Why not free universal healthcare if

[russ_watters]

Please quote where I stated that the US healthcare system has no problems. I have never, ever, ever made such a claim.

I'll make it nice and explicit: The US healthcare system, like all healthcare systems, has flaws. The flaws in a universal system are different from the flaws of a system where people get their own insurance, but essentially:

The US healthcare system provides a wonderfully high level of care (perhaps the best in the world) that is unfortunately, not evenly available. In addition, corporate lobbyists have too much influence on legislation of our system, which has resulted in laws adverse to the consumer and costs that are inflated beyond the improvements in level of care/inflation.

It is my opinion that the US should not have universal healthcare because it would create more problems than it would solve. The US should reduce the influence of lobbyists, allowing it to enact laws to better manage competition and avoid monopoly price controls and price fixing, as well as enact laws mandating optional employee healthcare options for all full time workers.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That's a stupid question, one I don't feel the need to answer.

The stupid question being "why isn't alcohol free". But it is the question that reveals the answer to the OP's question "why isn't healthcare free". Would you reserve to yourself the privilege of defining basic needs, and not allow me the same? If everyone could define what is basic and the government had to fund it, then everything would be free for everybody. That is impossible. So we have elected legislators who decide what to fund and what not to fund. They don't jump to my tune any more than yours. If you want them to fund your idea of basic needs, then you will need to show your legislators, to their satisfaction, not yours, that it is in their best interest to indulge you. So far, you have not accomplished this. I'm working day and night on the alcohol thing. I did get them to make it legal, but they won't foot the bill. I put the blame on me.

 

[Benzoate]

I have a proposal. Why not make a dual healthcare system , where healthcare is fully supported by the government and other portion of our healthcare system is supported by private insurance. This dual healthcare system would be analogous to our education system , which parents have the option of choosing to send their kid to a private or public school . the funding for healthcare doesn't have to be completely private or completely public.

 

[wildman]

I would like to see what sources you used to obtained to this information.

Canada's health care costs 1/3 of what it cost (per capita) as in the US. This is less than what our government pays per capita for health care. Actually, our government pays way too much for health for what it gets...The US government could probably offer basic universal health care and actually cut spending.

 

[mheslep]

Here's a http://bp0.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/Rzmah0RKkiI/AAAAAAAACxM/_yTMErbhbmE/s1600-h/le1.bmp" (pg 18), "How Does the U.S. Health-Care System Compare to Systems in Other Countries?" by U. Iowa researchers that also discuss the WHO rank:
Pg 4:

WHO Rankings
• Ranking methodology subjected to significant
criticism in academic circles (Science, Health
Economics)
• But oft cited as ‘authoritative’ nonetheless ...

The study also confirms that the WHO ranking for the US is partly based on 'inequitable' access, i.e., not only on the excellence of the medical system. Two different things.

 

[mheslep]

I have a proposal. Why not make a dual healthcare system , where healthcare is fully supported by the government and other portion of our healthcare system is supported by private insurance. This dual healthcare system would be analogous to our education system , which parents have the option of choosing to send their kid to a private or public school . the funding for healthcare doesn't have to be completely private or completely public.

Observation of the public school system leads me to argue the opposite, that throwing those most in need of help to the mercies of some government run system is abandoning them.

 

[mheslep]

Here's the breakdown on the 47million uninsured:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin"

STATEMENT 2 Some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance.

This number from the Census Bureau is often cited as evidence that the health system is failing for many American families. Yet by masking tremendous heterogeneity in personal circumstances, the figure exaggerates the magnitude of the problem.

To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens. Many are illegal immigrants. Even if we had national health insurance, they would probably not be covered.

The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government’s health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.[~about 9million]

The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.

Of course, millions of Americans have trouble getting health insurance. But they number far less than 47 million, and they make up only a few percent of the population of 300 million.

