Topic: Government run Health care! yes or no?

@gameking23 Does it fail every time? I live in a country that provides this 'socialist' healthcare system, and I receive quality care and as much medication as I need. If I need treatment, it's there for me, free of charge, no questions asked. (I use the word free, because there is no bill - ofcourse theres taxation, but thats based on income, not how on much care you will need)

The 'quality' argument that I see come up, seems to me, to based on the fact that if a UK citizen needs a hernia op (as an example) they might have to wait 8-weeks for the operation simply because everyone who has a hernia is in the que to get it fixed.... but you can die from a hernia, and no-one does, those people who need urgent attention will jump the que.

Is a system based on need for care, not whether you can afford it, not better?

I'm sure I can't convince the naysayers, I just wanted to give my perspective, as someone who earns a modest wage, needs healthcare, and lives in a country where it is provided free of charge.... It is more of a benefit to the public than it is a drain on the public purse.

Let the government run health care? So patients can pay outrageous prices for painkillers, or better yet, be left to die on the street because they can't even afford a hospital bed?

HELL. NO.

But why should you wait 8 weeks when you can have what ever surgery you need done within a day or two? As for being taxed think of all the wonderful things you could do if you could spend that money on whatever you want and also health care. Why would you not want that? With socialised medicine also comes rationing so why should we change our system when everyone can get what they need. To one where it is decided whether you need it or not based on age, and usefulness to society.

P.S. We dont pay for the NHS tghrough tax on groceries, we have a seperate tax, deducted from your wages, that goes directly to the NHS. Out of £1167.67 earned last month, I paid £63.90

I say the less our health care system mirrors the morals of Wall Street the better!

In the early 2000s, Wall Street threw every rule out the window when they entered the home loans market and that's when this country took a turn for the worse and began the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression!

So don't give me this Captialism is good and Socialism is bad debate.

I would rather a system, where everyone can have the operation for free, even if it means I have to wait longer. Than a system where I can get it fixed tomorrow, if I can afford it

Umm... The reason for the reckless loaning on wall street is because the government told them to. So the whole Captialism is great compared to Socialism is still correct.

The problem with free healthcare is that it is free, and when something is free it is 100% guaranteed that it will be abused, Im pretty sure everyone from the UK knows someone who always thinks they have something up with them and are frequent wasters of NHS time.

Also a lot of major operations have a waiting list sometimes in excess of a year, medical staff are overstretched and misdiagnosis and inadequate treatment are common place (I have personal experience of this)
I am aware that there are problems with the health service in the US, but as drastic a change as nationalising it would only make it worse. I think both Britain and the US need to find a system somewhere between what they both have now where those who genuinely cannot afford healthcare don't go without, but it is not open to abuse from patients, staff and pharmaceutical companies.

Well then it sounds like you live you have the health care you want. Well then good for you, but I do not want such a system here in the US along with many more Americans.

The same government that endorsed Wall Street to get in the home loans market was the same government that invaded Iraq for phantom WMDs and was also the same govement that couldn't explain why the greatest air defense system in the world couldn't get one shot in our defense on 9/11.

So who do you trust?

No actually it was the Clinton administration.

Find for me a socialised health care system that is financially sound, meaning that the taxes allocated actually cover the debt. It doesn't exist. In that sense, they do always fail.

The current proposal in the US creates a beaurocracy larger than the current system of actual healthcare providers. It has less - MUCH LESS - to do with healthcare than it does to do with increasing government's authority.

What the government should do is tell the effing lawyers to cut the shit with the frivolous lawsuits, decreasing the doctors' malpractice premiums by literally hundreds of thousands per year. That, more than anything else, will decrease the cost of healthcare in this country.

And anyone who believes that a healthcare system driven by capitalism is a problem of increased costs, lower quality, and limited availability doesn't understand capitalism - as they rant on their low-cost PC's and flat screen monitors.

Clinton was for bending the rules for some first time minority home owners -- to correct some wrongs of the past. Historians are still debating this.

However, Wall Street didn't get into the game until after Bush Jr. took office.

I may sound heartless when I say what I say, but that's what I believe. I put myself and family first. I would only pay for fatal illnesses, like "This guy is gonna die if we don't treat him!" not anything else. Heartless? Debatable, but these are my views. In this economy the last thing I want is another tax. It's easy for someone to say "Give me something for nothing." If you're poorer, free health care is a bonus, if you're richer, it's a burden.

If you guys want free health care, move to Canada or something. I don't want it in the US. These are my views, and I can't change anything talking to you, or vice versa. I'm done with this thread. Live long and prosper.

@gameking23 that baffles me, frankly. But fair enough. I'm happy for you if you can afford that operation the next day, although I'm sure there are many americans that can't (I apologise if I sound like an arse)

@Stevie sure there are problems with misdiagnosis, and waiting times, but essentially, the service provided is of good quality (though my experience) and based on what I pay for it, I don't think it can be matched.

I'll just go back to what I said earlier, I can only imagine how horrible it would be to have to worry about my health, and how I can afford to pay for it. Without the NHS, I would be bankrupt right now. With the NHS, I can afford to buy Mario Galaxy 2

Jeez, T-Gen. You're sure at the buffet table now, aren't you. DailyKos wants their pixels back.

Sigh...

DailyKos?

Back to health care.

Ultimately, the problem with a for profit medical system is that there is more money in it for treatment of diseases than for cures.

depends, are insurance companies all that better? fact: we do NOT have the best health care system fact: it really should be fixed, also, we already pay for ppl who cant afford insurance, they just go to community hospitals (like denver health, my local community hospital) and get fixed at taxpayer expense. other than that, i agree, stop complaining about tax hikes that may or may not exist! D: that is not why i started this thread!

• wow, both sides are really heated, i wait only a few hours and it's four pages long!