Universal Healthcare?

[jonathan7]

Moved from Decision 08 - Please debate merits of Universal Healthcare in this thread...

 

Please discuss pros and cons of respective healthcare plans

 

As an outsider I will offer my commentary...

 

Yar-El - you are utterly wrong about universal health care, Britain (1950-2000), Sweden, Denmark, Norway and many other European Countries show that universal health care is affordable. But quite simply, even if it costs taxpayers money so what? I happen to think the right to medical treatment is a fundamental right and not a privilege. Indeed the right to medical treatment and as good a health as possible are far more important than freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does little good if one is too ill to get out of bed and exercise it. Why should someone who is ill but could be treated suffer because they don't have the money to do so? Why should external factors effect say the welfare of a child who has not asked to have leukaemia or parents who can't afford treatment? Basically ask yourself this - what is the life of another human being worth to you? Basically if you are not arguing for universal health care, I can only conclude that you have insurance that covers you, or a job that means it doesn't matter. As such does that extra tax of $10, $100, $500 for goods that you don't need for survival (TV, a second car, new gadgets etc) really matter as much as a human life?

[Yar-El]

As an outsider I will offer my commentary...

 

Yar-El - you are utterly wrong about universal health care, Britain (1950-2000), Sweden, Denmark, Norway and many other European Countries show that universal health care is affordable. But quite simply, even if it costs taxpayers money so what? I happen to think the right to medical treatment is a fundamental right and not a privilege. Indeed the right to medical treatment and as good a health as possible are far more important than freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does little good if one is too ill to get out of bed and exercise it. Why should someone who is ill but could be treated suffer because they don't have the money to do so? Why should external factors effect say the welfare of a child who has not asked to have leukaemia or parents who can't afford treatment? Basically ask yourself this - what is the life of another human being worth to you? Basically if you are not arguing for universal health care, I can only conclude that you have insurance that covers you, or a job that means it doesn't matter. As such does that extra tax of $10, $100, $500 for goods that you don't need for survival (TV, a second car, new gadgets etc) really matter as much as a human life?

I can see merit in your response jonathan7. Do we also have to be responsible for someone who does not work, but they are capable of doing such a task? I agree with your statement; however, I would want a plan to weed out lazy people and illegals immigrants. Getting those illegals into the system is important, so they can be apart of the solution. Lazy people don't deserve free healthcare coverage. Sitting on one's behind at tax-payers expense is unethical.

 

I have to read up on the European system. I was under the impression that it doesn't work. I cannot comment on something in which I'm not versed in. I was under the impression that European nations don't include immigrants, and their prescence is causing extreme pressure on their system. We have a similar problem here as well.

[Inyri]

Not everyone who is poor is a lazy slob.

 

And you're wrong; even lazy people have a right to life and health.

[Yar-El]

Not everyone who is poor is a lazy slob. And you're wrong; even lazy people have a right to life and health.

Who said anything about the poor? I know I didn't.

 

No. Lazy people do not deserve free healthcare. They are capable of working for their share. I refuse to pay for someone who likes to watch tv all day, but they do not want to get a job.

[Inyri]

So basically you then believe that the lazy deserve to die, since you don't think they deserve basic healthcare?

[Yar-El]

So basically you then believe that the lazy deserve to die, since you don't think they deserve basic healthcare?

Not at all. Lazy people are a burden on the system. I have no problem with them getting a job and working for their share. I didn't say they didn't deserve healthcare -- I said they didn't deserve free healthcare at taxpayer's expense.

[El Sitherino]

Who said anything about the poor? I know I didn't.

 

No. Lazy people do not deserve free healthcare. They are capable of working for their share. I refuse to pay for someone who likes to watch tv all day, but they do not want to get a job.

 

You're arguing under the illusion that Universal health care means people who are otherwise incapable of paying for insurance will enjoy the benefit of insurance. This is not true, it simply establishes a standard and picks up after the already established medicaid/medicare platform.

 

You clearly know nothing about what you are discussing and some education would serve you well. Call me biased if you want, it only further shows your ignorance of a large picture than that of your own home.

 

What you're basically saying is that I, a working class American who is attending school, is nothing more than a lazy slob. Thanks.

 

L2 America.

