USA - Socialized healthcare incompatible with drug legalization

[runitsthepolice]

This occurred to swim last night. President Obama intends to provide health care to every American. This sounds great, after all medical costs can be quite substantial and are a burden on citizens. There are some that are against socializing healthcare because they believe in personal responsibility and not depending on the government to provide for them. Here is another argument to consider.
When the government pays for medical services the cost will be quite substantial. In order to keep costs down, it is likely that citizens that accept government insurance will be forced to change some of their unhealthy habits. This makes sense, after all why would the country pay for a lung transplant for someone who continues to smoke cigarettes, even when they know this behavior is self destructive? Perhaps the government will also get a say in what food citizens can eat, because it is well known that obeseity leads to many health issues that would increase the costs of health care.

You can see where this is going. If the policy goes down this road, how likely is it that citizens will have the right to put what they want into their body as far as drugs? Can you imagine the government paying for insurance for anyone who uses illicit drugs? There's no way. If socialized healthcare is made into law there is no possibility of ending the war on drugs. More and more freedoms are likely to fade as the government now has a financial stake in an individuals well being. When they have money invested in you, they control you. Food for thought.

Swim strongly believes that this country is heading in the wrong direction. Please discuss.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	A+++ on (no) socialized healthcare
	I'm not particularly keen on this sentiment, it certainly imho has nothing to do with drug legalization
	I don't think this is a well thought out argument
	Excellent! I have wanted to start a thread on this topic for a long time
	Interesting subject, glad someone started a thread on it.
	while i disagree, i still think you bring up an excellent point to consider

[doggy_hat]

I agree %100 percent. The government is rediculously massive enough and we don't need any more socialization, regulations, militarism or any thing else that doesn't involve reducing the government's power. When you just hand everything over to them, they can do whatever they want and you can't stop them because you're so dependent and weak. For example the car manufacturer bailout from not too long ago. We've become so dependent on these few all powerful corporations, that when they fuck up, we end up paying for it because we're so dependent on them, that we just do whatever they say and put up with it. Concentrating power into the hands of the few is always bad.

Also, Canada, the UK, and I'm sure quite a few other countries have government controlled health care, maybe someone from one of these places could clarify about how their health habits are controlled(if at all).

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks for the input, please introduce any new ideas as you think of them, I feel like we might be the minority here.

[Dickon]

I'm from England, and I am really shocked to hear the above views. I have just been over to The States, because my wife's uncle was taken ill will a stroke and heart problems. He had turned 65 and had just began Medicare. Not to bore everyone with the details, but between the various contributions, co-pays, and dealing with the bureaucracy to get the various parts of medicare sorted, it was a stressful nightmare. One therapist who had a slot was unable to treat him because no one had signed something. The thing is a mess, and expensive for the patients. I never watched Sicko through, as Michael Moore has begun annoying me, but I can see how he's worried for the under-insured. The example of a guy having to chose which of his fingers to save, simply because the insurance will only pay for one being saved, is shocking.

The NHS isn't perfect. One thing it's not is part of government. Although we do have to pay £7.20 or so for a prescription, and pay for eye-tests and dentistry (possibly the worst part of the service) most of the time the NHS is great. Also, if you are on benefits (i.e. unemployed) the prescriptions are free: I'm not sure about the other things.

Also, my cat was prescribed methadone, which cost him about £7.20 ($10) a fortnight for the prescription, and when he quit, he got to go aftercare, and has had lots of free massages, one-to-one talking sessions and a few relapse-prevention groups. My wife has a really good midwife, and so one and so forth. All of this, free. Sure it is costly in tax terms, and sometimes decisions have to be made about expensive treatments of unproven benefit. Sometimes these decisions are morally unpleasant.

I also wanted to add that although the NHS does such things as offer a smoking cessation service, and advises people on safe drinking, how much fruit and vegetables to eat, one isn't refused treatment because of this, in general at least.

I'd like to hope if there was one set of lungs available and two people needing the transplant, all things being equal, the lungs would be given to the non-smoker. But this would be an extension of a general principal in which when limited resources are available, they are used to maximise beneficial outcomes. This is not a moral choice. For example if you could spend £5 to extend a life by a year, and maintain good quality of life, or you could spend £5 to extend life by a day of agony (different person), how would you spend your £5, if that's all you had. There is a system called QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) used to make such assessments.

