lives of 50% of the population by ten years, and it costs us the equivalent of three times the average persons productive output (3x a person's GDP per capita over their entire lives) we would not be able to provide that care even if the entire United States gave up everything else, including the production of food.

The most efficient option would be to let the free market do it's thing, and allow the less productive members of society to suffer what they will, all the while allowing natural selection to strengthen the human species while medicinal science increases at the fastest possible rate. However, we are more than machines, so the answer is not nearly as easy as that. All of our options lie somewhere between these two routes.

Some people are dumb.

The government is terribly inefficient at doing things, so I wouldn't be entirely thrilled about them taking care of me if I get hurt. The balance some people suggested on this thread seems like a good idea.

And I have no idea where the topic of poor people came from, but at least around here, there are more than enough shelters/programs to help the poor and homeless, but they choose not to accept it, or to abuse the systems.

And as for Huckabee... I just don't care enough to type anything out... mostly because I'm extremely tiredz0rz right now.

On the other hand HMOs aren't out to make sure you're being cared for, they're out to maximise profit by withholding as much medicine as possible and when they have to give you something, using the cheapest available option. Your welfare is a secondary concern.
In universal healthcare, it's one of the main points that can make or break a govt. party. People will vote according to the quality of healthcare so the govt. is obliged to provide the best care it can afford. The Tories lost a lot of votes here and subsequently lost the '97 election for closing down too many hospitals (amongst several other things).

As for lazy people, don't you have that work-fare system? I was under the impression that you could only stay on benefits for so long before you'd have to start doing menial jobs for the government to earn your social security cheque? That's something we could really do with in the UK. There are plenty of projects they could work on. Our rail infrastructure needs an overhaul for a start.

Of all the types of welfare to complain about, I find health care the strangest. It's possible that someone can render themselves unemployable and you'd be right to complain that you shouldn't have to pay for them. It's possible that people don't spend their money wisely and can't afford housing and you'd be right to complain that you shouldn't have to house them. But people don't deliberately give themselves cancer, don't deliberately get diseases, don't deliberately suffer nasty car accidents, yet with a private healthcare system you effectively punish them for it. Remember that thread Alan wrote a while ago about getting shot in the *** by a random nutter? Unless they managed to catch the guy, Alan's left with a hole in his *** that was not his fault and a large bill to pay that he might not be able to afford. In a perfect world the assailant would be caught and would pay for everything, but short of that, surely the best that can be done is that everyone helps each other out a bit when these things happen?

I totally agree. There are plenty of perfectly healthy people who are just on benefits because they can get more money doing nothing than getting a menial job. As much as I'm a firm believer in the Welfare State I really think our system misses a trick in not putting people to work in menial jobs that serve the public. Oh, and just to qualify, I'm not talking about everyone on benefits, just the sort who literally get their dole money, then go back to their bedsit and watch Trisha and drink Special Brew until the pubs open.

I do realise that no system is perfect though, so I accept that I should pay taxes to support those who can't support themselves, because I never know when there may come a time when I can't support myself. It's just a byproduct of dealing with a large beurocracy that I'll end up supporting some people who just don't want to support themselves.

Who cares? A year after they're elected, people are going to start complaining on how they should have voted for the other guy. I say we ditch the government and start an Anarchy:D

Caucus caucus cau-CUS!
Caucus caucus cau-CUS!

There will always be people who abuse the system. The important thing is to not let that problem get in the way of doing the right thing.

Every development, social strategy and technology has the potential for misuse; But it's a fool who uses this as an excuse to vote against something that is ultimately beneficial.

...My point was it's not free. Everyone pays for it, every gets it.

Its like when groups of people play the lottery with a syndicate. Everyone puts something into it, everyone gets something out of it.

Ofcourse that sort of misses out the homeless since they wouldn't be paying taxes, however if you're one of those people that believe that the homeless don't deserve healthcare because you're better than them, then you're an awful human being.

Reading comprehension is your friend, especially when you are accusing others of poor reading comprehension. I didn't even take a position there.