[jonathan7]

I can see merit in your response jonathan7. Do we also have to be responsible for someone who does not work, but they are capable of doing such a task? I agree with your statement; however, I would want a plan to weed out lazy people and illegals immigrants. Getting those illegals into the system is important, so they can be apart of the solution. Lazy people don't deserve healthcare coverage. Sitting on one's behind at tax-payers expense is unethical.

 

If someone is lazy they deserve to die? That is a rather massive jump I think - I think someone's work ethic should be entirely separate from if they can receive health care or not. Just so you know, the US economy would collapse without illegal immigrants - Something I love about the UK - that it doesn't matter who you are; if you need hospital treatment you will get it. So much for men being born equal in the states if you don't have universal healthcare...

 

I have to read up on the European system. I was under the impression that it doesn't work. I cannot comment on something in which I'm not versed in. I was under the impression that European nations don't include immigrants, and their prescence is causing extreme pressure on their system.

 

Which moron did you hear that off? The UK health system was the best in the world for 40 years 1950-1990 - only serious miss-management by the Government has caused problems since.

 

The system is fine - immigrants have to pay taxes so - they contribute the same as anyone else; Sweden is in many respect the way a country should be governed - have a look into the Swedish system - considering your complete ignorance about the European System, why are you claiming universal health care doesn't work?

[Yar-El]

I'm going to give people more time to respond. I will be back to check up later. Thinking that no one will take advatage of this system is faulty. We have people doing that right at this moment.

 

Why are people talking about death? or, dying? Who made that statement?

[Achilles]

Regulating universal health care is socialistic in nature, and it will cost American tax payers deeply in the long run.

This is rhetoric. Please tell us what "cost American tax payers deeply" means. Please define "long run" also. Thanks.

 

One of the consequences of living in New England is high taxes.

I'll take your word for it. Now please tell me how these two things are related? If you're going to argue for a causal relationship, then you're going to have to provide sources establishing one (i.e. how are taxes in New England dipersed amongst programs? How much more do New Englander's pay? How does this equate to taxable income vs non-taxable income for those that have to cover some portion of health care costs themselves. Et cetera).

 

We are also in an unstable economic atmosphere that requires careful spending. Adding a newly regulated group to the mix will put more stress on the taxpayer.

Okay. How much stress?

 

People such as myself also don't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare.

You already do. Medicare. Medicaid. Government healthcare for politicians, military personell (and their dependents), "enemy combatants" in Gitmo.

 

Taxpayers are now responsible for the reckless buisness practices of mortage lenders and banks.

Relevance? This is completely unrelated.

 

Eventually the system will crush both the wealthy and middle class.

How? Why?

 

I also don't like the idea of being told, "You now have to pay for someone else's medical bills."

Addressed above. How do you feel about being told that you also have to pay for someone else's access to emergency services, public libaries, postal services, etc? I think this is the third or forth time this argument has been presented to you and you've yet to address it.

 

Being responsible for a person's medical bills while they are job capable is foolish.

Please explain.

 

I can understand a loan for those people, but the tax payers need to be paid back.

You appear to be on a tangent now.

 

Afordable health insurance is a great idea, but it must come from making more options available.

Okay. Options like what? What options do you propose that aren't available now? Please be specific.

 

We must not force people or buisnesses into paying for other people's expenses.

Good thing Obama's plan has an opt-out for people that are pleased with their current insurance. Next objection please?

 

What will eventually happen is that employers will pass the cost of healthcare onto the workers.

Eventually? Try "already". This is a non-issue because it already happens. Obama's plan is to reduce the cost to the employee.

 

Wages will also be cut to accomidate the loss.

Source please.

 

Our country's price of life is allready at extreme standards. People who should be making $16 to $18 dollars an hour are being paid $11 to $12 an hour.

Source please.

 

We allready have a serious problem with getting employers to pay for skilled labor. (Immigration maybe an issue here as well.)

Unrelated.

 

Also: Slippery Slope

 

Between the ages of 22 and 23, young adults are finished with college. Why should parents cover the cost for young adults? They should have a job of their own by 23.

It's called "Graduate School".

 

(Time to look at McCain's healthcare plans. I will be back with an edit or post.)