Denying treatments to those not looking after themselves has been talked about, but I like to hope it still appalls too many to ever make it into law. As I say, I do believe treatment should be given to maximise benefit, and this could involve giving preferential treatment to those with better outcome likelihoods, in general, people who take better care of themselves.

You are not particularly free in the USA. Sadly the UK is going down the same path of ever-increasing legislation. "Socialised medicine" is a stupid phrase, and a really good idea. Private healthcare is available, so there is still choice. For elective surgery etc. the private sector is good, as far as I'm aware, but for life-saving major surgery, it's the NHS all the way.

I'd ask the above two posters to examine where their ideas came from. Remember America is highly commercialised and politicised, and it's likely the received views on the dangers of socialised medicine come, at least initially, from some vested interest. There is an awful lot of money to be made by the insurance companies, who clearly would not want you thinking they are a bad as opposed to a good thing.

It's not scary. Not like all the CCTV cameras, and speed cameras, and general surveillance culture. I don't like that at all.

Dickon

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Very well put forward arguments, interesting information about QALYs
	Thanks for the debate, it is good to hear from an opposing point of view. How much of one's income is withheld to pay f...
	Well stated points.
	well thought out post, interesting viewpoint
	thanks for the comparison

[aerozeppelin123]

I'm from England as well and gotta say I agree with Dickon 100%. I don't think it's right to deny people healthcare because of their poor decisions or unhealthy lifestyle, as lots of health problems can be argued to at least be made worse, if not completely caused by, some kind of unhealthy choice on the individual's part at some point down the line. Not to mention that it's sometimes impossible to tell what it's caused by e.g. someone may have had a few cigarettes in their life and get lung cancer from an unrelated cause - you can't say for sure it's the smoking. Although I do agree that given a choice between helping two individuals, the one who is likely to make better use of that help should be prioritised.

I also don't think that 'socialised healthcare' is incompatible with drug legalisation. I can see what you mean, as in if drugs are illegal then the government can wash their hands of you and say 'well we're not going to help you cause you shouldn't have been taking them in the first place'. But if they were legalised, then surely it would operate in the same way as cigarettes do at the moment, in that the tax that smokers pay more than covers the amount they cost in healthcare. Compared to how it is at the moment (at least in the UK), where we still have to pay for drug users' healthcare costs out of public money, but none of the money they pay for the drugs goes towards covering those costs (instead going towards paying for drug dealers' sports cars).

So I think it would actually be more compatible with drug legalisation, not less.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks for the lively debate, you make a good point about taxing drugs to offset the costs and it has given me a new poi...

[Coconut]

I do not believe that health-care should be provided by government or private companies in competition with one another. It is demonstrable that both systems have severe flaws which put people at risk.

The state is a massive bureaucracy which, if given control over medical practice, can abuse that power to no end, as runitsthepolice outlined. Eventually it will move towards denying care arbitrarily as it sees fit and patients will be left lying in hospital corridors as the system grinds to a halt around them - this happened recently in Ireland.

On the other hand, the pseudo-capitalist method (I say pseudo because it does involve some state intervention) in the United States denies millions of people the right to live because they simply cannot afford it, thus disproving claims that free market health-care will ensure universal availability. It is also the case that in systems controlled by the state, private practice is subject to the same problems as the US system, such as greed.

I do not see the possibility of a workable system within the confines of modern society, i.e. that which involves the existence of a state or capitalist economics.

[Petethemeat]

I am from the UK, and the funny thing is your healthcare costs more than ours with less coverage!

Our system is far from perfect, if you are looking for an interesting system that offers free effective health care whilst discouraging people from using it irresponsibily then I suggest you take a look at the key-hole system operating in Singapore - one of the finest systems in the world...

[Herbal Healer 019]

If they refused healthcare to those who used drugs then the alcohol & tobacco industries would go out of business because alcohol & tobacco are both drugs known to cause cancer, so the idea that drug users would be refused healthcare would be detrimental to both the alcohol & tobacco industries & America's already weakened economy...As for illegal drugs that's just a given.

