Jed
Junior Member
Ruff!
Posts: 54
|
Post by Jed on Jan 8, 2010 11:27:13 GMT -5
The health care issue in the USA that is seeing so much controversy right now has to do with how the Government is attempting to take control of health care while others would like to see the Government stay out of trying to control health care and let the private sector do it.
While there will always be ways that the government must be involved with certain areas of our lives, the problem is that having the government control health care would naturally give the government too much control over so many other areas as well. That would be where the government crosses the line and it would go against what our founding fathers fought against.
Does anyone have good reasons that we should allow the government to control health care?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 8, 2010 13:28:16 GMT -5
The argument is that the free market won't ever get costs down and won't act ethically. Some people actually want government takeover of health care, others just want them to do something to help get more people insured - and those that are already insured to have a cheaper option.
I do believe that we need some sort of reform on health care, as most people do, but not complete government takeover of it.
|
|
|
Post by lifedrinker on Jan 9, 2010 9:59:08 GMT -5
i remember when this issue first cropped up, probably a bit later in the british press than it was in the american press, but the thing i remember most clearly is some idiot british politican had gone over to america in order to give his opinions on this matter and he basically said that our healthcare system is appalling (britain's national health service is an example of this kind of government-run healthcare system). if any of you remember this guy on tv i implore you to forget his remarks, i have strong suspicions that he was being paid or strongly persuaded to make these remarks in order to further certain political agendas in the u.s. (that's just my view and others may disagree). our system certainly has its flaws but it is very good at providing healthcare when it is needed without charging people thousands of pounds for necessary procedures. i believe canada has the same system? and it works well there too.
i am not very clued up on the american healthcare system, i admit, and to be honest it sounds fantastic as it is, you undoubtedly have some of the best doctors and health professionals in the world in the U.S. however from everything i have heard over the past couple of months, these proposed reforms could do a lot to help a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 9, 2010 15:44:39 GMT -5
This might be a good topic for me to put together a sort of bullet list of argument from each side for quick reference (one of the features of the forum I had in mind when creating it). I'll use discussions on this thread to help make it.
Health care is one of the gray areas for me. The reason it would be good, if it would work as promised, is that it would provide care to those who need it without costing thousands of dollars, like you said. And it would bring costs down for everyone else. That is, if it works as "advertised". Reasons I am wary of it: most of those who are actually voting on it haven't even read the bill (!), it will cost billions of dollars, might fund controversial and immoral things such as abortion, there are much longer waiting lists to get procedures done in places such as Canada, and just might not work as well as it should and is right now, among other thigns. It could be that your system in the UK does work well, but other things that our American government runs, such as Medicare, Social Security, and the Post Office (something that Obama himself said is not run well....) all of those things are basically headed to bankruptcy.
|
|
Jed
Junior Member
Ruff!
Posts: 54
|
Post by Jed on Jan 10, 2010 11:36:04 GMT -5
i remember when this issue first cropped up, probably a bit later in the british press than it was in the american press, but the thing i remember most clearly is some idiot british politican had gone over to america in order to give his opinions on this matter and he basically said that our healthcare system is appalling (britain's national health service is an example of this kind of government-run healthcare system). if any of you remember this guy on tv i implore you to forget his remarks, i have strong suspicions that he was being paid or strongly persuaded to make these remarks in order to further certain political agendas in the u.s. (that's just my view and others may disagree). our system certainly has its flaws but it is very good at providing healthcare when it is needed without charging people thousands of pounds for necessary procedures. i believe canada has the same system? and it works well there too. i am not very clued up on the american healthcare system, i admit, and to be honest it sounds fantastic as it is, you undoubtedly have some of the best doctors and health professionals in the world in the U.S. however from everything i have heard over the past couple of months, these proposed reforms could do a lot to help a lot of people. I am not sure if I heard the same person you are referring to or not, but we have been hearing from people on both sides, both in UK and Canada. It appears that, as Josh mentioned, one factor is the time it takes to receive the care needed, but it also comes down to the fact that there would be rationing of care. As far as the reforms that are in the bill, we really don't know whether they would help or not because they have not shared the bill with the people. Everything is happening behind closed doors. There are certain elements of the bill that have been shown and many of those that have been exposed will NOT help a lot of people. One of the things that the state-run media attempts to get across to people is that everyone has a right to health care and that somehow people are dying because they don't have it. If you look at the reality though, it is simply agenda driven propaganda. Our laws make it so that you cannot refuse someone medical treatment whether they have insurance or not. It appears to me that the biggest factor in this all is that the Marxist minded elites in the government are attempting to gain control of health care simply to further their socialist agenda.