Sounds good. I always like it when people research their positions after they've taken them

 

I agree with this 100%. More control in the family's hands is important. Allowing families to control where they want their money to be spent is important. Telling people where to spend the money is dictatorship.

Does this extend to "regular taxes" as well?

 

Most of the ideologies McCain makes available are similar to Obama's. They agree almost most of the time. Repeating what I said about Obama's plan but for McCain would be horrible.

Don't forget the other industrialized nations that J7 reference above. Would hate to think that maybe they all know something we don't too.

[El Sitherino]

I'm going to give people more time to respond. I will be back to check up later. Thinking that no one will take advatage of this system is faulty. We have people doing that right at this moment.

So simply because human nature is going to happen is reason to prevent progress of humanity?

You make less and less sense.

 

Why are people talking about death? or, dying? Who made that statement?

 

Because if you're denied insurance coverage because you're genetically pre-disposed to cancer you will die because you can't afford care by yourself. Under the universal healthcare system you will not be denied coverage simply because of this. This is why people support it. It also standardizes all healthcare insurance plans and fixes up the shoddy medicare/caid plan that you obviously oppose the current structure of. Why not vote for this to happen so that window for abuse is minimized?

 

Again, your ignorance of this topic points itself out in neon colors.

 

Also, it appears several people (including myself) have responded. You have yet to show how Universal Healthcare is faulty. Even non-American's have shown how it can benefit our country. To play an emotional card, I'm going to say patriotism is low on your priorities after 1."me", 2."me" and 3."my car"

[jonathan7]

I'm going to give people more time to respond. I will be back to check up later. Thinking that no one will take advatage of this system is faulty. We have people doing that right at this moment.

 

Which is better the innocent suffering, or the guilty taking advantage - you can only have it one way or the other. You have failed to address any of my points.

 

Why are people talking about death? or, dying? Who made that statement?

 

Imagine a lazy person has cancer - that can be treated but they can't afford it - they deserve to die because they are lazy.

 

I will again point out one of my previous - "Something I love about the UK - that it doesn't matter who you are; if you need hospital treatment you will get it. So much for men being born equal in the states if you don't have universal free healthcare..."

[Yar-El]

Imagine a lazy person has cancer - that can be treated but they can't afford it - they deserve to die because they are lazy.

That is a far stretch. Your playing with me now.

[El Sitherino]

That is a far stretch. Your playing with me now.

 

Actually I and nearly everyone in an oncology department can assure you this is not a stretch. In fact this is the all too common problem.

 

Again, please learn about a topic you want to debate. If you want to debate cancer, I'll be more than happy to shatter your preconceptions.

[Bimmerman]

I fully support a universal health care system-- it should not be true in this day and age that anyone will die or be forced into financial ruin all because they could not afford health insurance. Judging by your posts, Yar-El, it is extremely obvious you don't know what you're debating.

 

How is it fair that to keep a "lazy person" from gaming the system, I will be financially ruined or allowed to die if I need to go to the hospital for anything serious? I do not fit into the "lazy couch potato" category, but as a broke college student, I am one medical issue away from ruin. I cannot afford healthcare, and I rely on my family insurance to get me through college and grad school.(yes, I will be in school and broke until I'm well into my late 20s. Surprise!)

 

How is it fair that to keep from allowing a small percentage of people who will undoubtedly scam the system, hard working, jesus-loving, etc etc, Americans will die or be ruined? Health insurance is stupid expensive, but is extremely critical to have. If you can't afford it, as in if you have the misfortune of needing to eat, you die. Great system.

 

If you're poor, you die, if you're rich, you live! Yay! Your wealth level must be directly proportional to how hard of a worker you are, and not your education, socio-economic status, intelligence, etc. Hooray, the poor deserve to die because we can't let a few scam the system even though millions will benefit! I'd get banned for speaking my mind on your dogmatic "lazy vs everyone else" or "rich vs poor" or "socialist vs americuh!!!" logic, so I'll let my internet sarcasm do what it can.

 

I liken the likely tax increase to my view on gas taxes- as long as I benefit, I fully support it. I love driving and am addicted to gasoline, and I will gladly pay 4, 5, 10, 20 dollars per gallon in order to drive my not so efficient race car, especially if the gas taxes go to something useful like funding public transportation. I don't drive everywhere, and I live in a city with plenty of public transportation. I benefit by paying a negligible amount more, or by offsetting the cost by other methods(don't mention tax credits or hybrids, that's stupid talk).