[runitsthepolice]

Here is a more mainstream argument to consider written again by swim:

The top income earners in the United States are taxed at a marginal tax rate of 35% currently. This is only federal income tax, not including capital gains on stock portfolios or sales tax or state income tax or the plethora of other unnecessary taxes levied against us. This is already going to increase because we owe the Chinese so much money due to Obama's stimulus package and a pork filled omnibus bill. In fact, nobody even wants to earn 250,000 a year anymore because of the taxes that are going to be imposed on them. Before anyone makes a smartass comment about how they don't feel bad for the rich, keep in mind that those jobs that pay this much are ultra competitive, stressful, and important. Someone who makes that much money is doing a lot of good for other people and has probably worked their asses off since they were in high school. Otherwise they wouldn't be worth that sum of money, right?

Someone who made 249,999 and got a pay raise to over 250,000 would see a dramatic decrease on their after tax net income. This is because Obama is not just increasing the marginal tax rate for those that make over 250,000 but he is going to remove certain tax breaks and deductions for the "wealthy". This is already going to be the case based on Obama's statements even before he socializes health care. These wealthy people create all the jobs, businesses, and prosperity in this country. Socialist wealth redistribution policies would discourage those that dream big and accomplish so much. Sure under socialized health care the less wealthy spend far less on their health care, but that's because someone who worked their ass off to be able to make a large amount of money is footing the bill for them. Swim does not make a lot of money, but he sure as hell does not want to take money from a wealthy stranger, money that was earned fairly. It is a zero sum game, and all that is really happening is a redistribution of wealth. Someone is losing out, whether it be the doctor that studied so hard to get though medical school taking a pay cut, or the wealthy individual who has to pay for those who do not have jobs that provide health care benefits through "robin hood" like government policies.

There is a reason why America practices the best medicine in the world. Do you see Americans flying to the UK or Canada for their medical treatments? No, it's quite the opposite. The elderly from those countries fly to ours after they have been denied surgery because it wasn't deemed to be worth the expense. Those that can afford it come to our legendary medical facilities such as the Cleveland Clinic because they don't want to wait in long lines for overworked and underpaid physicians. They want it done effectively and without all the bureaucracy. I am not saying my country is better than anyone else's. My point is that socialism has never, and will never prosper. It is against human nature.

Also to Dickon, Medicare is socialized health care for the elderly. Social security is socialized retirement plans for the elderly. I am against both of these programs and firmly believe that people should take care of themselves instead of depending on the state to care for them. The points that you raised about the paperwork and stupid nonsense is exactly why the government should just stay out. Imagine EVERYONE having to put up with such a flawed inefficient system.

Reputation Comments on this post:

sound and valid

[Will21st]

So,runitsthepolice,how will you pay for your $250.000 heart surgery?It's one of those great American myths that 'socialised' health care has anything to do with socialism.... it doesn't.
it's a matter of caring for your fellow brothers/sisters

Tell me,why is your health care system the most expensive in the world? Why do you spend extortionate amounts of money on medication that is half the price in Europe or Canada?
I know nobody,NOBODY who lives in Europe and would want your health care system.Believe me,America is a great country and I am very fond of it,but when it comes to health you guys have got it totally wrong.And I am saying that as a staunch Libertarian!
Health care,just as police or fire services,should be Universal,period.Or do you pay for your own policing,too?

Reputation Comments on this post:

Very social Ideas behind this Posting

[SmokeRings]

Ugh, SWIM tried to stay away from this post, but can't stand it any longer.

OP, slow down and just think for a minute, think about the ISSUE and get over your issues with Obama and Dems, cuz that seems to be a real sore spot for you. Before you bash, know that SWIM is neither Repub or Dem, she is none of the above, as she is split down the middle. Fiscally she is a complete conservative, basic human rights, she is a definite liberal. She also did not vote this year, first time EVER, as she felt neither candidate was worth a shit.

Lose the word "socialized", as it's become a dirty word here in the US. Like Will21st said, it's about caring for HUMANS. SWIM has paid for social security and medical since she was 17 years old. Social Security is a joke, SWIMs got another 30 years to work and knows she won't see a dime of that money she's put in, she agrees that it doesn't work, but the elderly who are using it now should not be screwed because it wasn't properly set up, if it were to cease, what would you suggest happen to those people who rely on it now?

