The ease of government-run health care!

[pam]

I guess I just look at the whole thing as another way the government is taking away my freedom of choices and controlling my life. I like that I have choices in the type of insurance I have.

BTW...the hospitals covered under my insurance plan are top notch. A new one recently built in the SLC area is one of the most advanced in the country right now.

Edited July 19, 2009 by pam

[Elgama]

I guess I just look at the whole thing as another way the government is taking away my freedom of choices and controlling my life. I like that I have choices in the type of insurance I have.

BTW...the hospitals covered under my insurance plan are top notch. A new one recently built in the SLC area is one of the most advanced in the country right now.

I still have choices, I can pay extra and receive private healthcare (which is in turn less because emergency cases are covered by the NHS), I can to a certain extent choose my hospital - I have a say in what GP I see and can request to be seen by certain Drs

And the NHS that I pay for allows me acccess to the top Drs, and facilities in the country if that is what my healthcare requires if Great Ormond Street turns out to be the only place that can deal with my daughters seizures, I will see a Dr there, and even get my travel paid.

-Charley

[Palerider]

I still have choices, I can pay extra and receive private healthcare (which is in turn less because emergency cases are covered by the NHS), I can to a certain extent choose my hospital - I have a say in what GP I see and can request to be seen by certain Drs

And the NHS that I pay for allows me acccess to the top Drs, and facilities in the country if that is what my healthcare requires if Great Ormond Street turns out to be the only place that can deal with my daughters seizures, I will see a Dr there, and even get my travel paid.

-Charley

......how much of your taxes goes to this care????

[prospectmom]

Why if our current system is so good is HMO's and insurance companys paying billons of dollars to fight any positive change ... because they are motivated by greed. They are looking at their profits instead of good health care , affordable healthcare. We have no insurance because it is too expensive.....

[pam]

You can't always blame the HMO's and the insurance companies and call greed. For many that get their health insurance though a group plan via employment..many times the cost is determined by the employer. For example: Last job I had the employer paid 2/3 of the cost of the premiums..my current employer pays nothing towards it. Which companies are looking out for the morale and well being of their employees by spreading some of the wealth?

I realize that this is not always possible with much smaller companies.

Plus the cost of healthcare wouldn't be quite so expensive if some people used their insurance wisely and didn't go in for every little sniffle. Don't get me wrong..not everyone does this..but having worked for an insurance company that deals with health care claims..you really start to see a pattern with certain people.

Most insurance companies are following state mandates as well when dealing with the types of things they will pay for.

Edited July 19, 2009 by pam

[Elgama]

......how much of your taxes goes to this care????

about £200 a month goes to National Insurance right now - naturally as we earn more we will pay more, National Insurance covers unemployment if we should lose our job and the NHS. For about a further £150 we could have family private healthcare. So for equivelent of $350 a month (I would not translate it because someone who earns £20,000 would earn $20,000) - I would get top notch healthcare, but because NHS is fine no need to top it up right now. Plus there is very few top up payments - ambulances and consultations are free, over a certain income and over 18 you pay for prescriptions, kids get free glasses, dentist treatment etc and right now so do I as have a baby under 1

I grew up with private healthcare though came as part of my Dad's job

-Charley

Edited July 19, 2009 by Elgama

[Palerider]

my problem is.....i do not want to pay higher taxes for what you have....

[prospectmom]

Pam you are right of course. We hardly ever use our insurance when we had it but have almost 3 thousand in emergency fees since we lost it. They were true emergencies. It is hard when it costs us almost 500 a month on insurance and we never use it then when it is lost due to lay off that is when we could have used it .

[Elgama]

my problem is.....i do not want to pay higher taxes for what you have....

thing is by time I had paid for Medical Insurance in the US I would be paying way more than I would for the NHS. My taxes might be more but my outgoings are less, my husband's single man health insurance first year of our marriage cost us £50 less than the NHS does now for a family 5, if we had been US it would have worked out more expensive for a single man than we pay now for our whole famly. Private Health Insurance + National Insurance would be less for us than my Mother in Law pays, on top of that everytime she visits the Drs she has to pay extra, we don't pay, we don't need to think about ambulances etc Financially my Dad at high rate of national insurance + private health insurance would have paid more and got less. Now he has retired he doesn't have to pay a penny and gets same service

Not to mention payments are tailored to my income if my husband loses his job, we pay nothing and get same service. If my husband gets a pay raise we pay more. And like with all taxes its not noticed everyone pays it so the economy compensates, the amount that arrives in my husband's bank account every month is our income.