 

Similarly, I will gladly pay more money in taxes to have a universal health care system where I don't have to worry that my next hospital visit will ruin my future or be my end. I won't have to be so embarrassed at the politicking and sleazy shenanigans that go on in the health care industry. Most important, our country will have a health system to be proud of instead of one at the lower end of first world nations.

 

As has been posted before, Canada, the UK, Germany, Sweden, and just about all modern countries have universal health care. Unlike our government, theirs actually care about their citizen's plight.

 

I'm nowhere near an expert on the health care industry here or abroad, but I do know enough to realize the benefits far outweigh the downsides. Do some actual research besides seeing what one candidate says versus the other- no politician has been seen in the wild anywhere near an elusive fact.

 

This is too rich to pass up on Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama. That is just weird. That is just insane. What is wrong with him? People do know that the human brain is not fully developed until the late teens. Right? I think some people around here talked about this yesterday. He is unethical or insane.

 

Your response is too good to pass up also- have you read the actual bill he proposed? Or at least the relevant passages?

 

If you had, you would realize that for the kindergartners that everyone's outraged for, the bill stipulates informing them what inappropriate touching is. How is this not a good thing? Is it better to not tell them when some behavior is considered sexual harassment? By them not knowing this who is being protected? Pedophiles. Bravo.

 

The bill did not propose telling kindergartners how babies are made or how to put on a condom or how aids is bad(m'kay?), but rather how to recognize what is harassment so that they could report it. Unless the parents are complete fools, prudes, and idiots, they have already done so. However, by requiring it to be taught in schools, everyone can feel better knowing that all kids know what constitutes harassment.

 

Merged double post - please use the edit post function in future - J7

[Pavlos]

Yar-El - you are utterly wrong about universal health care, Britain (1950-2000), Sweden, Denmark, Norway and many other European Countries show that universal health care is affordable.

Hear, hear! I say we all have a refreshing Beveridge.

 

Which moron did you hear that off? The UK health system was the best in the world for 40 years 1950-1990 - only serious miss-management by the Government has caused problems since.

It's one of the issues associated with socialised medicine that a democratically elected government is accountable for something as massive and important as the NHS.

 

If something doesn't work then people kick up a fuss. The fuss leads to government policy and because government has to be seen to be acting immediately on said fuss, the policy is generally badly thought out and a short-term solution. If they don't act then they lose face, are branded as 'immigrant-favouring lefties' by the Mail and 'right wing, back-door privatising backstabbers' by the Independent, and manage to spectacularly lose the next election, stopping off along the way to nationalise Northern Rock.

 

Successive governments fiddling with things (policies to remove matrons, then bring them back, and then implement 'super matrons' spring to mind...) leads to a right royal mess that can only be sorted out by an independent rethink and reorganisation of the NHS with long-term returns and goals set in mind: a modern-day Beveridge Report, if you will.

 

Unfortunately, democracy doesn't do well with long-term goals, it's a very knee-jerking, reactionary thing. Rather like middle England...

 

Anyway. Personally, if I were American, I'd vote for Barack Obama. Not out of any political idealism but simply because I'd like to see his face when he comes on a state visit to the UK and realises that one of his election slogans (yes we can) is the catch phrase of a BBC children's programme.

 

"We are the people we have been waiting for": does he get annoyed at himself for making him wait, I wonder?

[Yar-El]

I have to do more research on this subject. I have been reading both pros and cons to establishing Universal/Nationalised Healthcare. I admit in theory it sounds like a good idea, but I have also read up on the nightmares. I need more intel. Until I learn otherwise, I'm still against the idea. I will be back.

 

@ Palvos Yes we can, yes we can! Do they use it to teach kids to spell, read, and go potty?