Medical however isn't an option for a lot of people. Either their minimum wage job doesn't offer it, or does, but the costs are so high, they can't afford it. SWIM doesn't think it should just be handed over to the lazy, welfare folks at all, so she's with you there, but the CHILDREN of those lazy, welfare folks didn't have a choice to come into this world. Should those children be punnished because their parents suck? No way. SWIM also has no desire to have children, but still feels that every child should receive healthcare until they are 18 years of age. SWIM is willing to foot the bill so that the welfare of all children is protected. SWIM hates that she pays taxes for public schools when she isn't having kids, but knows it's necessary and that every child deserves an education.

SWIM also doesn't think that all folks who make $250k a year have worked their asses off, there's no real way to know this. Look at Wall Street and Bankers, those guys have ruined the economy, SWIM doesn't think they were "stressed out" when giving out stupid loans to people who couldn't afford them. They were busy stuffing their pockets with ridiculous bonuses and spending company money for luxury trips.

Sure, there are plenty of households who reach the $250k threshold, that have worked hard, that have earned every penny, but SWIM thinks there is a price to pay for everything. SWIM makes great money and is one who worked her ass off and hates that recently she was put into a higher tax bracket that kicked her ass financially. Is she mad at Dems or Obama, nope, it's just the way it goes. It makes SENSE to tax those who make more money. Sure, it's unfortunate that every American does not have the drive and want to do well for themselves like SWIM does, but SWIM also feels that most people are not all that bright, stupid if you will.

Take the housing crisis and economy for proof of the stupidity! SWIM puts blame on both sides. She actually puts more blame on the person who agreed to such loan, whether or not they knew they could afford it. A contract is a contract and is binding, you sign on the dotted line, its now your responsibility to pay. SWIM bought her house 3 years ago, on her own, and had no clue what all the paperwork meant. When she called for pre-approval, to find out what kind of house she could get, she was baffled. Let's say she was making $50k a year, the bank literally offered her a $500k loan, they just added a 0!!! SWIM is not lying, this is the truth! SWIM luckily was smart enough to know that it was WAY out of her league and said "Ok, I am willing to pay X amount of dollars per month on the mortgage, what would the loan be?" and wouldn't you know it, that $500k dropped to $150k. THAT is what all these irresponsible Americans DID NOT do. SWIM also spent 4 hours with her realtor going over the contract, then contacted a lawyer friend and asked that they look over the contract before she signed. SWIM knows that not everyone has a lawyer friend, but everyone knows SOMEONE, and there are plenty of ways to educate yourself and be SURE you can afford something before you buy. SWIM is not popular for her views that it's not just big-bad Wall Street and Bankers who screwed people. No one in America takes individual responsibility anymore. It is just absurd.

The point of that is to prove that supposed adults are irresponsible, lazy and want a free ride. SWIM isn't arguing that at all, what she is arguing is that the children of said adults shouldn't be punnished for their parents lack of intellect and will to be a contributing member of society. Our healthcare system needs to change for THEM and them only. They should be able to see a dentist, eye doc and a general doc once a year for basic check ups. Their parents should also be REQUIRED to prove that they are getting said care, if and when our system changes. Yes, SWIM said prove, as SWIM is not so up in the clouds to believe these crappy parents would actually make appointments for the children and follow through with it. Education is free, so at the beginning of each school year, the child should be required to show that they received said care to be able to enroll. Extreme? Indeed it is, but only because it's never been required. Change is necessary, America has proven that the way things have been going are NOT working. SWIm commends Obama for actually doing some of the things he said he would, neither Bush or Clinton did. SWIM is a huge fan of Clinton, but he did not deliver. SWIM hated Bush and quite honestly wasn't surprised at his lack of leadership.

SWIM didn't support Obama, but did agree with him regarding it's time for change, but that it has to come from the American people, this would be one of those changes. Making parents actually be parents. What a concept.

So, whilst SWIM thinks people who think socialized is a dirty, bad, evil word are silly, she agrees to a certain extent that it could be dangerous. It works in other countries because it's been that way for a very long time, if not forever. The American public is way too irresponsible to handle such a system. Yes, SWIM gets bashed all the time for calling out her fellow Americans, most of the time, she's quite embarassed by our nation and the arrogance we display. She was also embarassed that our former President of 8 years couldn't pronounce America properly! SWIM is honest and while she has no intentions of leaving her country (so don't even go there, she does not HATE America or Americans) she understands why most of the world hates us.