Guess having had to deal with financial side of US Healthcare and the practicalties - do not get why you want to pay more for less

-Charley

Edited July 19, 2009 by Elgama

[pam]

I happen to agree with a lot of the things that Prodigal posted.

[Palerider]

No one will ever convince that Gov't ran medical care is better than what I currently have.

[pam]

Amen Pale.

[Prodigal_Son]

I am not American but have personal experience of both systems both are gluttonous, wasteful and broken but the US healthcare system is far more so than the NHS.

Yes, they both have issues. That's not really relevant. The issue here, is that the federal government of the United States wants to create a monopoly via the assumption of powers that it legally cannot (if anyone in Washington would actually take the time to review the Constitution).

The US is no anarchy and you pay taxes - day its a no tax society I will understand your arguement but as long as you have a government and voting system, flush toilets, ride on freeways, attend public schools, use the fire and police taxes are being paid.

You bet we pay our taxes! We pay too much now, and the runaway train we call "Congress" is adding even more tax burden. We cannot sustain the tax burden we have now - and the nationalization of health care will even further increase the burden.

OK I have limited experience of the US health system but it has yet to be positive on any level, hospitals have been filthy - here is my experience, and none of these people are lazyy most have worked hard to serve your country in a varying capacities - then perhaps why you can see I believe it needs to change

You really think your current system is working? When somone who has served your armed forces...

When one man loses his home...

When another man has to go to Canada...

When one child has to be adopted...

When a woman has to...

Where another is...

Where a woman...

Where another woman...

Puh-leaze!! I won't bother, but I could match your worthless anecdotal tales of woe 10:1 with the EXACT SAME TYPES OF STORIES from the UK.

I will point out here, that I don't consider our existing health care system to be the best it can be. Far from it. I am simply expressing my horror over the worst business system in the world trying to tell me that they can improve it.

I am not seeing why paying for roads, government officials to live in luxury, weapons is anyway more Christlike than universal healthcare.

None of it is Christlike. Why do you keep attempting this argument? And MUCH of what our federal government dabbles in is actually illegal and unconstitutional in regards to the enumeration of powers.

Just because they've broken the rules before doesn't mean that we should roll over and let them do it again. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I thought that people exercising their rights as US citizens voted in the current regime, sure its your right to speak out but its also another LDS persons right to disagree with you.

I'm not denying anyone their rights. Never. But I'm exercising my own to their fullest extent to educate those who are uninformed, confused, lazy, or add-your-malady-of-choice-here against the EVILS being furthered by the yahoos we've sent to Washington.

Obama lied through his teeth to get elected. He's not the first and he won't be the last. But the people voted for promises that he isn't going to keep, so they're only partially at fault. When the man WE elected to meet OUR needs warns those people who voted him in "don't bet against me", we have a serious ethical problem.

Again, this isn't an issue of "is national health care an improvement??" This is an issue of

* Nationalized health care is illegal in the US.

* Nationalized health care will create a monopoly.

* Nationalized health care denies me my liberties.

* Nationalized health care would be just like every other failed program they've attempted (Medicare, Medicade, the very insurance systems for our veterans that you brought up that undermined your own arguing point), the native american insurance debacles...).

I could go on, but I shall forbear.

The fact is, this whole issue shouldn't even need to be discussed, because the whole concept is in breach of constitutional law in the US.

----------------------

Why if our current system is so good is HMO's and insurance companys paying billons of dollars to fight any positive change ... because they are motivated by greed. They are looking at their profits instead of good health care , affordable healthcare.

Why are they fighting it? Because they're businesses!! Businesses about to be put out of work by the government! Are they SUPPOSED to go quietly into the night? I don't argue that greed is a reality of capitalism. But that's immaterial. Your implication that their disaproval is merely a result of greed is ludicrous. These people will be added to the jobless-on-Obama's-watch list if this passes. Don't be so narrow as to think that these people aren't going to fight to their dying breaths for their livelihood.

We have no insurance because it is too expensive.....

Then you need to call for legislation to curb the ambulance chasers and litigious GREED of the American people. You need to call for the US (i.e. our tax dollars) to stop covering the cost of 90% of the world's pharmaceutical research. You need to call for legislation that could, perhaps, render some oversight - rather than trying for a complete annihilation of the system. Edited July 19, 2009 by Prodigal_Son
yet more typos...sigh

[Moksha]

Moksha: I think we are all connected to each other through eternal bonds and that in the big scope of things we are our brother's keeper. Our task is to help the least up to the greatest rather than horde the loot.