 

---Edit added---

 

I did some really good research, and I will be displaying it here soon. I have found reliable sources from doctors, educators, and other professionals. All this talk about how Italy, Britain, Germany, Japan, and France having a great nationalized healthcare system is laughable. What started out as a Obama plan in other countries has turned into a crisis. Everything from the loss of liberties to limited funding caused by government cutbacks due to deficits. France is suffering from a massive deficit caused by their nationalized healthcare, and it has produced some very horrible results. Regulated forces have caused limitations in funding for each patient, private companies moving to other more free countries, and a reduction in medical sciences. European countries have more issues caused by nationalized healthcare than the United States system. After I'm done reading what I have found, I will post it here for your examination. Nationalized Healcare is a socialistic ideology, which does have several major - major drawbacks. People are telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. People are saying I lack the knowledge. You don't know me. I'm going to show you proof.

 

Governers in Massachusetts are scrambling for more funding. They missjudged the expense for state-wide healthcare, and they needed a bail out by the federal government. They also missjudged the number of people who needed healthcare. I will be back with more.

 

--- Added Edit ---

 

I needed someone who was a professional, unbiased, and has also talked to the government. As I said in a previous section, the National Healcare ideology has some serious drawbacks. I found someone who is in both support and against the idea. Who I ended up finding is a researcher at the CATO Institute named Michael Tanner. You be the judge.

 

A List of His Work and Research

 

PDF -- His findings on the effects of National Healthcare.

 

I also wanted to get an outsider. Professionals have more weight due to their experience, research, and education. I thought having an outsider's perspective would also spark some questions. Mark Valenti also has extensive research that Nationalized Healthcare is a bad idea. We must learn from history and not repeate it. Keep in mind that his information may be biased.

 

Outsider's Research -- Mark D. Valenti

 

Why do I have resources? Everyone who has challanged me doesn't. You blamed me for not knowing anything, but you didn't supply your own resources. I have more for a later time. I'm waiting for the right questions.

 

What you do with this information is of your own. We live in a free world.

[Achilles]

I have to do more research on this subject. I have been reading both pros and cons to establishing Universal/Nationalised Healthcare. I admit in theory it sounds like a good idea, but I have also read up on the nightmares. I need more intel. Until I learn otherwise, I'm still against the idea. I will be back.

Please explain to me the wisdom of researching your position after you've taken it (aka "I don't like X and now I'm going to go find out what my reasons are"). Some people might not mind this kind of "thinking", however others will and those people will find it very difficult to take you seriously.

 

People are telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. People are saying I lack the knowledge. You don't know me. I'm going to show you proof.

If you have to go find something in order to show us proof, that means you don't have "the knowledge".

 

I needed someone who was a professional, unbiased, and has also talked to the government.

Michael Tanner is not unbiased (hint: no one associated with a policy-making Washington think tank is unbiased. I hope that helps). If you're still looking for unbiased opinions, you're going to have to start again.

 

I also wanted to get an outsider. Professionals have more weight due to their experience, research, and education. I thought having an outsider's perspective would also spark some questions. Mark Valenti also has extensive research that Nationalized Healthcare is a bad idea. We must learn from history and not repeate it. Keep in mind that his information may be biased.

Mark Valenti is not your resource. The few dozen websites he's linked to are your source. Did you read any of them? Are you offering them up because they reflect your views (again, fallacies and all)? Or did you just find the website, decide that the headlines sounded provocative, and fall in love?

 

Remember my earlier observations about cherry-picking.

 

Why do I have resources? Everyone who has challanged me doesn't.

Because none of us have made bold claims that require supporting sources (???).

 

What you do with this information is of your own. We live in a free world.

Ok, I will. Thanks!

[Astor]

I did some really good research, and I will be displaying it here soon. I have found reliable sources from doctors, educators, and other professionals. All this talk about how Italy, Britain, Germany, Japan, and France having a great nationalized healthcare system is laughable.[/Quote]

 

Rubbish. If the National Health Service in Britain was as bad as people make it sound, I'd be dead.

 

Last year, i'd found a lump, and I went straight to my local hospital. five days, I was having an operation to remove it. It turned out to be potentially fatal.

 

Had I been in America, I wouldn't have been able to afford the treatment i'm now recieving, or the operation, or medication.

 

Maybe I was just lucky, but Nationalised Healthcare saved my life, and I don't have to worry about paying extensive medical bills or worry about paying for my next medical problem.

