Just wondering as someone who has grown up to take free education up to university level and free healthcare regardless of your situation very much for granted whether those of you in america where you have a different system would be in favour of such a system in your own country. I should warn you that this would involve diverting tax dollars from...ooh, the military (say about 2% of their current spending LOL or something) or an increase in income tax across the board by all of 1%.

I feel it is very worthwhile in the UK but I don't know enough about your system from the inside to know whether, for the most part, you are happy or stressed out by the need to take out insurance and find money for university places (note, due to the expansion in higher education attendance in the UK in the last 20 years there have been fees of around $2000 per year brought in for many so not totally free for all).

I guess my main point is about healthcare.

I wish that we had free healthcare. I don't know what I am going to do after graduation, I won't be on my mom's insurance anymore after I move out.

And there is no way I can afford it on my own. I guess I just have to go without healthcare.

As long as you're a full time student, you still should be no matter where you live. Most plans cover dependents up to the age of 21 as long as they're students. You should have her check into it, unless you moving out is a sore subject :-\\ Then again, you could always call the insurance company directly and go through the automated system ;)


Well, it is true that technically on her plan if you are a college student, it covers you until you are 19, but I'm not going to be a college student for awhile. Which means, I assume, that I will lose coverage. And I doubt that I would regain it if I become a student later.

Oh well. Maybe after my dad gets out of prison next May, me and him can both get health insurance together. Although, it might not be immediately because he will have to get back on his feet financially. So maybe I can get it again by the time I'm 20.

Isn't there a very basic health care provision in the USA for those without any medical insurance? Excuse my ignorance as I'm just curious and I can identify with what CrazyMom is saying as there are tremendous waiting lists for some procedures in the UK and as such as soon as I can justify the expense (and even though it goes against everything I believe in *sigh*) I will probably take out some additional cover. It does frustrate me sometimes when its hard to get to see the doctor quickly when, since I was 18 many moons ago, I've only been to see him once a year for a general medical check up.

Personally I think free medical insurance is something that all civilised societies should provide. It does require a change in the mindset of everyone in the country (and the UK is no different) towards accepting higher taxation - in some cases - and diversion of existing tax revenues to make it a reality however I believe it is worth it. We almost got it right in the 1950s in the UK but then, as medical science progressed and procedures became more complex (and the population boomed) we have been struggling to keep the system working. Things are starting to improve in the last few years but still not enough to convince me personally not to consider private insurance.

I do think though that healthcare should be free to all under the age of 18 and those without the means to pay an insurance scheme with a graduated 'buyout' system to encourage people back into work (i.e. they don't go straight onto full insurance payments until they have secured a reasonably paid job). I think that it is at the core of providing social justice in our society.

I''m in a union(thankfully) and we have a great medical/dental plan.  The only problem is you have to
work 1200 hours in a calendar year which doesn't seem like much, but when there isn't any work(like
last year) alot of people aren't able to make their hours.  When that happens you are able to "buy in"
to the health care plan, which is good, but the cost is $2400 for 3 months of coverage.  You pay in
until you are able to get 500 hours, then you can be on reduced benefits until you get to the 1200 hour
mark.  Last year I didn't make the 1200 hours, so on top of making half as much money, I had to
shell out my first 2400 installment.  I planned for it when I knew I wouldn't make my hours.  I agree that in
a civilized society people(especially the very young and those at retirement age) should be covered.  Here
in the States health care costs have gotten way out of hand since the privatization of health care during the
Reagan years, and are continuing to skyrocket. If nothing is done only the upper income brackets will be
able to afford any at all.  People are dying, or suffering because the costs of medication is beyond the means of most people.  In my opinion it is a national disgrace.

Thank God for Lockheed.  They pay for everything, doctor, dental, eye.  The insurance they give me for free would cost 600 dollars a month.

Personally, I like our system.  People, not the government, should be in control of their own healthcare.

Thank God for Lockheed. They pay for everything, doctor, dental, eye. The insurance they give me for free would cost 600 dollars a month.

Personally, I like our system. People, not the government, should be in control of their own healthcare.


Its easy to say that if healthcare isn't a concern for you.

You seem to not grasp the concept that the government is supposed to be the people.

You know, for the people, by the people?