Sorry, but this is an absolutely pathetic argument. Using a spiritual perspective to support a plan JUST LIKE SATAN'S is hardly a sales pitch.

... don't even THINK that you're taking the higher road by greenlighting governmental theft of what I bleed, sweat, and kill myself to acquire. THEY have no right, and neither do YOU.

I am entitled to my own religious values, just as you are entitled to yours.

That reference to my values being satanic is way off base. Don't know if I am taking the higher road when I advocate adequate health care for all. It is merely a value I have. The Bible is probably replete with instances of looking out for number #1. I assume many conservative religionists can readily quote them. Go with what works for you and quit frothing.

:)

[Moksha]

No one will ever convince that Gov't ran medical care is better than what I currently have.

What if you were among the millions without any health care?

[jadams_4040]

I can't wait to see what else gets taxed to pay for it....

Thev people you need to ask are the millions of americans whom have not any insurance whatsoever thru no fault of there own.:)

[Palerider]

Thev people you need to ask are the millions of americans whom have not any insurance whatsoever thru no fault of there own.:)

lets just tax more stuff so that those with little money will have even less money....

[Prodigal_Son]

I am entitled to my own religious values, just as you are entitled to yours...

That reference to my values being satanic is way off base.

My reference is not against your values. Simply the onerous methods being applied.

SATAN'S PLAN: I care about you all. That is, I want you to THINK I do. I'm actually just making a power grab.

OBAMA'S PLAN: I care about you all. That is, I want you to THINK I do. I'm actually just making a power grab.

SATAN'S PLAN: I'll get you ALL back to Heaven.

OBAMA'S PLAN: I'll make sure you all have insurance.

SATAN'S PLAN: You won't have any rights or agency. I'll make your decisions for you. I'll call the shots.

OBAMA'S PLAN: You won't have any rights or agency. I'll make your decisions for you. I'll call the shots.

SATAN'S PLAN: The ends will justify the means.

OBAMA'S PLAN: The ends will justify the means.

In case I haven't made my point, let me beat this dead horse:

The government forcefully taking what's mine and squandering it inefficiently and ineffectively has NO COMPARISON to me compassionately watching out for my loved ones and neighbors. It is a forceful usurption of my freedoms and rights and property - just like Satan's Goose Step Methodology.

[Prodigal_Son]

Thev people you need to ask are the millions of americans whom have not any insurance whatsoever thru no fault of there own.:)

Who would that be? Medicaid covers the poor.

And in a nation where anybody can work to be just about anything they want, can you make a blanket statement like it not being their fault??

[Palerider]

Thev people you need to ask are the millions of americans whom have not any insurance whatsoever thru no fault of there own.:)

and while were at it....lets just keep giving them unemployment checks and food and pay their rent and or mortage that they got into thru no fault of their own.....The Gov't is here to help and solve all of our problems....

[Palerider]

What if you were among the millions without any health care?

I am not worried about that.....I am aware of what programs are available in my area and I know what most hospitals will do for those without healthcare.....

[boyando]

What if you were among the millions without any health care?

My twenty three year old son goes too school, which he pays for himself, with a very low paying job, therefore he choose not to get health insurance.

When he had a medical emergency, he was afforded to much care. For example, when the first hospital could not help him, he was transported to another via a ambulance at the cost of $1,700.00, even though we drove him to the first hospital.

Your first thought is that would be all for government health care, but he was the first to point out how he tried to have Medicare help out, and he did not qualify, because he did not have a child and he was not a female.

The doctors and nurses at the second hospital were great and both Hospitals forgave him the debt, because of his finances.

Me, I like to look at what is really happening. Not just believe what you hear from your favorite liberal. Every time I see the government try to fix a problem, it makes it worse.

Edited July 20, 2009 by boyando

[Maxel]

What if you were among the millions without any health care?

I am. My entire family is without medical insurance. Miraculously, whenever one of us needs a doctor, there are enough free clinics/cheap clinics (all started and maintained by a religiously affiliated organization) to see us through. My mom has plenty of medical problems, and she legitimately needs to be able to see a doctor frequently. However, she can't because she's dirt poor.