Any reform should carefully focus on this group to avoid disrupting the vast majority for whom the system is working. We do not nationalize an industry simply because a small percentage of the work force is unemployed. Similarly, we should be wary of sweeping reforms of our health system if they are motivated by the fact that a small percentage of the population is uninsured.

 

[mheslep]

... I specifically mentioned infant mortality because when the numbers for developed countries are so low, differences in measurement methods and in amount of effort made to save low birth-weight babies far outweighs any actual difference in the quality of prenatal care.

Myths of US healthcare: http://drugwonks.com/2007/11/debunking_some_health_care_urban_myths.html
The Cuba vs US infant moratlity myth: http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000022.html
From the second link, the primary reason the US's statistics on infant morality are so "bad" is that we try harder than anyone else in the world to save premature infants and give birth and death certificates to infants that other countries would list as stillborn:

I also suspect the abortion rate (EU higher vs US lower) has some influence on mortality (per Evo on another thread).

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The word "free" is not the bone of contention, SD. Everyone understands that "free" really means provided by the government and paid for by our taxes.

The bone of contention is where you claimed every basic need should be provided by the government.

I didn't.

So then you acknowledge that the statistics, historically, have been flawed?

In any case, can you provde support for your claim that statistical methods were fixed between 2006 and 2007. Ie, is the data now collected by the WHO instead of being provided to it by individual countries? Please quote where I stated that the US healthcare system has no problems. I have never, ever, ever made such a claim.

I already have on another thread, and frankly am kind of bored of this. If you want to play the semantic game then feel free, but I think the statistics speak for themselves and are pretty clear. You can believe what you like, I'm not really that bothered to be frank.

Also, infant mortality can't really be used as an argument for universal heath care in the US, since assistance, including just plain free care, is available for everyone in the US.

http://www.4woman.gov/faq/prenatal.htm#i

Yes apparently nothing can, if you manipulate everything and spin it it all looks rosey.

The stupid question being "why isn't alcohol free". But it is the question that reveals the answer to the OP's question "why isn't healthcare free". Would you reserve to yourself the privilege of defining basic needs, and not allow me the same? If everyone could define what is basic and the government had to fund it, then everything would be free for everybody. That is impossible. So we have elected legislators who decide what to fund and what not to fund. They don't jump to my tune any more than yours. If you want them to fund your idea of basic needs, then you will need to show your legislators, to their satisfaction, not yours, that it is in their best interest to indulge you. So far, you have not accomplished this. I'm working day and night on the alcohol thing. I did get them to make it legal, but they won't foot the bill. I put the blame on me.

I don't know why you insist on comparing alcohol to healthcare for all, really, one is accepted as a basic need in every Western country except the US. I don't need to convince anyone of anything, I don't live in the US. I just feel somewhat saddened that a country places profit over providing healthcare for whatever minority it is who can't get it. That people forgo treatment because of the expense, that people chose lesser cheaper treatments like wise, that half of your expense is incurred from insurance and legal claims, that your expense itself means you pay either similar amounts or more than most Western countries out of your taxes anyway, that any number be it 15% or otherwise are denied medical care, is frankly pretty lame. And personally I don't agree that obesity, smoking and other factors that place a burden on healthcare shouldn't be included in the statistics, but meh, I suppose if you moan enough.

Observation of the public school system leads me to argue the opposite, that throwing those most in need of help to the mercies of some government run system is abandoning them.

Yes of course the fact that the top 15 Healthcare providers are all at least part nationalised of course has nothing to do with it? Healthcare for those who need it, private or nationalised and in any circumstance rich or poor is abandoning them. Care to justify that? Sounds like the opposite is the case to me.

Here's a http://bp0.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/Rzmah0RKkiI/AAAAAAAACxM/_yTMErbhbmE/s1600-h/le1.bmp" (pg 18), "How Does the U.S. Health-Care System Compare to Systems in Other Countries?" by U. Iowa researchers that also discuss the WHO rank:
Pg 4:

The study also confirms that the WHO ranking for the US is partly based on 'inequitable' access, i.e., not only on the excellence of the medical system. Two different things.