And you are a fool if you honestly believe everyone with insurance has real control over their healthcare. ;D

To my mind, both health care and education should be tax supported and universally available.  Every child should be able to go as far as he/she wants and can go in terms of education through graduate school if he/she can cut it.  Health care should be a basic human right. 

Crazymom points out that in countries with universal health care there are sometimes waiting lists for certain procedures.  One might consider that a form of rationing.  Is it any different here?  Yes, but the differance is that we ration health care based on the ability to pay rather on the extent of the need.  To me, it is unconscionable that people have to choose between buying their med, heating their homes, and eating something other than dog food.


Thank God for Lockheed. They pay for everything, doctor, dental, eye. The insurance they give me for free would cost 600 dollars a month.

Personally, I like our system. People, not the government, should be in control of their own healthcare.


Not everyone works for Lockheed, or has a union strong enough to command these kind of benefits.  Do they cover your parants?  How about your grandparants?  How about your neighbors, their parants etc? 

Again you fail to realize that "we the people" ARE the government, or at least we are suppose to be.

Its easy to say that if healthcare isn't a concern for you.

You seem to not grasp the concept that the government is supposed to be the people.

You know, for the people, by the people?

And you are a fool if you honestly believe everyone with insurance has real control over their healthcare. ;D


If you allow the government to control a persons' healthcare, you allow the government to effectively control that person.

That being said, "free" healthcare is anything but.  With massive tax increases (15 dollars a month, I currently pay nothing for healthcare, get it?)  That's an extra 780 dollars a year added on to what you are already paying in federal, state, and local income taxes, gas taxes, and sales tax if you live in a state that has a sales tax, and property taxes.  Due to these high taxes, according to a recent study in The Wallstreet Journal, America has fallen from 6th place in the world when it comes to economic freedom, to number 12.  Hong Kong with almost no government regulations and super low taxes came in first.  That's not right (though Europe and Canada ranked MUCH lower than America.)

Canada shows us what an utter failure that system is.  Over 50 weeks in certain areas of that country for knee and hip replacements.  Here in America, it's almost instant.  A national socialized healthcare system would produce long waiting lines for everybody.

The government has no right to take ones' money at gunpoint (taxes) for another person.  It may seems nice, but it's not right.

If you allow the government to control a persons' healthcare, you allow the government to effectively control that person.

That being said, "free" healthcare is anything but. With massive tax increases (15 dollars a month, I currently pay nothing for healthcare, get it?) That's an extra 780 dollars a year added on to what you are already paying in federal, state, and local income taxes, gas taxes, and sales tax if you live in a state that has a sales tax, and property taxes. Due to these high taxes, according to a recent study in The Wallstreet Journal, America has fallen from 6th place in the world when it comes to economic freedom, to number 12. Hong Kong with almost no government regulations and super low taxes came in first. That's not right (though Europe and Canada ranked MUCH lower than America.)

Canada shows us what an utter failure that system is. Over 50 weeks in certain areas of that country for knee and hip replacements. Here in America, it's almost instant. A national socialized healthcare system would produce long waiting lines for everybody.

The government has no right to take ones' money at gunpoint (taxes) for another person. It may seems nice, but it's not right.


Too bad. There is no excuse for 45 million people not having proper healthcare coverage.

If you allow the government to control a persons' healthcare, you allow the government to effectively control that person.

How do you figure this?


Canada shows us what an utter failure that system is.  Over 50 weeks in certain areas of that country for knee and hip replacements.  Here in America, it's almost instant.  A national socialized healthcare system would produce long waiting lines for everybody.

The government has no right to take ones' money at gunpoint (taxes) for another person.  It may seems nice, but it's not right.


I'm from Canada and the healthcare we get seems fine to me. My mother-in-law needed a hip-replacement and she got it within a week.

Canada shows us what an utter failure that system is.  Over 50 weeks in certain areas of that country for knee and hip replacements.  Here in America, it's almost instant.  A national socialized healthcare system would produce long waiting lines for everybody.



That isn't realy the case.  My sister had good insurance, but the HMO put off her hip replacement until
she got an outside consultation, that she paid for out of pocket.  The hip had deteriorated to the point
that she was in danger of falling down because the bone was gone. During the operation it was found
to be so deteriorated that they had to do much more work than anticipated.  I have found that having insurance through a union gets me much more attention than I recieved working in a non union
setting.  I have been working since I was 16, and it is only since I have been in the union that I felt that
I was getting real quality care.

