Which country has the best Health Care System?

[J-Mann]

I think the US has some good health care options, provided you have  a good job with a decent employer who offers you adequate benefits.  That said, work does need to be done to offer affordable insurance and medical care to those who currently can't afford it.  And yes, conservatives, there are those who can't afford it - telling them to "quit being lazy and get a job" doesn't help.  Take me, for instance:

Right now, I'm on my father's health insurance plan (go ahead, tell me I'm a drain on society for using someone elses money!), but if my parents weren't here, this is what my situation would be.

  --  I am a full-time college student because I want to get an education and have a chance for better employment.  My tuition is covered by a scholarship, so thankfully, that is out of the way.  There isn't any left over for books, which can easily run $600 per academic year.  I've got lots of bills on top of that: rent, water, electricity, phone, car (and unlike in cities, you really can't do much without a car in Kansas - so yes, I have to have it).  I have to buy groceries, and with my parents out of the picture, I'd have to pay for my car insurance (around $700 a year). 

In order to make ends meet (as is), I have three jobs.  The state-owned research dairy that I work at pays me KS minimum wage: $6.00 an hour.  I write and do artwork for the school newspaper, which is a little under $20.00 for each submission.  I'm a substitute teacher on top of that, which pays $60 per day, but is hardly consistent and guaranteed work.

So there it is.  I can't afford health insurance.  Without my parents helping out, I'd be screwed.  That's when it would be nice for a basic public health system to be available - if I needed my appendix removed, I would be horrified to have to pay a $15,000 bill for them to slice me up and bed me down for two days.  This is how people get stuck in a rut; they quit school to work more and never are able to climb the class ladder and escape from poverty/lower-middle class status.  --

No, it isn't society's job to support those who can't support themselves - if you want to be insincere, cold, calculating, and strictly capitalist about it, it probably doesn't bother you to see a poor elderly person die alone.  It was their fault, right?  They should have worked.  They were a drain on society.

Other democracies, like the UK, have collectively voted to be more generous with their taxes, and I think that's fine.  They don't mind giving a certain part of their paychecks up to make certain that everyone receives basic medical care.  The US hasn't made that decision because we're still full of a lot of people who say, "that isn't my job."

They're right - it isn't their job.  I would hope, though, that at some point we could agree that some basic public health services might be necessary in the US, funded by a flat tax, perhaps.  Some call the public health system socialism.  That's fine - call me a socialist, too, if you want; I'm not big into labels, though, so it won't hurt my feelings any.  While some call it socialism, I call it charity - a society enlightened enough to give up a fraction of their earnings to make sure that everyone is given basic care.  It doesn't have to mean the demise of private practices; if you could afford the better care, then by all means, use it.  It would mean lending everyone a hand, and somewhere that logic has been lost on a lot of people in the US. 

[J-Mann]

I object to other people deciding how to spend my money.  It you have to have a social health care system, make it so that people can VOLUNTEER to donate.  Mandatory donations to it = stealing.

Maybe...but if it is voted on and a majority of [whoever votes - ie: Congress, the public] approves, then I think it's a go.  Congress approves things all the time that a certain segment of society may not want but has to accept anyway.

I say we should deal with this issue openly and honestly, though - too many politicians are scared to discuss it.  Let them take a stand, let the public vote to re-elect their congressmen (or exchange them for ones with different ideas), and then have Congress make a decision.  There's been too much pushing this issue to the back burner.

[J-Mann]

And damnit...I'm posting this again.  I hate it when my posts are at the bottom of a page; no one sees them, then    Sorry to everyone who has seen it already.

I think the US has some good health care options, provided you have  a good job with a decent employer who offers you adequate benefits.  That said, work does need to be done to offer affordable insurance and medical care to those who currently can't afford it.  And yes, conservatives, there are those who can't afford it - telling them to "quit being lazy and get a job" doesn't help.  Take me, for instance:

Right now, I'm on my father's health insurance plan (go ahead, tell me I'm a drain on society for using someone elses money!), but if my parents weren't here, this is what my situation would be.

  --  I am a full-time college student because I want to get an education and have a chance for better employment.  My tuition is covered by a scholarship, so thankfully, that is out of the way.  There isn't any left over for books, which can easily run $600 per academic year.  I've got lots of bills on top of that: rent, water, electricity, phone, car (and unlike in cities, you really can't do much without a car in Kansas - so yes, I have to have it).  I have to buy groceries, and with my parents out of the picture, I'd have to pay for my car insurance (around $700 a year).

In order to make ends meet (as is), I have three jobs.  The state-owned research dairy that I work at pays me KS minimum wage: $6.00 an hour.  I write and do artwork for the school newspaper, which is a little under $20.00 for each submission.  I'm a substitute teacher on top of that, which pays $60 per day, but is hardly consistent and guaranteed work.