 

(I don't know if this has much to do with the topic, but I thought i'd try to show an advantage of Nationalised Health care)

[EnderWiggin]

I have to read up on the European system. I was under the impression that it doesn't work.

Oh, that's ok, you're just wrong.

I cannot comment on something in which I'm not versed in.

[/Thread] then?

 

Who said anything about the poor? I know I didn't.

 

No. Lazy people do not deserve free healthcare. They are capable of working for their share.

So you'd rather people die because they didn't "do their share"? What about their children? Should the children of the lazy also suffer?

 

Which moron did you hear that off? The UK health system was the best in the world for 40 years 1950-1990 - only serious miss-management by the Government has caused problems since.

 

Just quoting him so you'll actually read it this time.

 

Sweden is in many respect the way a country should be governed - have a look into the Swedish system - considering your complete ignorance about the European System, why are you claiming universal health care doesn't work?

 

And again.

 

Thinking that no one will take advatage of this system is faulty.

So all of the poor people and those who you'd agree deserve these benefits should suffer because of the chance that someone will take advantage of the system? How odd.

 

Why are people talking about death? or, dying? Who made that statement?

 

That's what happen when you can't afford treatment for life-threatening illnesses. It's unfortunate that you couldn't put that together

 

 

That is a far stretch. Your playing with me now.

No, he's really not.

 

I could say the same to you, since you seem to be blowing smoke

 

I did some really good research, and I will be displaying it here soon. I have found reliable sources from doctors, educators, and other professionals. All this talk about how Italy, Britain, Germany, Japan, and France having a great nationalized healthcare system is laughable.

 

It really isn't. I'm going to try to go get a third party opinion for you.

 

_EW_

[SD Nihil]

I don't want universal health care. If we have it then that means who else will pay for it. That's right the tax payers (us) will. Taxes are already high. Also, with ourcurrent economy when you have the government having to bail out companies like AIG this in my opinion would only make our troubles worse.

 

Canada has universal health care. Many Canadians come down to the United States because of surgeries where they cannot wait. In Canada you have to wait because with Universal Health Care you are subject to when the insurance company says you can get the surgery. In America the doctor can say you need the surgery right now if he thinks it's that dire.

 

In my opinion I believe the doctor should be the one in charge of when you get the care you need. Not some insurance company.

 

Another bad thing about it is your incentive to improve your level of care is dampened because of the level the government sets the level of care quotient. Meaning the government says you are to provide this level of care. If you work above it you don't get advancement, or get paid more. You just don't get awarded.

[Web Rider]

In my opinion I believe the doctor should be the one in charge of when you get the care you need. Not some insurance company.

 

I agree, but at the same time people shouldn't have to live with debilitating conditions because they couldn't afford it.

 

And if doctors became doctors for the money, they shouldn't have been doctors, doctors should be people who want to help others. This is what pisses me off about doctors who run off the Kenya and help the poor and sick there.

 

Those are the kind of people I want providing care here, people who are interested in keeping people healthy, not interested in making a quick buck off somebody's suffering.

[Jae Onasi]

I have met some of my colleagues who obviously stayed in the medical field because they enjoyed the good income. I've even seen a couple of complete crooks but had no definitive proof to turn them in--crooks exist in any field, and medicine is no exception. However, we don't usually get into the field for that reason. If we wanted just to make top money, we could put that same energy and passion into a business degree and make 10 times what a doctor typically makes. I see more people in the field for the prestige and respect than for money, if you have to peg what kinds of things attract us to that level of degree other than the purely altruistic 'helping people'. Most of us are in the field because we have an aptitude and even a gift for it, we enjoy helping others with their medical problems, and many times because some medical professional was influential in our lives in some way. For instance, someone who goes into neurology may do so because a neurologist saved his or her life or a family member's life, or eased a family member or friend's suffering in some substantially meaningful way.

 

The people who 'run off to Kenya' (or other places with inadequate healthcare) do so because they want to improve health and ease suffering in places that often times don't have adequate facilities, much less well-trained personnel. They see a desperate need far greater than in developed countries, and decide to fill that need.

[Bee Hoon]

The people who 'run off to Kenya' (or other places with inadequate healthcare) do so because they want to improve health and ease suffering in places that often times don't have adequate facilities, much less well-trained personnel. They see a desperate need far greater than in developed countries, and decide to fill that need.