But, do you think if we DID have national healthcare, Lockheed would continue to provide health insurance to you free of charge?  They might, but MOST companies probably wouldn't.



When unions negotiate contracts they negotiate benefits as well.  They offer a certain amount for
the hourly wage, out of that they allot money into in pocket, health, pension, and whatever else.
For instance, say the base pay is $50per hour.  35 goes into the paycheck, 10 goes into health,
5 goes into pension. The member never sees the money that is being deducted from the hourly wage since it is sent directly to the insuring body. Most people aren't even aware how it works.  The only thing one would see would be the 35 in the paycheck.  In the event of a national health initiative the funds being allocated to health would go into the paycheck, then be deducted by the government at whatever rate is set.  It could happen that union workers in the higher paying trades would take home more of
their actual hourly wage than they do now.

Well to give a rough example (as I run my own business I now pay National Health Insurance at a self-employed rate so its different) but when I was employee I was paying on average around £80 ($150) per month. That provided me with dental, eyecare, doctors, emergency ambulance services and, well, pretty much anything I needed medically.

When I was 21 my othodontist recommended I have oral surgery. I had Professor Max Gregory as my consultant who is one of the leading experts in facial reconstruction in the world, and he carried out the operation and all pre and post care. I remember asking him once how much the operation would have cost if I had had it done privately and he said somewhere in the region of £20,000. It cost me and my family nothing.

I am eternally grateful, as is my smile :) , that I was born and still live in a system where the public at large belileve and support vehemently the provision of free health care based upon need and not upon ability to pay. This same healthcare system extends my cover throughout the European Union so I do not have to worry about Health Insurance when travelling. Before heading over to the USA I made damn sure I had the best Health Insurance possible before getting on the plane because I was terrified of the thought that, should I have an accident and require treatment, that I would end up with a huge credit card bill for the pleasure. I was also travelling with a band who I knew had little or no money so I covered their insurance as well and it cost a pretty packet for 5 days.

Now I'm not being hyper critical of the system in the USA. I asked the question out of a genuine curiosity to see how the system works in the USA and I can see that for some its great but for others, not so great. However when GW is paying $600 a month for healthcare, even under a union agreement, then I think we're better off over here as we pay less for our healthcare. After all the money you pay to the medical insurance company is a form of taxation to the tune of $7200 a year.

And don't think that I believe the UKs system is in anyway perfect - it is at least ethical and is not run to make a profit which comforts me greatly. The idea of making a massive profit out of essential medical treatment is kind of repugnant (or is that just me?). And I can assure any visitors that, should you get knocked down by a car on a street in London, regardless of where you're from or what your financial status is, we'll fix you up without checking you wallet for Visa or Mastercard ;) Don't expect a private room and colour TV though - thats for BUPA insurance patients. And, finally, yes if i can afford it one day soon i will take some private medical insurance out purely because I can afford it and because I like my home comforts. But I will still be paying the same National Insurance regardless as well.

Final point (honest): When it comes to the UK Elections in May this year you can be certain that one of the biggest issues will be the funding of the National Health Service. It is the one thing that the entire population of the UK (except for some extreme right wing nutjobs) support and believe in and to me is one of the few things that keep the Great in Great Britain.

Ok I'll shut up now  :P

Unfortunately, UK Visitor, there really isn't, unless you're indigent, disabled or have children.  And, it's a hassle for a single person to get Medicaid.  And, as far as raising taxes to pay for it, I don't see that happening.  I like the idea of your graduated buyout system, though.

Medicaid (the general name for government-funded health benefits for the indigent or disabled) operates under various names in different states.  For instance, here in Massachusetts it's call "Masshealth."  The quality varies from state to state.  It tends to be cheapskate and sub-par, but it is better than nothing.  The people who REALLY get rooked are the work-a-day chumps who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to buy private insurance.  Many companies, most notoriously Wal-Mart, offer healthcare packages that most employees can't afford to buy.

Hey, I'm for free sh*t for everybody--education, healthcare, housing subsidies and so forth.  I would love to see the greedy insurance companies take it in the shorts.  I love to watch the junkyard dog-right-wing howl when I advocate nationalization of social goods.  Socialized medicine and education can work swimmingly if we don't let private greed undermine it.

