Defending The Truth Political Forum

Defending The Truth Political Forum (http://defendingthetruth.com/political-forums.php)
-   Healthcare (http://defendingthetruth.com/healthcare/)
-   -   Why Socialist Health Care is Not the Answer (http://defendingthetruth.com/healthcare/14262-why-socialist-health-care-not-answer.html)

borden123 January 24th, 2010 06:16 AM

Why Socialist Health Care is Not the Answer
 
This socialist health care idea is an all around bad idea to incorporate into this nation. Socialism fails, in a sense, because of it's obsession with class warfare. In a community, the producers are always going to make more money than the non-producers or under-producers because they either work harder, are smarter, or are more tenacious. Why is their wealth undeserved? The reason why so many support this socialist idea is because they realize that they can vote the producer's money into their pockets. This envy is what fuels the socialist ideals, but are they good? No, because they also fuel laziness. Capitalism can also be fueled by envy, as well, but that envy is translated into more productivity from everyone who is envious. This increase in productivity is beneficial to everyone. With capitalism, the producer is going to produce more to keep up, while the nonproducer is enticed to become a producer. Liberalism and Socialism gives the nonproducer no incentive to get a job or become a producer. These types of people suck the money right out of the economy. When this happens, it kills innovation. With the lack of innovation in health care technology and pharmaceuticals, this country's health care quality will begin to drop at an increasing rate each and every year. This will cause even more deaths, that could have been prevented, occur. Why are you supporting a liberal/ socialist system that will yield even more unnecessary deaths?

tristanrobin January 24th, 2010 03:24 PM

There is a difference between a socialistic country and socialized medicine.



There are many countries that have socialized health care, but are not socialistic nations.



However, now that the public option aspect has been effectively killed, there is really no point in continuing this absurd excuse of a bill.



I was all for it when there was a public option - but now that there's not - I'm totally against it.

borden123 January 24th, 2010 03:58 PM

These are the effects that socialism or socialist ideas have on both countries and health care.

Zack January 24th, 2010 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borden123
These are the effects that socialism or socialist ideas have on both countries and health care.

I think you nailed it in Post *1... the more government you have the less freedom you have.

BordenMilk December 20th, 2016 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack (Post 250958)
I think you nailed it in Post *1... the more government you have the less freedom you have.

Exactly! And that's exactly what we're seeing with all of the AHC policies currently offered!

justoneman December 20th, 2016 05:12 PM

Why can't I buy whatever health insurance I want? Its my money. Its my life.

skews13 December 20th, 2016 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borden123 (Post 250869)
This socialist health care idea is an all around bad idea to incorporate into this nation. Socialism fails, in a sense, because of it's obsession with class warfare. In a community, the producers are always going to make more money than the non-producers or under-producers because they either work harder, are smarter, or are more tenacious. Why is their wealth undeserved? The reason why so many support this socialist idea is because they realize that they can vote the producer's money into their pockets. This envy is what fuels the socialist ideals, but are they good? No, because they also fuel laziness. Capitalism can also be fueled by envy, as well, but that envy is translated into more productivity from everyone who is envious. This increase in productivity is beneficial to everyone. With capitalism, the producer is going to produce more to keep up, while the nonproducer is enticed to become a producer. Liberalism and Socialism gives the nonproducer no incentive to get a job or become a producer. These types of people suck the money right out of the economy. When this happens, it kills innovation. With the lack of innovation in health care technology and pharmaceuticals, this country's health care quality will begin to drop at an increasing rate each and every year. This will cause even more deaths, that could have been prevented, occur. Why are you supporting a liberal/ socialist system that will yield even more unnecessary deaths?



I knew I had read a thread some where today that told me you would be showing up.


Before the Affordable Care Act became law, one of the fundamental problems with the debate over health care was that Democrats and Republicans couldn’t agree on the nature of the problem to be solved. Dems saw a system in which too many Americans paid too much and received too little, while the GOP saw a system in which Americans’ health coverage was too good and families enjoyed too many benefits.