Heathcare should be changed for humans up until they are 18. That is her viewpoint. She will continue to pay for hers, and not like the ridiculous premiums, she will also know that she is lucky to have it!

[dadrone]

Originally Posted by runitsthepolice

This occurred to swim last night. President Obama intends to provide health care to every American. This sounds great, after all medical costs can be quite substantial and are a burden on citizens. There are some that are against socializing healthcare because they believe in personal responsibility and not depending on the government to provide for them. Here is another argument to consider.
When the government pays for medical services the cost will be quite substantial. In order to keep costs down, it is likely that citizens that accept government insurance will be forced to change some of their unhealthy habits. This makes sense, after all why would the country pay for a lung transplant for someone who continues to smoke cigarettes, even when they know this behavior is self destructive? Perhaps the government will also get a say in what food citizens can eat, because it is well known that obeseity leads to many health issues that would increase the costs of health care.

You can see where this is going. If the policy goes down this road, how likely is it that citizens will have the right to put what they want into their body as far as drugs? Can you imagine the government paying for insurance for anyone who uses illicit drugs? There's no way. If socialized healthcare is made into law there is no possibility of ending the war on drugs. More and more freedoms are likely to fade as the government now has a financial stake in an individuals well being. When they have money invested in you, they control you. Food for thought.

Swim strongly believes that this country is heading in the wrong direction. Please discuss.

Agree 1000%

Not to mention, it's mostly our own fault if we don't have healthcare. You'd be surprised, motherfuckers who drive a BMW but don't have healthcare just to save a buck (I've always been healthy, right?). Then you have your more common no-insurance hack: "can't afford insurance" but always has money for cable TV, cigarettes, and 3 nights a week at the local tavern.

This is pretty cut-throat but how about... no insurance, you die. If you can't pay, via insurance or otherwise, tough shit. I would, of course, make exceptions for senior citizens, the handicapped/mentally or physically disabled, and EVERY INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE AGE OF 18 (not their fault parents are lazy/irresponsible). I'm sure there's a few other good causes. But people I know - 25-30 and make decent incomes but would rather put fuel in their Suburban... argghhh... so frustrating.

Fuck free healthcare - A++ thread.

Reputation Comments on this post:

No really, there are people who cannot afford health insurance, they are'nt hacks

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by dadrone

Agree 1000%

Not to mention, it's mostly our own fault if we don't have healthcare. You'd be surprised, motherfuckers who drive a BMW but don't have healthcare just to save a buck (I've always been healthy, right?). Then you have your more common no-insurance hack: "can't afford insurance" but always has money for cable TV, cigarettes, and 3 nights a week at the local tavern.

This is pretty cut-throat but how about... no insurance, you die. If you can't pay, via insurance or otherwise, tough shit. I would, of course, make exceptions for senior citizens, the handicapped/mentally or physically disabled, and EVERY INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE AGE OF 18 (not their fault parents are lazy/irresponsible). I'm sure there's a few other good causes. But people I know - 25-30 and make decent incomes but would rather put fuel in their Suburban... argghhh... so frustrating.

Fuck free healthcare - A++ thread.

Interesting points.What if your health insurance provider refuses to pay for your treatment because of some pre-existing condition you forgot to tell them about?A cough you forgot to tell them about you had 10 years ago? Tough shit,right?
Also,European health insurance isn't 'free'. You pay higher tax that pays for your health insurance.And by the way,how much does health Ins. cost in the states?Between,what $400-950,would that be right?That's a lot of money,in a 'socialised' system you would only pay a fraction of that.

[SmokeRings]

SWIM says your estimates on US healthcare are right on. It's extremely expensive and we still don't get proper care and have to go through bureaucratic loop holes all the time. Anyone that lives in the US, has insurance and has had to deal with any sort of real medical situation (surgeries, ambulance costs, ER costs, etc) knows that there are major, major flaws and we are in dire need of reform. For those who don't see that need, SWIM would love to hear their story and know what provider they use, cuz she wants to sign up!