I still strongly believe that nationalized health care would be bad for the country because the country doesn't have the resources, health care isn't a fundamental right of human existence, and America's population is not charitable enough to give the money freely enough that it would count as a blessing to the giver.

That's the opinion of someone who's dirt poor and doesn't have medical insurance who prefers to make desicions based on principles and a study of the recent LDS prophets. I feel that a desire to nationalize health care so that the poor can have it is the over-zealous application of the principle of "lov[ing] thy neighbor" and being our brother's keeper. For an example of what happens to those who do not check their overzealousness, look to the example of King Zeniff in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 9 - 10), and remember that he brought his people into slavery because of his over-zealousness.

[Just_A_Guy]

Let's not take a commonsense approach or anything . . .

(Be sure to read the comments to the above-linked post--at least the first ten of them, or so. Data are irrelevant!)

[DigitalShadow]

Hey Digital, this is just all my opinions, okay? I tend to be a bit vocal about my principles because I can't vote (not an American citizen), so I tend to try to tell others who can vote my viewpoints in the hopes that they can see where I'm coming from and vote my side in. :)

I admire your attitude, but I don't think there's really any option to vote for that fully shares either of our opinions :)

Okay, for me, the best way to provide a service is to make it a business. Profit in a capitalist society is GREAT! It gives businesses impetus to do a better job. If left enough alone with the least statist intervention, profit is checked by the presence of competition and an educated society. For example, an educational institution who drives profit to the roof fueled by greed is checked by another educational institution competing for their students - because the other educational institution can always offer cheaper tuition. Therefore, I disagree with you that profit has an adverse effect on education.

Think of Wal-mart. Yes, Wal-mart Supermarket is a huge business - the reason, low cost. But, this cost is made at the expense of quality. Everybody can agree that Wal-mart has a relatively sub-standard quality especially in their fruit and produce. The question is, if the people consider it a good thing to sacrifice quality for cost. Apparently, a good sized population are not willing to sacrifice quality for cost, hence the success of competing grocery chains like Publix who offer a higher cost but superior quality as well. Therefore, no matter how greedy Wal-mart is, it's greed can be checked by its competition, because eventually, the competition will win out if Wal-mart continues to short-change quality.

Nobody wants to run a business that doesn't make a profit. Profit then, can be the driving force to improve quality, improve efficiency, and maintain low cost. The more the profit, the more money is there to circulate, the bigger the business becomes, the more jobs it creates, the more service it requires from other providers (e.g., bigger buildings required to contribute to the success of some construction company) and all this money came from a public willingly opening their wallets with eyes wide open getting a really good service - a high quality education.

If you go to Walmart and get some bad produce... oh well, don't go there next time. If you trust your child's education to a corporation, you may not know you've been shortchanged until its too late, plus changing schools would mean uprooting your child from all their friends and that's assuming there even is another viable option nearby.

I'm not saying a competition driven system would be inherently worse than a government run system, but they both have their benefits and downfalls I think.

I do not agree. A government is not responsible for the health of its citizens except for those the government itself puts in harms way. Each citizen is responsible for their own health. It is completely different from education wherein, for a population to be able to cast a vote, or protect itself from tyranny, it needs to be educated.

Think of it this way. Peter, Paul, and John are good friends. Peter, a cashier at the grocery, contracted lung cancer. Paul, a restaurant manager, offered to give Peter $500 to contribute to his chemotherapy expenses. John, a neuro surgeon, offered to give Peter $50,000. But, Peter's chemotherapy cost more than the money they came up with, therefore, Paul, without any more money to contribute, decided to ask John to give Peter another $50,000, thinking he's a neuro-surgeon, he should be able to afford it. Well, unfortunately, John just spent all his money on John Jr who is in Harvard Medical School, so he is strapped for cash as well. Paul, thinking somebody has to pay for Peter's chemotherapy called the FBI and asked them to put a gun to John's head and force him to give Peter the money. That's how I see healthcare. There is no reason for the government to provide healthcare except to use its police-power to force compassion.

And, it has the danger of becoming another vote-buying tool like so many others already in place.

The root of our disagreement is whether the government is responsible for maintaining the health of its population or not. We can agree to disagree there. Your example, while emotionally compelling, could also just as easily be applied to government funding education which you seem to support. In your mind is it alright to put a gun to the head of a single neurosurgeon and ask for money to educate your 10 kids, but not alright to do the same for a medical procedure?