I'm right there with ya GWB! 
GOD BLESS US LOCKHEED, GOD BLESS US EVERYONE!
(good f**king grief!)
:P

Your comment about "people not government should be in control of their healthcare" shows just how far fascist propaganda has taken us.
It's supposed to be "Government of the people, by the people, for the people," not what it has become, "Government of the people by the corporations for the corporations"!

Then the insurance companies(this could be a whole thread on its own), not the doctor can dictate
care.  When I gave birth it was at the stroke of midnight.  The nurses put 12.01am on the birth certificate
because you are only allowed 2 days in hospital after the birth.  They wanted to make sure that
I would have Monday/Tuesday (going home Wednesday).  They worried that the insurance company
would count midnight as the day before(sunday) as part of the two days, which would give me one full day
of rest before booting me out.  I believe that there was a law put in effect because they were found to
be denying even two full days and sending mothers home after one day.  I have found that people are
going home after surgeries rather quickly, I don't see that as a wonderful, isn't it great they could heal
so well thing.  I see it as, your insurance company only pays for this much, you gotta go, NOW!

With 1/3 to 1/4 of the population of Vermont being uninsured, and several million nationwide, we


ARE


rationing health care, to those who are insured or have the bread to pay for it.  So we have millions of people not getting preventative care and using very expensive emergancy rooms when they are so far gone that they need to see a doctor.  The  hidden costs of all this are astronomical.  Estimates made by several differant researchers just concerning Vermont suggest that universal health care could actually save Vermont several millions of $$$ each year and provide better coverage than most people have now. 

We pay for education (to a degree) collecively, we maintain our roads etc collectively.  We should also take collective responsibility for our health needs.

agreed. Who cares about waiting lists... rich people will always have access to private health care anyway.

agreed. Who cares about waiting lists... rich people will always have access to private health care anyway.


Let us not forget education.  If you are direct descendant of one of the founders of Harvard and you
are accepted(not hard if you are named ohhhh...bush), your tuition is waived.  They don't make a
habit of letting people know about that lest the poor relations find out.  They do ask on the application
if you had a family member that attended, that is there nudge and wink.  So while a lot of a sudents of
limited means struggle to go find the money to go to school, and some don't go because of the money
factor, a lot of wealthy half-smarts worry about which wine they will have at dinner.

However when GW is paying $600 a month for healthcare, even under a union agreement, then I think we're better off over here as we pay less for our healthcare. After all the money you pay to the medical insurance company is a form of taxation to the tune of $7200 a year.



Hold up.  I pay nothing.  The health insurance I have is free from Lockheed.  It's expensive because it is Blue Cross Blue Shield (probably the most expensive in the nation,) pays EVERYTHING (not just half) and I get to choose where to go.  Other people can get affordable health insurance.

Again, it's free for me.  Under the socialized system, it would cost a minimum of 780 dollars extra in taxes per year.  So I pay NOTHING now, or pay 780 dollars extra a year.  Which is cheaper for me?  Hmm....

Hold up.  I pay nothing.  The health insurance I have is free from Lockheed.  It's expensive because it is Blue Cross Blue Shield (probably the most expensive in the nation,) pays EVERYTHING (not just half) and I get to choose where to go.  Other people can get affordable health insurance.

Again, it's free for me.  Under the socialized system, it would cost a minimum of 780 dollars extra in taxes per year.  So I pay NOTHING now, or pay 780 dollars extra a year.  Which is cheaper for me?  Hmm....


Do you only think of yourself?

Do you only think of yourself?


No.  But there is still no reason in any country that values economic freedom to take peoples' money for other people.  I shouldn't have to pay for anyones' healthcare I don't want to, nor should anyone else.

It's all about economic freedom.

No. But there is still no reason in any country that values economic freedom to take peoples' money for other people. I shouldn't have to pay for anyones' healthcare I don't want to, nor should anyone else.

It's all about economic freedom.


A person is not economically free if they have to choose between having something to eat, or getting the medicine they need.

And yes, you SHOULD have to pay. If you don't like it, suck it up. Or move to Saudi Arabia. There are no taxes in that country; I'm sure you will enjoy it.



...