Several years later, that argument has returned with a vengeance. TPM had this eye-opening report yesterday.
A Republican congressman outlined the way he would like to see the health care system operate if Obamacare is repealed, as GOP lawmakers are promising. It is a brave new world in which parents would wait and think about it before bringing in their sick or injured kids for costly treatments.

The example Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI) gave in an interview with MLive.com was from his own experience when he waited until the morning after to take his youngest son to the doctor with an injured arm, because he did not want to waste money on an expensive emergency room visit. The arm, it turned out, was broken.
The Republican congressman explained to the Michigan outlet that he and his wife thought about taking their son to the emergency room, but they decided instead to wait and gauge his injuries the next day, to see if the child’s arm improved. (It didn’t.) Huizenga sees this anecdote as a model for how the process should work on a more systemic level.

“If you don’t have a cost difference, you’ll make different decisions,” the congressman said, adding that financial burdens should be shifted to consumers because the current system “continue[s] to squeeze providers.”

Huizenga went on to say, “Way too often, people pull out their insurance card and they say ‘I don’t know the difference or cost between an X-ray or an MRI or CT Scan.’ I might make a little different decision if I did know [what] some of those costs were and those costs came back to me.”

This is not a new argument. Among Republicans, it’s not even unusual. It is, however, kind of terrifying.

I first started writing about this about seven years ago, right around the time former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) summarized the Republican position in just 17 words: “The largest empirical problem we have in health care today is too many people are too over-insured.” Two Republican congressman had a Wall Street Journal op-ed around this time making the same case: “When was the last time you asked your doctor how much it would cost for a necessary test or procedure?”

It wasn’t a rhetorical question. For most of us, if we have an ailment, we see a doctor and follow his or her recommendations. If physicians recommend tests they consider medically worthwhile, we naturally agree, knowing insurers will cover most of the costs.

And for Republicans, therein lies the problem. If the system shifted the cost burden away from insurers and employers and onto individuals and their families, the result would be amazing savings – because consumers would seek and receive less health care.

The GOP idea, in other words, is to create a medical environment in which Americans are acutely aware of costs, to the point that we turn down recommended treatments. Our kid may have a broken arm, but can we really afford an emergency-room visit? My doctor says I need a CT scan, but can I really afford such an exam? My friend has a lump and an unsettling family history, but can he really afford to have it removed and sent to pathology? His spouse was prescribed medication by her doctor, but does she really have to take it or can she save some money by going without?

In the Republican model – by GOP officials’ own admission – these are the kinds of questions Americans should be asking themselves. Having excellent health coverage, Republicans argue, is a problem in need of a resolution. As the aforementioned Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) put it, “If you don’t have a cost difference, you’ll make different decisions.”

As Republicans move forward with repealing “Obamacare” and looking for some kind of alternative blueprint, keep this simple fact in mind: much of the GOP is convinced your insurance is too good, and they intend to help improve the system by making your coverage worse.

Sabcat December 20th, 2016 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skews13 (Post 1024997)
I knew I had read a thread some where today that told me you would be showing up.


Before the Affordable Care Act became law, one of the fundamental problems with the debate over health care was that Democrats and Republicans couldn’t agree on the nature of the problem to be solved. Dems saw a system in which too many Americans paid too much and received too little, while the GOP saw a system in which Americans’ health coverage was too good and families enjoyed too many benefits.

Several years later, that argument has returned with a vengeance. TPM had this eye-opening report yesterday.
A Republican congressman outlined the way he would like to see the health care system operate if Obamacare is repealed, as GOP lawmakers are promising. It is a brave new world in which parents would wait and think about it before bringing in their sick or injured kids for costly treatments.

The example Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI) gave in an interview with MLive.com was from his own experience when he waited until the morning after to take his youngest son to the doctor with an injured arm, because he did not want to waste money on an expensive emergency room visit. The arm, it turned out, was broken.
The Republican congressman explained to the Michigan outlet that he and his wife thought about taking their son to the emergency room, but they decided instead to wait and gauge his injuries the next day, to see if the child’s arm improved. (It didn’t.) Huizenga sees this anecdote as a model for how the process should work on a more systemic level.