As far as change impacting legalization, SWIM is hopeful that the US would take parts of a socialized structure and not penalize those who use as the OP suggested. Most alcoholics and smokers are treated with the same care as non-users, there should be no difference. SWIM also realizes that our government in general is flawed, and this could very likely become a real issue.

SWIMs country was founded on the basis of freedoms, yet we persecute those who choose non-mainstream beliefs in drugs, sexual orientation and religion like social lepers, we have somehow turned ourselves back into what we fled from. If one does not hold basic chrisitian beliefs such as pro-life and anti-gay rights they are considered flawed in some way.

Our own political leaders can not rise to the highest levels of office if they express anything other than core christian values. SWIM thinks that many leaders, even possibly Obama are pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-legalization, yet can't be truthful regarding their feelings due to our current societal standards.

Change does not happen overnight. Change is not a bad word. Change is necessary to move forward. Without change, SWIM feels the world would be doomed.

[Routemaster Flash]

Originally Posted by doggy_hat

I agree %100 percent. The government is rediculously massive enough and we don't need any more socialization, regulations, militarism or any thing else that doesn't involve reducing the government's power. When you just hand everything over to them, they can do whatever they want and you can't stop them because you're so dependent and weak. For example the car manufacturer bailout from not too long ago. We've become so dependent on these few all powerful corporations, that when they fuck up, we end up paying for it because we're so dependent on them, that we just do whatever they say and put up with it. Concentrating power into the hands of the few is always bad.

Also, Canada, the UK, and I'm sure quite a few other countries have government controlled health care, maybe someone from one of these places could clarify about how their health habits are controlled(if at all).

YEAH! How DARE the interfering Big-Brother government attempt to control that eight-year-old by paying for his leukaemia treatment, or regulate that woman's life by giving her the drugs she needs to live a normal life. Why, it's the next thing to SLAVERY!!!

I for one salute those brave, freedom-loving Americans who stand by the rights their founding fathers fought for to die of whatever illness they like, and there ain't no Commie bastards gonna tell me otherwise.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Haha, perfect posting.
	perfect conter.
	Satire at it's finest

[slight]

It's amazing that so many people actually have such a fear of "socialized" healthcare - especially when it is so clearly effective in many other countries. In Canada (where I've lived my whole life), I have never encountered - or even heard of - the government monitoring the alcohol consumption, drug use, or diet of Canadian citizens.

Now in terms of tax brackets, I realize that many people with money have worked very hard to get where they are. Sometimes high paying jobs truly are well-deserved. However, I think it is a misconception that the wealthy are all hard-working and the poor are all lazy and irresponsible. I don't think that is necessarily true at all.

I also sincerely feel that anyone who has achieved success through hard work and perseverance will have no problem giving back to their fellow human beings - often to the very people who have enabled the them to succeed. I realize that taxing the wealthy more than other people is perhaps unfair, but I believe it is infinitely better than enabling rich people to buy another yacht while the poor can't afford basic necessities.

Another issue I would like to address is the idea that some people "deserve" health care and others do not. I firmly believe that everyone deserves to live; that their lives are valuable. I understand the argument of "survival of the fittest," I do believe in evolution after all. The idea is logical in theory: if you are too lazy to take care of yourself, don't expect the state to take care of you. This idea would presumably force people to take responsibility for themselves and get their shit together, so to speak. However, I don't think the reality would be so pretty. No one wants to see the ugly side - that some people just can't function on their own. Be it their own fault or someone else's, no one wants to see people go through unimaginable suffering and hardship just because they are dubbed lazy invalids by society.

That's just my two cents. I guess the idea is to try and keep an open mind because the reality of the situation is so hard to define. I've enjoyed reading everyone's posts on the subject - very interesting and articulate, unlike many other forums I've visited.

[drug-bot]

half our federal taxes are going to the defence budget i.e the military which is ridiculiously out of propertion, if we took even just alittle of that money we'd have universal healthcare for every american citizen and even save money by not spending money on private health plans and medicare; fuck with the money we spend on private health plans and medicare we are already paying for universal coverage, its a fucking joke. america needs to wake up and have a civilized heathcare system like practically every other western nation.