This is basically ignore where the stats appear unfavourable or explain them away and focus on where we do well. It seems to me that if you don't like the WHO system, that's more to do with it not suiting everyone, but being a best fit for all. And also of course the fact that it shows any areas where there are concerns.

 

[vanesch]

Vanesch I never said all basic needs should be free either, so where that came from is also a mystery.

I guess you mean: Russ, I never ...

 

[vanesch]

Heck, I'm still trying to get my arms around the idea that there are people who believe all basic needs should be provided by the government. I didn't know anyone actually believed such a thing.

Could I see a logical explanation for why the government should provide such things for free, followed then by a logical explanation for how a goverenment could provide such things? In particular:

-What political theory holds that it is the responsibility of government to provide for all the basic needs of all citizens?
-Based on the history of economics, is there an example of a system that was capable of functioning (stable-ly) without the primary motivator for human activity (need) applying? Ie, if peoples' needs are met without any effort, why would people work?

History is chock-full of counterexamples, such as the pervasive medicrity of life in the USSR prior to its demise, and the lack of an increase in poverty rate with the slashing of welfare rolls in the US a few years ago. And western political theory is based on the concept of individual freedom, which necessarily must similarly include individual responsibility.

One thing is sure: a system that provides for ALL NEEDS for FREE has been tried, it's called communism, and we've seen that it doesn't work very well.

But I think the gist of this discussion is: can we morally accept in a modern society, that there are people who aren't able to provide in their BASIC needs (that means that they are put in a life-threatening situation, otherwise the needs aren't basic), and that we let them just rotten, while others are enjoying crazily superfluous luxuries ? Is it morally acceptable that a 5-year old kid is not getting any food, has no clothes, must walk in the rain and hasn't any place to hide, just because his parents are poor ?

As such it is a moral/political question: you can answer yes or no to the above question and related questions. But answering "no, that's not acceptable" is not an absurd viewpoint. And from there on, you can go further. Because of course there's no such thing as a free lunch. So IF you want to provide that kid with a coat, some place to live, a piece of bread, etc... then this must come from somewhere. So one can decide politically that it are those that are pretty wealthy that should give a small part of what they have to take care of that kid. Or you can decide that it should be his (poor) relatives, who should, I don't know, sell their organs or so to do so. All these are political choices, that shape the society one lives in. Of course it has a price. Of course, overall wealth will probably decrease a bit (according to some economic theories) if we do that. Yes, we will be a bit less rich if we do so. Yes, the economy will work a bit less good if we tax, take away some motivation, etc...

But it may be a political choice that that is an acceptable price to pay in order to solve some moral dilemma. It may also be a political choice that we're not going to sacrifice any economical competitiveness, and if that means that some kids must die of hunger, well then that's an acceptable price. All these are choices. Political choices.

The only thing that is required is that people are well-informed about what each choice, good and bad, holds in for them and for society.

So it might be a political choice that the most basic needs are maybe not provided for free to everybody, but are at least somehow guaranteed by the collectivity. If you are really so poor as not to be able to afford a coat, well, we'll try to give you one. If you are cold and you don't know where to sleep this night, well we'll try to find you a roof for the night (not a house!) Etc. But not a car, an airplane, caviar or whatever! These are non-essential goods: they are not life-threatening if you don't have them.
The advantage of such a viewpoint is that life becomes a bit less scary. You know that if ever something bad happens to you, at least you will not lie there rotting on the road, while people walk by. You know that there will be a minimum of solidarity. The disadvantage is that people will not be scared to death of being poor, and work their asses off to avoid it. So you grind a bit the motivation to produce. The economy will do a bit less well. It is all a choice of what kind of world we like to live in.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I guess you mean: Russ, I never ...

Oops, apologies? I was probably reading another thread. :S

One thing is sure: a system that provides for ALL NEEDS for FREE has been tried, it's called communism, and we've seen that it doesn't work very well.

