Would Socialist Healthcare Be Acceptable If...

[ShivanCommander]

Being a conservative leaning libertarian, I obviously don't support universal healthcare. But would it be acceptable if it existed, but the ONLY people who had to pay taxes to support it would be people who wanted it. Everyone else would get normal privatized healthcare. But certain people can choose to have government healthcare, and only those people have to have higher income taxes. And the rest of the population would still have private healthcare, but not have to pay higher income taxes. That way the poor people get healthcare and the non-poor people can still have economic freedom. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[BigRob]

Being a conservative leaning libertarian, I obviously don't support universal healthcare. But would it be acceptable if it existed, but the ONLY people who had to pay taxes to support it would be people who wanted it. Everyone else would get normal privatized healthcare. But certain people can choose to have government healthcare, and only those people have to have higher income taxes. And the rest of the population would still have private healthcare, but not have to pay higher income taxes. That way the poor people get healthcare and the non-poor people can still have economic freedom. What are your thoughts on this?

Under our tax code this is simply impossible. The "poor" don't pay any federal taxes really, so good luck pushing such an idea through Congress which would be played as a massive tax increase on the poor, and special treatment for the rich.

 

[Dr.Who]

Lets assume that half the people in the country wanted socialist health care and half did not. Lets also assume that the half who wanted it all lived in the East and the half that did not want it all lived in the West.

Every state that wanted it could enact it for their own state and every state that did not could decide not to enact it for themselves.

Were I against it and lived in the West I would not object to those in the East having it for themselves. Not until some people in the East decided that they no longer wanted it. I would then oppose their being forced to accept what they do not want.

So lets pretend that in the East no one ever objects to it.

It would be just as workable for about 25 states to have it as for 50 to have it (which in my opinion is not workable but I don't object of they want to try it)

And soon enough we would all see that the West would be more prosperous and healthy.

In the East you would go for treatment and present your socialist card and in the West you would present your other insurance card and you would be treated accordingly.

If we could split up the nation along geographic lines why couldn't we split it along other lines? Maybe virtual lines? Let everyone who wants it live anywhere geographically but carry their socialist health care card and everyone who does not want it carry some other health insurance card. Then when you go in for treatment you get what you signed up for. those with the socialist card can get the "high quality" treatment like they have in Cuba. And those with the other insurance cards can have the "awful" health care like we have in the US now.

(that is somewhat tongue in cheek)

 

[Indiolor]

Under our tax code this is simply impossible. The "poor" don't pay any federal taxes really, so good luck pushing such an idea through Congress which would be played as a massive tax increase on the poor, and special treatment for the rich.

Yeah, basically.

 

[dogtowner]

Yeah, basically.

but to be fair, they SHOULD be paying up. or if they don't care to then they surrender their vote. thats a fair tradeoff.

 

[Indiolor]

but to be fair, they SHOULD be paying up. or if they don't care to then they surrender their vote. thats a fair tradeoff.

I'll agree with that as well.

 

[Saxon]

Lets assume that half the people in the country wanted socialist health care and half did not. Lets also assume that the half who wanted it all lived in the East and the half that did not want it all lived in the West.

Every state that wanted it could enact it for their own state and every state that did not could decide not to enact it for themselves.

Were I against it and lived in the West I would not object to those in the East having it for themselves. Not until some people in the East decided that they no longer wanted it. I would then oppose their being forced to accept what they do not want.

So lets pretend that in the East no one ever objects to it.

It would be just as workable for about 25 states to have it as for 50 to have it (which in my opinion is not workable but I don't object of they want to try it)

And soon enough we would all see that the West would be more prosperous and healthy.

In the East you would go for treatment and present your socialist card and in the West you would present your other insurance card and you would be treated accordingly.

If we could split up the nation along geographic lines why couldn't we split it along other lines? Maybe virtual lines? Let everyone who wants it live anywhere geographically but carry their socialist health care card and everyone who does not want it carry some other health insurance card. Then when you go in for treatment you get what you signed up for. those with the socialist card can get the "high quality" treatment like they have in Cuba. And those with the other insurance cards can have the "awful" health care like we have in the US now.

(that is somewhat tongue in cheek)

That is, IF your insurance company agrees to pay for any medical treatment. I have read many horror stories about people in the US paying for their health insurance premiums, but being refused treatment. That is illegal here in Canada. Pull that shit here in Canada, and you'll be looking at 10 - 20 in the Don Jail. That's why our system is so far superior to the AMerican system.

 

[Dr.Who]

That is, IF your insurance company agrees to pay for any medical treatment. I have read many horror stories about people in the US paying for their health insurance premiums, but being refused treatment. That is illegal here in Canada. Pull that shit here in Canada, and you'll be looking at 10 - 20 in the Don Jail. That's why our system is so far superior to the AMerican system.