So there it is.  I can't afford health insurance.  Without my parents helping out, I'd be screwed.  That's when it would be nice for a basic public health system to be available - if I needed my appendix removed, I would be horrified to have to pay a $15,000 bill for them to slice me up and bed me down for two days.  This is how people get stuck in a rut; they quit school to work more and never are able to climb the class ladder and escape from poverty/lower-middle class status.  --

No, it isn't society's job to support those who can't support themselves - if you want to be insincere, cold, calculating, and strictly capitalist about it, it probably doesn't bother you to see a poor elderly person die alone.  It was their fault, right?  They should have worked.  They were a drain on society.

Other democracies, like the UK, have collectively voted to be more generous with their taxes, and I think that's fine.  They don't mind giving a certain part of their paychecks up to make certain that everyone receives basic medical care.  The US hasn't made that decision because we're still full of a lot of people who say, "that isn't my job."

They're right - it isn't their job.  I would hope, though, that at some point we could agree that some basic public health services might be necessary in the US, funded by a flat tax, perhaps.  Some call the public health system socialism.  That's fine - call me a socialist, too, if you want; I'm not big into labels, though, so it won't hurt my feelings any.  While some call it socialism, I call it charity - a society enlightened enough to give up a fraction of their earnings to make sure that everyone is given basic care.  It doesn't have to mean the demise of private practices; if you could afford the better care, then by all means, use it.  It would mean lending everyone a hand, and somewhere that logic has been lost on a lot of people in the US.

[J-Mann]

Bill 1 of 2005:  Congress will hereby pay every citizen $1,000,000 on January 31, 2005.



See a problem here?  You can't vote away other people's rights.  Sorry.

Yeah...problem is you just made that up.  Providing basic health care is on a scale a little bit different than turning Congress into a massive Publisher's Clearing House, I think.

[J-Mann]

It is not.  It is a bunch of people voting to steal money from certain individuals and give it to other individuals.  That is criminal.  This is why I'm opposed to income tax and sales tax.

And then every other law on the books is practically criminal, too, by that definition - it doesn't just stop at money.

Look, Richius, I'm not going to argue with you about this any more; you're too stuborn and you would degenerate into name-calling and ridiculous arguments; I'm not in the mood for that.  I'm just more charitable-minded, I guess, and I happen to think that majority rules.  Congress and the rest of us should be willing to create a system to help the less fortunate. 

[J-Mann]

So 50% plus one could just vote to kill the other 49,9999999999999%?

That is his basic principle.  The majority is voting away the rights of the minority.  This is what Hitler did, and what is currently happening with social security and national health care in Canada.

OK, guys, help me out here; I'm a little confused as to why this is labeled "my basic principle".  We're talking about democracy - close votes happen!  Fifty-one percent of the voting population decided who would be president for 100% of us.  The Senate and the House often have close votes.  Forget money, taxes, etc. for a minute, and "my basic principle" applies to every vote we make and nearly every vote cast by the Senate and House.  My county voted for a half-cent sales tax increase in November; just because the ones who voted no on it do not like the increase doesn't mean they don't have to pay it - it came to a vote and they lost.

So why is this confusing?  It seems to me that it is the basic democratic principle, not "my principle".  We vote on things, the majority wins, the minority loses and hopes to change things the next time around.  And no one is proposing killing 49.9% of the population - that's an extreme and quite ludicrous comparison, and the comparisons to Hitler don't really belong in a conversation like this either.

[J-Mann]

That's the point. Democracy is decivilizationg. property isn't safe when any idiot can vote it away from its owner. Imagine a world government based on one man one vote. what would most likely happend would be that we'd get a colaition of Indians and chinese, who would consider the western World was too propsperous, and would decide to take away resources from it to redistribute elsewhere. From the moment the people understand that they can vote for whoever is going to give them more treasury money, the will allways vote for the candidate who will, and that is why a democracy allways collapses due to a oose fiscal policy, followed by a dictatorship. Our rights aren't safe within a democracy. The founding fathers hled democracy in very little comtepm. What they envisioned was a republic governed by a sort of aristocracy, and even that wasn't ideal.

So, you're not a fan of the American system, then?

Yes, a one-man, one-vote principle in a theoretical one-world government probably wouldn't be great for the West, but that's a made up example that isn't going to happen.  No one is voting away our property to China, no one is killing anyone else; all I recommended was a slight tax increase to fund basic public health services for the poor in the US (and why this bothers either of you perplexes me a little - neither of you lives in the US). 

Wild confiscations of private property and/or monetary assets is not going to happen; we're not a straight democracy - the democratic republican system ensures (hopefully) that those who are dedicated to making such decisions will be careful and thoughtful about making them.  I happen to like this form of democracy - it's fair.  By being a citizen of the US, we agree to be "at the mercy of the vote" and subject to the laws and rules that come out of such votes.