[TheBadMan]

Originally Posted by slight

Another issue I would like to address is the idea that some people "deserve" health care and others do not. I firmly believe that everyone deserves to live; that their lives are valuable

I agree. I think that the US style healthcare system caters to the wealthier and the implicit assumption in that is that wealthier people contribute more to society and thus should have their healthcare paid for by insurance. If Americans want to believe that, then I can only disagree with this point of view. I think it sucks, even though I really don't give much of a shit about anyone except myself. I think private healthcare is far too corrupt and fraudulent.

Apparently, Germany has the best healtcare in the world. They have socialized medicine and of course, the US is (as always) the oddball being the only industrialized nation without it. (Americans are strange - they're the odd ones out but they think they're normal).

It just seems inherently wrong to me that anyone should be allowed to die just because they can't pay for medical care. Even forcing someone in debt for medical care seems ridiculous and sickening. Everyone will eventually get sick and die.

I understand the argument of "survival of the fittest," I do believe in evolution after all.

Evolutionary change RESULTS from the environmental conditions that favour propagation of adaptive traits. In the case of socialized health care versus privatized health care, what traits are being favoured? Being rich? Being white? What about in socialized medicine?

I feel sorry for the USA.

Reputation Comments on this post:

"...odd ones out but they think they're normal" - excellent observation!

[dyingtomorrow]

I thank the OP for posting this, and wanted to start a thread on the same matter for a long time ...

To be brief: I think, however, that such oppression as a result of socialization will (if it occurs) be a short term thing. In the long term, governments will be inevitably forced to recognize that regulation, prevention and education is economically/sociologically+logistically superior to (government) violence and mass imprisonment. The history of humanity has proven that societies that encourage physical and mental freedom will produce greater resources and technology (military, unfortunately, included), and will force their neighbors to do the same through conquest or fear of conquest (be it abstract or corporeal).

[Powder_Reality]

Interesting subject, I'll add my two cents. I've lived in Canada my entire life, so I've always had access to free healthcare (except for dental expenses); perhaps this is the reason that I can't imagine how horrible it would be to have to pay for medical services. Canada has always been a very socialist-minded country, and universal healthcare has historically been one of the single most important events that gave Canadian citizens a greater sense of their national identity. Although we pay higher taxes than purely capitalist countries, I don't feel spiteful about it knowing that my money is being spent on important social programs (such as healthcare). And to answer the OP's question, we've had socialized healthcare since 1946 and there are absolutely no regulations about what an individual can/can't put into their bodies in order to receive healthcare. Given the fact that are already millions of Canadian using alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, and eating unhealthy foods, I can't see how the government could justify trying to exclude people who use other allegedly unhealthy substances if they were to legalize drugs.

I think that the legalization of drugs is definitely compatible with socialized healthcare. As was already pointed out, the amount of money that would be saved from enforcement and incarceration costs coupled with the taxes that would be gained from regulated drug sales would definitely help to counter the cost of healthcare (although not entirely of course). The other argument I've heard is that legalizing drugs will cause an increase in drug usage and therefore raise the overall costs of providing universal healthcare. It has to be understood that people are already using illegal drugs during these prohibitionist times. Legalizing drugs wouldn't necessarily cause an increase in usage, and some studies actually suggest the exact opposite, so this isn't a very strong argument.

That being said, I'd like to take a stand on the soapbox, if I may. I consider myself to be a "libertarian socialist," which sounds like a bit of an oxymoron, but let me explain myself. I'm very liberal in the fact that I believe human individuality is one of the most important aspects of a political policy. I don't believe the government has any right to dictate human behaviour or enforce vice laws, which is one of the reasons I favour drug legalization. On top of that, there are a large number of social/welfare programs that I have personally seen get abused, and I would like to see such services greatly reduced. However, I also believe that the government has a responsibility to provide certain essential services to its citizens, such as healthcare and education. The justification of this is that these services are essential if an individual truly wants to be free. If a person is unable to afford these services, their freedom is truly hindered. So although I fully support universal healthcare (and am completely willing to pay slightly higher taxes for it), I don't believe the government has any right to limit access to these services based on individual lifestyle choices. And with the amount of money that would be saved by reducing unnecessary social programs and eliminating vice laws, there wouldn't be a need for tax rates that are any higher than they currently are. Just my two cents .