“If you don’t have a cost difference, you’ll make different decisions,” the congressman said, adding that financial burdens should be shifted to consumers because the current system “continue[s] to squeeze providers.”

Huizenga went on to say, “Way too often, people pull out their insurance card and they say ‘I don’t know the difference or cost between an X-ray or an MRI or CT Scan.’ I might make a little different decision if I did know [what] some of those costs were and those costs came back to me.”

This is not a new argument. Among Republicans, it’s not even unusual. It is, however, kind of terrifying.

I first started writing about this about seven years ago, right around the time former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) summarized the Republican position in just 17 words: “The largest empirical problem we have in health care today is too many people are too over-insured.” Two Republican congressman had a Wall Street Journal op-ed around this time making the same case: “When was the last time you asked your doctor how much it would cost for a necessary test or procedure?”

It wasn’t a rhetorical question. For most of us, if we have an ailment, we see a doctor and follow his or her recommendations. If physicians recommend tests they consider medically worthwhile, we naturally agree, knowing insurers will cover most of the costs.

And for Republicans, therein lies the problem. If the system shifted the cost burden away from insurers and employers and onto individuals and their families, the result would be amazing savings – because consumers would seek and receive less health care.

The GOP idea, in other words, is to create a medical environment in which Americans are acutely aware of costs, to the point that we turn down recommended treatments. Our kid may have a broken arm, but can we really afford an emergency-room visit? My doctor says I need a CT scan, but can I really afford such an exam? My friend has a lump and an unsettling family history, but can he really afford to have it removed and sent to pathology? His spouse was prescribed medication by her doctor, but does she really have to take it or can she save some money by going without?

In the Republican model – by GOP officials’ own admission – these are the kinds of questions Americans should be asking themselves. Having excellent health coverage, Republicans argue, is a problem in need of a resolution. As the aforementioned Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) put it, “If you don’t have a cost difference, you’ll make different decisions.”

As Republicans move forward with repealing “Obamacare” and looking for some kind of alternative blueprint, keep this simple fact in mind: much of the GOP is convinced your insurance is too good, and they intend to help improve the system by making your coverage worse.



Are you going to source that or continue to pretend like you wrote it?

iolo December 21st, 2016 03:34 AM

Compared with the disgraceful waste that is American capitalist 'healthcare' the NHS, even under the tories, is unbelievably practical and efficient. Why do these right-wing nutters insist on holding forth out of the bottomless depth of their ignorance?

Twisted Sister December 21st, 2016 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borden123 (Post 250869)
This socialist health care idea is an all around bad idea to incorporate into this nation. Socialism fails, in a sense, because of it's obsession with class warfare. In a community, the producers are always going to make more money than the non-producers or under-producers because they either work harder, are smarter, or are more tenacious. Why is their wealth undeserved? The reason why so many support this socialist idea is because they realize that they can vote the producer's money into their pockets. This envy is what fuels the socialist ideals, but are they good? No, because they also fuel laziness. Capitalism can also be fueled by envy, as well, but that envy is translated into more productivity from everyone who is envious. This increase in productivity is beneficial to everyone. With capitalism, the producer is going to produce more to keep up, while the nonproducer is enticed to become a producer. Liberalism and Socialism gives the nonproducer no incentive to get a job or become a producer. These types of people suck the money right out of the economy. When this happens, it kills innovation. With the lack of innovation in health care technology and pharmaceuticals, this country's health care quality will begin to drop at an increasing rate each and every year. This will cause even more deaths, that could have been prevented, occur. Why are you supporting a liberal/ socialist system that will yield even more unnecessary deaths?

I once worked for a middle school principal with the last name Borden and part of the Elsie the Cow Borden family. He spoke elegantly with never a mean word. There was a family estate on an island off South Carolina where he went every summer.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:12 PM.


Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.