If an insurance company refuses to honor its contract then the person who bought the policy can take the company to court where the gov can do what it should do and decide the rightness or wrongness of the case without taking sides. But if the entity offering the insurance IS the government then it cannot stand in judgement against itself in any impartial way. The people can of course take insurance companies to court because it is illegal here in the states to break a contract.

Don't believe all the stories you have heard. There is a lot of propaganda as your yourself have stated.

Other Canadians I have known are pretty adamant that they live in America and they never make the mistake of indicating that people from the states are the sole representative of the American system. That kind of mistake is usually made by arrogant people in the states. Perhaps you live in the States, are a Democrat, and pretend to be Canadian?

 

[Iolo2]

Only madmen and thieves support making people's health a profitable business. That is why the USA has the most expensive health system in the world, and one that even after all the blather STILL doesn't cover everyone. Senator McCarthy did you boys and girls no manner of good when he scared you all shitless.

 

[Dr.Who]

Only madmen and thieves support making people's health a profitable business. That is why the USA has the most expensive health system in the world, and one that even after all the blather STILL doesn't cover everyone. Senator McCarthy did you boys and girls no manner of good when he scared you all shitless.

Historically, those who wanted to eliminate the profit motive victimized the most people. At first glance the US system seems very expensive but after a more complete look it is actually not the most expensive.

 

[Iolo2]

Historically, those who wanted to eliminate the profit motive victimized the most people. At first glance the US system seems very expensive but after a more complete look it is actually not the most expensive.

The NHS is much cheaper and hugely more efficient. That's why your quislings over here are desperate to destroy it.

 

[dogtowner]

The NHS is much cheaper and hugely more efficient. That's why your quislings over here are desperate to destroy it.

if you refuse 65% of pharma and limit tx (especially if expensive) its easy to spend less.
but who is getting the short end of the stick ?

 

[Saxon]

If an insurance company refuses to honor its contract then the person who bought the policy can take the company to court where the gov can do what it should do and decide the rightness or wrongness of the case without taking sides. But if the entity offering the insurance IS the government then it cannot stand in judgement against itself in any impartial way. The people can of course take insurance companies to court because it is illegal here in the states to break a contract.

Don't believe all the stories you have heard. There is a lot of propaganda as your yourself have stated.

Other Canadians I have known are pretty adamant that they live in America and they never make the mistake of indicating that people from the states are the sole representative of the American system. That kind of mistake is usually made by arrogant people in the states. Perhaps you live in the States, are a Democrat, and pretend to be Canadian?

The insurance company refuses to honour its contract. The policyholder decides to sue... BUT, needs thousands upon thousands of dollars to take it to court, a court so corrupt I do not even wish to discuss it other than that you may rest assured many of your courts are in the pockets of the insurance industry. If the entity offering the insurance IS the government, there is no reason to take it to court because it will ALWAYS honour its contract. It is illegal to do so. The government even hints at any refusal, it will lose power. Hmmm, which system is better again???? EDITED FOR PERSONAL ATTACK
You would rather be at the mercy of a corporation out to profit from you as much as possible, even to the point of making your very contract with them null and void? You go right ahead. I'll stick with my 'socialised' healthcare.
Propaganda? The stories are real, and make very much sense. Remember, the medi'care' industry in the US's sole raison-d'etre is PROFIT. Nothing else. Canada's medicare system does not give a shit about profit, hence no such need for such corruption. You Americans love it when your fellow citizens suffer, as it means profits from your shares of the corporations. 'Ooooh, he's got cancer! Looks like a winner gentlemen!! Long-term needs, hence long-term profit! A toast to the bastard's illness! He's gonna make us stinking fucking rich!! Yeah!!! Let us pray the fucker's insurer doesn't find a loophole in their contract to get themselves out of this one! Crafty bastards!'

 

[Saxon]

Historically, those who wanted to eliminate the profit motive victimized the most people. At first glance the US system seems very expensive but after a more complete look it is actually not the most expensive.

Historically, those who wanted to eliminate the profit motive victimized the most people

Absolutely the dumbest, stupidest, most-retarded thing I have ever read. Come up here and say that to ANY CAnadian. He/she will point at you and say 'now ladies and gentlemen, THAT is why we are not Americans!' I am astonished that people like you exist.

 

[dogtowner]

Absolutely the dumbest, stupidest, most-retarded thing I have ever read. Come up here and say that to ANY CAnadian. He/she will point at you and say 'now ladies and gentlemen, THAT is why we are not Americans!' I am astonished that people like you exist.

back in the USSR when docs were compensated the same if they saw one patient or 100 tended to see far fewer than docs seeing as many as they could reasonably see. not unlike why the five year plans always failed as there was no incentive for "the workers" to work.

cannucks are restricted to the bottom 35% of pharma based on cost alone. never mind the inability to support the needed diagnostic testing causing delays sometimes fatal.