But I think the gist of this discussion is: can we morally accept in a modern society, that there are people who aren't able to provide in their BASIC needs (that means that they are put in a life-threatening situation, otherwise the needs aren't basic), and that we let them just rotten, while others are enjoying crazily superfluous luxuries ? Is it morally acceptable that a 5-year old kid is not getting any food, has no clothes, must walk in the rain and hasn't any place to hide, just because his parents are poor ?

As such it is a moral/political question: you can answer yes or no to the above question and related questions. But answering "no, that's not acceptable" is not an absurd viewpoint. And from there on, you can go further. Because of course there's no such thing as a free lunch. So IF you want to provide that kid with a coat, some place to live, a piece of bread, etc... then this must come from somewhere. So one can decide politically that it are those that are pretty wealthy that should give a small part of what they have to take care of that kid. Or you can decide that it should be his (poor) relatives, who should, I don't know, sell their organs or so to do so. All these are political choices, that shape the society one lives in. Of course it has a price. Of course, overall wealth will probably decrease a bit (according to some economic theories) if we do that. Yes, we will be a bit less rich if we do so. Yes, the economy will work a bit less good if we tax, take away some motivation, etc...

But it may be a political choice that that is an acceptable price to pay in order to solve some moral dilemma. It may also be a political choice that we're not going to sacrifice any economical competitiveness, and if that means that some kids must die of hunger, well then that's an acceptable price. All these are choices. Political choices.

The only thing that is required is that people are well-informed about what each choice, good and bad, holds in for them and for society.

So it might be a political choice that the most basic needs are maybe not provided for free to everybody, but are at least somehow guaranteed by the collectivity. If you are really so poor as not to be able to afford a coat, well, we'll try to give you one. If you are cold and you don't know where to sleep this night, well we'll try to find you a roof for the night (not a house!) Etc. But not a car, an airplane, caviar or whatever! These are non-essential goods: they are not life-threatening if you don't have them.
The advantage of such a viewpoint is that life becomes a bit less scary. You know that if ever something bad happens to you, at least you will not lie there rotting on the road, while people walk by. You know that there will be a minimum of solidarity. The disadvantage is that people will not be scared to death of being poor, and work their asses off to avoid it. So you grind a bit the motivation to produce. The economy will do a bit less well. It is all a choice of what kind of world we like to live in.

It's a question of balancing gains with loses. If you help some people there will always be those who seek to exploit it. On the other hand at least the vast majority are given help. That is I think the most important concern. Does it help more than it hinders. As for incentives, well to be honest I can see why that may be more of a problem in welfare systems, and yes there are some people who exploit such systems, but I'm not sure that line of thought applies equally to healthcare. I don't think people really think about how much they appreciate free health care, until they need it, and of course it's not totally free anyway, you're paying for it; unlike welfare, where technically those receiving it are not at the time when they claim it. In this country it's a real pain in the arse to claim for dole. To try and claim without actively seeking employment, which you must provide evidence of is extremely difficult. As for exploiting healthcare? People don't generally and those that do get flagged as a time waster and hypochondriac, they'll insist you ring the help lines and use the 24/7 internet support for your complaint, where advice up to the medical research level is available if necessary.

 

[vanesch]

Here's the breakdown on the 47million uninsured:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin"

The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.

This is why a minimum insurance is mandatory in most European countries, and is by some considered as a kind of tax. Because it is considered irresponsible and stupid NOT to have a minimum insurance "if you can afford it", that is, if you have an income. So it is calculated in a similar way as your income tax (but called part of social security).
In other words, one doesn't give you the choice of making the stupid decision not to take a minimum coverage.

 

[Supercritical]

In my opinion, things life life expectancy shouldn't be relied upon to make comparisons between countries' healthcare.