|
|
|
Post by lifedrinker on Jan 10, 2010 12:18:56 GMT -5
I am not sure if I heard the same person you are referring to or not, but we have been hearing from people on both sides, both in UK and Canada. It appears that, as Josh mentioned, one factor is the time it takes to receive the care needed, but it also comes down to the fact that there would be rationing of care. As far as the reforms that are in the bill, we really don't know whether they would help or not because they have not shared the bill with the people. Everything is happening behind closed doors. There are certain elements of the bill that have been shown and many of those that have been exposed will NOT help a lot of people. One of the things that the state-run media attempts to get across to people is that everyone has a right to health care and that somehow people are dying because they don't have it. If you look at the reality though, it is simply agenda driven propaganda. Our laws make it so that you cannot refuse someone medical treatment whether they have insurance or not. It appears to me that the biggest factor in this all is that the Marxist minded elites in the government are attempting to gain control of health care simply to further their socialist agenda. and what's wrong with a little socialism? i'm just kidding. you are certainly correct about waiting times. i know a lot of people who have been stuck on waiting lists for months here. that is certainly one of the benefits of 'going private' (there are numerous private healthcare firms in this country which we can go to if we get sick of the NHS, hehe). we do also face the issue of rationing of certain drugs as well as i think you alluded to when you mentioned the rationing of care. in the uk the drugs prescribed by the NHS are vetted by a body called N.I.C.E. and they basically have to weigh up what drugs the system can afford and which it can't. for example in recent times a breast-cancer drug named herceptin was shown to have very positive results in women with breast cancer tumours, and many people campaigned to have it available on the NHS. the argument put forward by NICE was that if they put money into that, they will inadvertantly be diverting money away from other illnesses for example testicular cancer. they have to make very very careful decisions about what they fund and a lot of people understandably have protested about some of their decisions. is there some legal reason why the bill hasn't been shared with the public...?
|
|
Jed
Junior Member
Ruff!
Posts: 54
|
Post by Jed on Jan 10, 2010 12:34:20 GMT -5
is there some legal reason why the bill hasn't been shared with the public...? No legal reasons that have been made known at this point that I am aware of. All of the secrecy simply adds to the peoples mistrust and causes them to conclude that there is so much secrecy due to the high rate of corruption and back room deals that have been taking place. Many assume that if the public could see what they are doing they wouldn't have a chance at passing their agenda so they can't possibly air it, even though Barack Hussein Obama promised he would do just that.
|
|
|
Post by littlebopeep on Jan 10, 2010 17:40:53 GMT -5
I think that one (of the many) big problems with this bill is that so many little "pet projects" are being put into it. In other words, a lot of bribery is going on (and these Senators accepting these bribes should be in trouble, because bribery is a crime). Many Senators are saying, "Okay, I'll vote for this bill since you'll give me this for my state..." No wonder the bill is 2,000 pages long. We would be paying for a ton of waste. If we want something that will be more effective, each state should create their own healthcare plan, with the option to buy across borders to keep competition up, and prices down. One big monopoly by the Federal Government would be an absolute mess. With a country as big as the United States is, there is no way that everyone will get what they need. If you make healthcare localized, each state can make much better decisions for their citizens. (If you have to make healthcare government run to begin with, which I don't think it needs to be.) Plus, then if healthcare is based by states, at least your taxes will be going towards your own state's care not, for someone across the country. Also each budget would be so much smaller, easier to plan, and easier to keep unneccesary waste out. When the bill covers everyone in the U.S., how is anyone going to know if people are adding millions or billions of dollars in waste or not? One other note: if healthcare was localized to the states, people would have a much easier time having their say heard, and possibly have their ideas taken into consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 10, 2010 22:43:39 GMT -5
You are so right, no one should get away with bribery, especially when it has to do with the fate of our country! When I heard that they were bribed into voting for it, and no one got into trouble for it, I was shocked. That should not be happening, it's embarrassing for not only our country but also it shows how selfish some people are, that they'd cave into voting for something that they are against just to get some money...
The state options is a better idea, like you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by lifedrinker on Jan 11, 2010 4:35:11 GMT -5
If we want something that will be more effective, each state should create their own healthcare plan, with the option to buy across borders to keep competition up, and prices down. One big monopoly by the Federal Government would be an absolute mess. With a country as big as the United States is, there is no way that everyone will get what they need. If you make healthcare localized, each state can make much better decisions for their citizens. (If you have to make healthcare government run to begin with, which I don't think it needs to be.) Plus, then if healthcare is based by states, at least your taxes will be going towards your own state's care not, for someone across the country. Also each budget would be so much smaller, easier to plan, and easier to keep unneccesary waste out. When the bill covers everyone in the U.S., how is anyone going to know if people are adding millions or billions of dollars in waste or not? One other note: if healthcare was localized to the states, people would have a much easier time having their say heard, and possibly have their ideas taken into consideration. that is a very good point. i guess critics would say that you might then have the problem of varying standards from state to state? but i guess that could be solved with basic legislation/regulatory bodies..
|
|