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by slight

It's amazing that so many people actually have such a fear of "socialized" healthcare - especially when it is so clearly effective in many other countries. In Canada (where I've lived my whole life), I have never encountered - or even heard of - the government monitoring the alcohol consumption, drug use, or diet of Canadian citizens.

Good to hear, but I doubt those of us to the south will be so lucky. In this country, both liberals and conservatives are puritans at heart (hence the bipartisan support for the war on drugs). It would be all too easy for the politician-in-embryo to blame the drug users - or drinkers, or smokers, or overeaters - for any policy failures due to incompetence or corruption.

"We can no longer stand idly by while our brothers and sisters poison themselves! They are bringing down our wonderful, humane system! We must save them - and ourselves!"

(A bit over the top, but you get the idea. )

I also sincerely feel that anyone who has achieved success through hard work and perseverance will have no problem giving back to their fellow human beings - often to the very people who have enabled the them to succeed.

Therin lies the difference of opinion; a tax-funded program is not the taxed "giving back", but the government taking away. Some of us have a moral problem with that even if a centralized bureaucracy were more utilitarian (not that I grant it). It's not so much a question of what the money should be spent upon, but who should get to make that decision.

I've found that many people argue against particular programs when they are really upset about the taxes used to fund them. Cally's been guilty of it herself. But if Congress ended the war on drugs, slashed the military budget 90%, returned half the savings to the people, and used to rest to fund a bigass medical program...she wouldn't protest too loudly.

Personally, I think the best of all possible options would be to just take whatever money one was going to spend on the bureaucracy and just divide it amongst the poor. Let them spend it how they choose.


ECL

[DopinDan]

People in America need to relearn to think independently. Its very important to realize that the 2 party, one headed beast of a system is set up to keep Americans arguing over issues that are unimportant to the ruling classes, to divide us, and weaken our power to unify, while enriching them.

$250,000 a year is not a rich person, rich is the top 0.5% of the population. At the same time all welfare cannot be eliminated until the divide between rich and poor is equalized, or there will be massive riots when the poor don't get their check in the inner city.

The entire world is heading for a second depression due to the greed of the corporate/government corruption. Millions are suffering here and abroad. Health care is something that should not be for profit, and can and should be available to all. Profit needs to be taken out of government office. Profit as the highest motive and value for mankind, led us to this sickening situation.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Yip, Medecin must be free for Patients and profitable for the Med.Personal!

[Routemaster Flash]

Originally Posted by DopinDan

$250,000 a year is not a rich person, rich is the top 0.5% of the population. At the same time all welfare cannot be eliminated until the divide between rich and poor is equalized, or there will be massive riots when the poor don't get their check in the inner city.

Well let me tell you, I'd feel pretty rich if I were on $250,000 a year. And I don't even live in Chad!

Interestingly, the UK government has recently increased the top tax band from 40% to 50% for earners over £150,000 (which is pretty close to $250,000). Whether this makes much of a difference to the economy, or is basically gesture politics to appease public antipathy towards bankers, remains to be seen.

[Alfa]

Originally Posted by Routemaster Flash

£150,000 (which is pretty close to $250,000).

That was before the Pound dropped. Its about $220,00 now.

[Routemaster Flash]

Originally Posted by Alfa

That was before the Pound dropped. Its about $220,00 now.

Well whatever...same ball park, I meant.

Point is, it's daft to consider rich people "not rich" just because they're not in the upper echelons of the insanely wealthy. They're richer than the vast majority of people, even in a developed country, ergo they are 'rich'.

I mean, I'm 6'2" - so I'm hardly Shaq O'Neill, but I'm still tall.

[El Calico Loco]

That's true if rich and poor are objective categories, but they are not. Rich and poor are relative to one's time and place. Though someone who makes $250k is a hell of a lot richer than me, they are nowhere near the top. That guy might be worth a few million after twenty years of work, but there are others who make that much in a year.

And it also depends on where you live. A median US income can mean comfort in rural Oklahoma or poverty in Manhattan.

I mention it only because I think one of the techniques the powerful use to manipulate us is to play the poor and middle class off against one another (while laughing all the way to the bank, which they own). Most of the so-called progressive taxes tax not the rich, but only the richest of the poor.


ECL
(Look carefully at how governments define "income" when taxing it.)