Medicine's principal purpose is to improve the condition of sick people. A culture's diet and lifestyle may be naturally conducive to long life, but that doesn't reflect on a good healthcare system. A better metric is finding how much a healthcare system improves a nation's health. This would mean finding healthcare's "delta L" for life expectancy rather than just analyzing "L." So if you look, for instance, at cancer survival rates, the US has the best system. The US has the best "delta L" out of those countries. This likely means that a healthy person (good diet, exercise, etc.) could expect to live longer in the United States than in Europe (at the very least when it comes to cancer).

This kind of "control" does not exist in real life, however, as Americans tend to lead less healthy lifestyles. And a good "delta L" can not always override lower "initial conditions."

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well that's why the evidence on the other thread has been reviewed to give a table of the 19 wealthy Western countries, hurrah. When you take out diet and smoking and all those other things that cause masses of related illnesses you come 16th out of 19. Not a great improvement but still. And European countries still come out on top.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/nov/14/politics.medicineandhealth

I suppose I better link it, or someone will accuse me of not backing that statement up for want of a few button clicks to the GD thread.

 

[Benzoate]

You know , I think a free healthcare system is more essential than a free education for obvious reasons that I will not mentioned. And I am no champion of anti-intellectualism . I think if people are put in life threatening situations that the individual has no absolutely control over, then I think its the government's obligation to protect that individual. Wouldn't you want our police to protect us from criminals who threaten a person's civil liberties and his life. Well, I would want my government to everything in its power to insure that my life is threatened. If you get shot by an individual , then its not your fault but the police's department fault for failing to restrain that individual from society.

This question is slightly off my topic, but were does all that bail money go get a criminal out of jail?!? I think the bail money should go to the victim or victim's family members instead of to the police department, but the police department failed to protect the individual and therefore the individual should receive the bail money. Which means the victim would now pay for their own emergency care caused by the criminal



Other than that, IF you are solely responsible for the decaying of your health , then you should be the only person who has to pay for their own health costs.

 

[drankin]

We certainly have some work to do in the US regarding health care. I would be nice if there were hospitals adequately staffed, sufficiently funded, at the ready, available to any person in need without cost. As American we understand that this has a cost. I believe the point of contention we have is we would rather pay insurance premiums to a private company than pay higher tax. Either way it is expensive but we all know that private industry can make a buck go a lot further than our government can. What we need is a way to prevent the medical industry from exploiting their position in the US. The way a medical insurance company will often deny perfectly ligitimate claims is an example. I pay more than $500/mo right now for my family for medical insurance which is likely less than I would be paying in taxes for a socialized medical system that would be of a lesser quality. My only problem with this system is how an insurance company can easily deny a claim.

Canada has socialized medical system (I don't know the details of it) but I've heard that a scheduled visit to a doctor can be months out. It is nice that medication is cheaper though.

We do have problems in our current system. But I believe they could be remedied without a socialized medical system.

I've suggested earlier a reform we might all be able to accept. The government could cover the cost of certain life threatening medical situations (ie., cancer, transplants). These are extremely costly to our health insurance companies and are probably a significant contributor to our high premiums. Knock those out of the equation and health insurance may be a lot less expensive and available to all classes. Health insurance is not a "right" in this country though it would be nice if it were less expensive.

 

[drankin]

You know , I think a free healthcare system is more essential than a free education for obvious reasons that I will not mentioned. And I am no champion of anti-intellectualism . I think if people are put in life threatening situations that the individual has no absolutely control over, then I think its the government's obligation to protect that individual. Wouldn't you want our police to protect us from criminals who threaten a person's civil liberties and his life. Well, I would want my government to everything in its power to insure that my life is threatened. If you get shot by an individual , then its not your fault but the police's department fault for failing to restrain that individual from society.

This question is slightly off my topic, but were does all that bail money go get a criminal out of jail?!? I think the bail money should go to the victim or victim's family members instead of to the police department, but the police department failed to protect the individual and therefore the individual should receive the bail money. Which means the victim would now pay for their own emergency care caused by the criminal



Other than that, IF you are solely responsible for the decaying of your health , then you should be the only person who has to pay for their own health costs.

