JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
What exactly is the problem with it?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I also get the sense that some people would miss being able to look down on others for being healthcare have-nots.
Not for me. I know some folks whose main enjoyment in life seems to be schadenfraude, though.Is that a problem?
Which solution would you like us to implement? Socialised Medicine or Socialised Insurance? I prefer socializing the insurance aspect of medicine, creating a single payee system that eliminates all those blood sucking demons in human clothes who suck the life out of society. But I digress...
The other problem is that as KT says, we would have to basically scrap the present system. Way too many folks have way too much vested interest (they're geting rich) to be willing to support such changes.What exactly is the problem with it?
It is strange but virtually every country in Europe has a different national health system.
Most work very well indeed. and control costs per head far below the combined American systems. The drug companies here have to compete against generic drugs, which saves literally Billions. If they do not compete, they sell nothing.
In the UK our national health hospitals compete, at least at the top level with Private hospitals. It is a no contest except for cosmetic and some elective procedures.
It then falls to the health service, to sort out the private hospital blunders.
I will grant you that at the highest level, and if you have unlimited funds, the American health care can be amongst the finest and most advanced in the world. Quite up to the standard of the money no object but free middle east Oil states. (who every one seems to ignore).
It is not in the least amusing ,that our new conservative government, is bringing in some American administrators and private units to compete against our established hospitals... but paying them with public money. sounds daft to me.
It is very simple, my friend. When wall street executives gamble away people's 401(k)s it is perfectly fine, because it is private. Yet, when the government enacts a policy and it fails (e.g. Solyndra) it is reason to scrap government involvement in the entire sector/industry. The game is rigged because the private market is allowed to make mistakes, whereas the government is expected to be perfect, or else it is judge to be a failure. It is hypocrisy for the most part. If you take away my socialised Medicare you are killing seniors, but if you try to extend Medicare to all, you are killing grandma. Catch 22.What exactly is the problem with it?
OK, if we accept your arguments, then how would you deal with the problem?I don't support a government having a monopoly over it's people in any way. Especially when it comes to basic rights of life, such as what you do with your body, and seeking help from other consenting adults, regardless of certification or license.
I also don't feel that an insurance mandate = Universal Healthcare.
I thought there was something wrong, because we do not have it here, right?The OP assumes there's something wrong with it sufficient to oppose its implementation. I don't believe that.
OK, if we accept your arguments, then how would you deal with the problem?
I thought there was something wrong, because we do not have it here, right?
It's not as profitable for the private sector as the American system is. That's all that's "wrong" with it as far as your government and its corporate colleagues are concerned.
Consider this, Americans spend more per capita on Medicare alone than the next highest paying country in the WHO's database spends to insure their entire population.