Ok now that the absurdity has sunken in, let me explain to you what you have to do since you obviously won't be moving to Saudi Arabia anytime soon. You'll pay your taxes, like everyone else. That tax money doesn't go into the pockets of some faceless, evil g-men. It will pay for roads. It will pay for parks. It will pay for national defense. It will pay for social programs. And that is the key word, SOCIAL. Because you see, a few thousand years ago human beings got together to accomplish mutally beneficial things. We call this SOCIETY and you are a part of it. Now, if you don't want to be part of society, there is a place for CRIMINALS who don't pay their taxes. Federal prison.

Of course, you could always get out there and try to find some unclaimed land and make your own country where you can do whatever the heck you want regardless of the welfare of other human beings.

Or you can be a civilized human being.

Your choice.

No.  But there is still no reason in any country that values economic freedom to take peoples' money for other people.  I shouldn't have to pay for anyones' healthcare I don't want to, nor should anyone else.

It's all about economic freedom.


Well I guess that goes for all aspects fo life then. Private police, private armies, private roads, private, but then... as you go along you realilse "Hey, this is darn expensive! If we all clubbed together then it would get cheaper" and that was fine except some people fell by the wayside and couldn't afford to contribute to, umm, lets call it 'society', and those that could, well, they divided into the ones who said "Screw them, I'm okay jack" and those that said "Hang on, we're doing okay, why not lend those who can't make it on their own a hand" and luckily, in most places, the latter were in the majority and a thing called 'civilisation' occurred. And they all lived happily ever after....

...but they didn't cos those people that didn't agree started to get upset at having to pay taxes to support the poor who they believed should either work or die and so, while they wasted billions of dollars from societies purse on bombs and guns and tac breaks for the super wealthy, they decided to lay the blame for all of societies ills on the poor and the weak. Pretty soon 'civilisation' was packing its bags and heading out of town and we all lived crappily ever after. The End ?

Do you only think of yourself?

He'll deny it, but of course he does.  The difference between American Fascism and European Fascism is American Fascists pontificate on the virtues of selfishness.  European Fascists held the state came before the self.  They are both rotten to the core, of course.

The current American Fascist credo got its popular boost under the Reaganistas who ascribed to the Ayn Randian ideal that when you act out of pure self-interest, it benefits the entire society in turn.  Of course, this is horse puckey, and Ayn Rand is to philosophy what cotton candy is to nutrition.

You will notice the FIRST thing GWB implied was "I got mine!"  That was the unofficial slogan of the yuppies of the '80s.  Furthermore, you will notice when called on his selfish attitude, he replied with insipid muck about "economic freedom."

"Economic freedom" according to the American Right equalis "I got mine," whereas "you got yours by using a few pennies of my taxes" equals communist dictatorship.

Bear in mind that GWB's meal ticket is stamped by the federal government.  Lockheed makes its vast profits by bilking the Pentagon.  He will claim the defense industry is all that stands between you and America being taken over by Al Quaeda.  I'm not saying we don't need a military and defense contractors to provide for that military.  What we don't need is the kind crony capitalism defense contractors such as Lockheed get by their cushy relationships with the federal government. 

Lockheed is not a company of entrepeneurship or "economic freedom" it is a prime example of the military-industrial complex bleeding the taxpayers white with their pork barrel spending.

Danoota wrote:
Then the insurance companies(this could be a whole thread on its own), not the doctor can dictate
care.  When I gave birth it was at the stroke of midnight.  The nurses put 12.01am on the birth certificate
because you are only allowed 2 days in hospital after the birth.
This is the cause of the phenomenon known as the "drive-thru" birth.  Why give mother and child the best start in life they can have when insurance company fatcats can line their pockets with a few more nickels?  What's more important around here?  Infants and their mothers, or business executives and their bank accounts?
"Babies," you say?  You bleeding heart liberal!  Toughen up!  What do you think this is? Some kind of sissy socialist nanny state, like Sweden?

??? That worries me Max, because I have noticed that a LOT of people my age read Ayn Rand. Well, more than you think.

Also, I once had a substitute teacher for U.S. history who mentioned how much he admired Machiavelli's philosophy, and I was shocked that 2 different students chimed in saying they did too.