Bail money is to offset the cost of having to chase down someone who doesn't show up in court. If that person shows up in court, the bail money is returned to the individual who posted it. You don't go giving someones bail money to someone else, that would be stealing. Just because you are put in jail to await your court date, doesn't mean you are even guilty. To take someones bail money would be unjust.

Now, back to the topic.

 

[ShawnD]

So then dropping back: please tell us explicitly what should be provided by the government.

Try to understand that there's a big difference between British law and American law. American laws seem to be very explicit, whereas British-style laws are wishy washy and have phrasing like "reasonable force" or "reasonable doubt". It's impossible to give a list of exactly what should be provided by the government, because that just isn't how British laws work.

 

[Poop-Loops]

American Law is exactly the same. That's why we have a Supreme Court. To interpret the law and make sure it itself is not illegal.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Try to understand that there's a big difference between British law and American law. American laws seem to be very explicit, whereas British-style laws are wishy washy and have phrasing like "reasonable force" or "reasonable doubt". It's impossible to give a list of exactly what should be provided by the government, because that just isn't how British laws work.

Yeah I have to agree, your legal system is pretty much modeled on ours , they are pretty similar, with some fine tuning and some differences on specific issues; they tend to be equally grey. Obviously the legal system cannot rule on every circumstance, that's why we have a jury of peers, to make some sort of independent judicial decision, and to corroborate that the law is being handled with as little corruption as possible and in the context of each case.

I think the problem there was, I was saying one thing, and it was being extended to mean something else, so hopefully it's a bit clearer now. No I don't think the government should provide for free every basic need.

 

[Benzoate]

Bail money is to offset the cost of having to chase down someone who doesn't show up in court. If that person shows up in court, the bail money is returned to the individual who posted it. You don't go giving someones bail money to someone else, that would be stealing. Just because you are put in jail to await your court date, doesn't mean you are even guilty. To take someones bail money would be unjust.

Now, back to the topic.

I agree. But if the person is found guilty , the bail money should go to the victim 0r the victims of the family , well at least some of it, and not completely the court system.

 

[drankin]

I agree. But if the person is found guilty , the bail money should go to the victim 0r the victims of the family , well at least some of it, and not completely the court system.

No it shouldn't, that isn't the purpose of bail money. Usually that money is loaned anyhow. You would be punishing the loaner more than the criminal. If the money was simply given away, the criminal would just shrug his shoulders and say screw it.

Let's get back on topic. You could start a new thread if you think you have something worth debating.

 

[Benzoate]

No it shouldn't, that isn't the purpose of bail money. Usually that money is loaned anyhow. You would be punishing the loaner more than the criminal. If the money was simply given away, the criminal would just shrug his shoulders and say screw it.

Let's get back on topic. You could start a new thread if you think you have something worth debating.

I'm not following you. How that be punishing the loaner more than the criminal if the criminal has to pay the loaner back. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[drankin]

I'm not following you. How that be punishing the loaner more than the criminal if the criminal has to pay the loaner back. That doesn't make any sense.

OK, check it out, you take out a loan for bail and get it back when you make your court date and then pay the bail bondsman back plus fee/interest. But, if they give you less than you borrowed, then the bailbondsman doesn't get all his money back. The criminal may be spending years in jail, HE CAN'T PAY HIM BACK. This begins to affect anyone needing a loan because the rates will go thru the roof to cover defaulted loans. Think about it. If money needs to be given to a victim, the victim can sue for it. That's how it's done.

 

[mheslep]

This is why a minimum insurance is mandatory in most European countries, and is by some considered as a kind of tax. Because it is considered irresponsible and stupid NOT to have a minimum insurance "if you can afford it", that is, if you have an income.

Heh. As 20 somethings I had a room mate, brilliant, ivy league educated, good athlete in perfect health, wealthy background; did mostly self employed consulting and never could be bothered to get health insurance. Blew out his achilles tendon and hobbled around months w/ no treatment.