Quoted for emphasis. The 'poor and sick in Kenya' are equally deserving, if not more so due to their dire need.

 

Yar-El: I am Malaysian, and we have your hated universal healthcare in place. Do I approve? Absolutely. I do not see what being lazy has anything to do with it. Has it ever occurred to you that some people may not be contributing taxes simply because they are out of the tax bracket? There are many poor families in Malaysia, especially in the rural areas and among the orang asli (the natives, or aborigines). Entire families often survive on less than RM1000 a month (which is hardly more than 300USD).

 

Is it wrong that these people should receive healthcare at the expense of those who can afford it? They are *not* lazy--many of them simply do not have the opportunities and privileges that you enjoy. The orang asli especially are still subsistence farmers. There is a Malay saying about this way of life: "kais pagi makan pagi, kais petang makan petang". It basically refers to a hand-to-mouth existence. We need not mention cancer in this context; they are often malnourished (either from an inadequate diet or parasitic infections or other causes), and thus even an attack of the 'flu can be fatal.

 

The system is not without its flaws (the crowded government hospitals; perennial shortages of staff especially specialists, many of whom join privately-owned hospitals), but perhaps consider the plight of the poor before you brand them as "lazy" and deny them this basic human right.

 

My parents like to think that their tax money goes towards healthcare, rather than ending up in the pocket of some corrupt politician.

[SD Nihil]

I agree, but at the same time people shouldn't have to live with debilitating conditions because they couldn't afford it.

 

Our system of capitalism isn't perfect. Not by a long shot. But in my opinion it's better than universal health care where you have to pay a lot more taxes wise to have universal care for everyone. Yes everyone may be getting some kind of care, but not really what they need. Where as with capitalism type care you have choice.

 

You research the best physician. You learn what kind of doctor they are. Are they for money or do they really care for the patient. I believe people go into medicine because they have a genuine want to care for others. They always have fear when performing say surgery. That's a life you have in their hands. And if one working on a patient tells you they are not scared for the patient or feel worry in every move they take then they are lying. You want to do everything right. These are good doctors.

 

Yes there are bad ones. They are more easily identified by their success rate. Let me also add there are some that will not perform a risky surgery on a patient for if the patient dies their stats go down. This is why you need to research your doctor and find out who he or she is person wise. When you talk to them do they seem sincere. Are they negative. Are they overly positive. Are they just blunt. Are they with their attitude showing signs that they are just a business man or do you see compassion in their tone and words.

 

You can never be sure of everyone. But you learn more about the physician and talk to them. Get to know them as a person.

 

Other countries like you've mentioned guys don't provide care well. We've given money to countries like Kenya and Africa. Their is corruption over there. Money doesn't get where it needs to. So it's more the government of those countries' fault and less ours. We gave. Those countries just aren't doing right for their people.

 

We live good lives in the US better than many third world countries. We are a rich nation. Money has gotten to the right places. We are humane. Some countries are not.

 

So work to afford the doctor you need. Universal health care doesn't give you that option. Everyone gets the same. That's not good enough for someone waiting for a hearth transplant. That's why they come here because they know they'll get the heart quicker rather than waiting for the insurance company to make a move.

 

Guys Universal Health care may sound good on paper, but it's not when actually implemented. Compare the mortality rate of a capitalism health care system and an universal health care system. And look at who has had less deaths under which system.

 

I can speak on this type of medical topic well in that my father is a retired Nurse Anesthetist. These are the guys that put you to sleep. The I V's, gas mask, that kind of thing. You need several in the room to deal with how much of this and that medicine they need while under surgery. Theirs another anesthetist watching the EKG and such.

 

Not to be confused with Anesthesiologist. That is a type of doctor that oversees the work of the nurse anesthetists under him. He's the one who says give this or that to the nurse anesthetists. The Anesthesiologist will write on the paper work saying he administered this medication or that even though it was his underlings who did.

 

My father retired due to his hearing getting bad. If not for his hearing loss he says he'd continue to work. But when you can't hear as well in the surgery room that can put the patient in more danger. 40yrs he worked.

 

So this just shows guys like my Dad do care for the patient and cared enough to know when it was time to quit.