Today's modern neo-fascist movement in this country seems to have 3 main philosophers driving it's ideology. Rand, Machiavelli, and Leo Strauss. Ever heard of Strauss?

??? That worries me Max, because I have noticed that a LOT of people my age read Ayn Rand. Well, more than you think.

Also, I once had a substitute teacher for U.S. history who mentioned how much he admired Machiavelli's philosophy, and I was shocked that 2 different students chimed in saying they did too.

Today's modern neo-fascist movement in this country seems to have 3 main philosophers driving it's ideology. Rand, Machiavelli, and Leo Strauss. Ever heard of Strauss?

I know lots of people read Rand's novels at one time or another.  Read as fantastical literature, I suppose they're not so bad.  As a philosophy of how to be in the world and how to stratify social priorities....HEAVEN HELP US!
I've got less of a problem with the Big Mach because Machiavelli offers a great deal to theories of state power today.  He's more timeless.  Machiavelli serves as caution about the dangers of political dynamics.  Ayn Rand is a lot specious ballyhoo, something for white supremecists to read while eating a big juicy steak.  I'm afraid the legacy of Leo Strauss is a d@mned sight scarier.  His disciples reside in the thuggish halls of power of the neo-cons in the Bush administration, and the administration's rightwing think tank cohorts.  Think of names such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard N Perle, William Kristol.

Strauss is worth reading up on:
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935

Here is the "official" Strauss site:
http://www.straussian.net/

As with many philosophers from whom truly dangerous men derive their operative modes (Nietsche, Hobbes) the philosopher himself seems thoroughgoing and rational.  It is the degeneration of Straussian philosophy into greedy political practices and aggressive foreign policy that is so terribly perilous.
:o

A person is not economically free if they have to choose between having something to eat, or getting the medicine they need.

And yes, you SHOULD have to pay. If you don't like it, suck it up. Or move to Saudi Arabia. There are no taxes in that country; I'm sure you will enjoy it.



...

Ok now that the absurdity has sunken in, let me explain to you what you have to do since you obviously won't be moving to Saudi Arabia anytime soon. You'll pay your taxes, like everyone else. That tax money doesn't go into the pockets of some faceless, evil g-men. It will pay for roads. It will pay for parks. It will pay for national defense. It will pay for social programs. And that is the key word, SOCIAL. Because you see, a few thousand years ago human beings got together to accomplish mutally beneficial things. We call this SOCIETY and you are a part of it. Now, if you don't want to be part of society, there is a place for CRIMINALS who don't pay their taxes. Federal prison.

Of course, you could always get out there and try to find some unclaimed land and make your own country where you can do whatever the heck you want regardless of the welfare of other human beings.

Or you can be a civilized human being.

Your choice.


Thank you!!  I have been saying much the same thing for (it seems like) eons to no effect.  I hope your words make an impression - although I doubt it.

When poor people can't afford to see a private doctor they go to the emergancy room (read BIG BUCKS)).  When they can't afford their meds and insead choode to eat, they get sicker and go to the emergancy room (read bigger bucks).  And the beat goes on.  In this country we ration health care based on ability to pay, not need, and we do pay, all of us, including our conservative friends. 

Education should also be considered a right for every person no matter their personal finances.  We need the brian power, which, by the way, isnt  restricted to those who can afford graduate school.

Unfortunately, we don't have health care in this country-we have sick care. Insurence companies are total frauds but unfornately, that is the only thing we have in this country. Carlos got into a skiing accident many, many years ago and had his knee operated on. Since that time, he has been favoring that leg when he walks (unconsciencly of course). Because of that, his other knee is starting to give out. A simple shoe insert would solve the problem. But, the insurence company would not pay for the insert-but it would pay for the operation if it got to that point.  ::) Another example: (I don't know if this still holds true but I know that it held true years ago)  Insurence companies would not pay for birth control pills but would pay for an abortion. But yet, they will pay for some guy to get Viagra.  Does that make sense to anyone?? It doesn't to me. I think health care is just as important to sick care.


I think that EVERYONE-regardless of their financal situation should be able to go to a doctor. Unfortunately they don't have the "luxury" of preventive maintence so as Carlos said, they wind up in the E.R. when a trip to the doctor could have helped. I just think that it is very sad that we are supposed to be the richest nation in the world and we don't take care of our own.



Cat