I'm undecided on the issue. It might not be the worse thing to have .gov require insurance, similar is done now in the US for auto liability insurance. But I am far from sanguine about it. Just another step towards the nanny state? If .gov can mandate this why not many other things? You WILL eat well. You WILL not smoke. You WILL not indulge in risky behaviour (defined by .gov of course), at all. We, the .gov, are entitled to mandate these things because you are part of the http://www.soundboard.com/sb/The_Borg_Sound.aspx" .

 

[W3pcq]

Socialized health care and capitalist health care are both not free. Socialized health care is paid for by our tax money. The difference is that in a capitalist health care system, a good portion of the money we are paying goes to the profit of large corporations. With a socialized health care system, all the money we spend goes to health care. This actually saves us lots of money.

To me the biggest pro of socialized health care is that paperwork is practically eliminated. How many times have people died because they couldn't be covered and were turned away because only certain hospitals accept certain insurance. How many people have been thrown out on the streets mid treatment because they couldn't keep paying the outrages bills. How many people have to spend days of thinking, calling, writing, etc just going through the process of getting what they have been paying for when they need care.

As to the people who argue that if health care should be paid for by taxes, then all needs should be, you all sound like a bunch of little brats throwing tantrums because you have no good arguments.

Our police force, is paid for by taxes, our fire department is paid for by taxes, our military is paid for by taxes, education is paid for by taxes, etc. Imagine what it would be like if those luxuries were private. We would have mercenaries instead of a military, we would have a mafia instead of a police force, there would be hassles and paperwork to do while we watch our houses burn down. We would have a very large percentage of children who never get to go to school.

The only problem with paying for health care with tax money is that our national leaders are usually quite selfish, ignorant, unintelligent and just frankly could care less to make any health care plan work out for the little guys. The priorities are usually to scam us rather than help us, and with the current configuration in the US, it is as easy as it can get, so why change it?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

OK, check it out, you take out a loan for bail and get it back when you make your court date and then pay the bail bondsman back plus fee/interest. But, if they give you less than you borrowed, then the bailbondsman doesn't get all his money back. The criminal may be spending years in jail, HE CAN'T PAY HIM BACK. This begins to affect anyone needing a loan because the rates will go thru the roof to cover defaulted loans. Think about it. If money needs to be given to a victim, the victim can sue for it. That's how it's done.

It doesn't work that way in the US. The bail bond agents know how to protect their interests. Here is an explanation:
http://www.1stclassbailbonds.com/bail-bond-questions/post-bail-questions.aspx"

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

As to the people who argue that if health care should be paid for by taxes, then all needs should be, you all sound like a bunch of little brats throwing tantrums because you have no good arguments.

Our police force, is paid for by taxes, our fire department is paid for by taxes, our military is paid for by taxes, education is paid for by taxes, etc. Imagine what it would be like if those luxuries were private. We would have mercenaries instead of a military, we would have a mafia instead of a police force, there would be hassles and paperwork to do while we watch our houses burn down. We would have a very large percentage of children who never get to go to school.

W3pcq Well said, except health care is not a luxury any more than someone putting out a fire in your home is, it's not like a good glass of wine or a cup of coffee, that aside I agree.

 

[drankin]

It doesn't work that way in the US. The bail bond agents know how to protect their interests. Here is an explanation:
http://www.1stclassbailbonds.com/bail-bond-questions/post-bail-questions.aspx"

Yep, I'm not that familiar with the process but, it is apparent that usually a 3rd party is relied upon to post the bail and will often put up personal property as collateral. Now, Benzoate is suggesting that if the person being bailed out is found guilty of a crime against another person, that bail amount or a portion of it should be given to the victim. So, whoever the third party is would be footing the bill while the guilty party is doing time. The overall consequence is that less people would be able to be bailed out because getting the bail money back is no longer simply dependent on the bailee showing up in court, but now it is also dependent on his verdict. It simply wouldn't work, Benzoate.