If you lived/have lived in a country with socialized medicine.....

[Sara R]

What makes the US so uniquely incompetent that it's can't accomplish what other nations have?

 

(1) Our financial situation is worse. We're the biggest debtor country in the world already.

 

(2) Illegal immigration. Until there is some kind of border fence, there won't be a way of controlling who comes into the country and uses this system.

 

(3) Higher expectations. The American people expect the greatest medical care in the world, and our government can't afford it.

 

Also, we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to other countries, but to Massachusetts, which is the state Obama is looking to as an example. I haven't studied their situation extensively, but what I

has made me wary.

[Peek a Boo]

If indeed socialized/universal health care/insurance is all about taking care of your neighbor, then try making it voluntary. Is one able to opt out and "take care" of each other voluntarily?

 

In America, there are more conservative/religious organizations that step up with their own money because they want to help their neighbor w/o sucking everyone else dry.

In America, people who tend to believe in supporting causes with their own money actually GIVE more of their own money than do people who believe in universal or socialized programs:

http://philanthropy.com/news/prospecting/index.php?id=6166

 

In a country w/ universal/socialized health care/insurance, can i opt to NOT pay into the health care/insurance system? Even in America i am forced to give money to the gtv for their health programs.

 

The problem that many Americans have w/ socialized/universal health care/insurance is that it entails the gvt taking your money from you at the point of a gun and giving it to someone else. We are already fighting that battle w/ our current system.

 

FYI -- it's a concept that has been around a lot longer than Rush Limbaugh.

 

I agree that the US system sucks. Our immigration laws are so much different than any other country too. We let freeloaders come and stay, and gripe when he country tries to enforce its laws and deport them.

 

I also agree that universal/socialized health care/insurance systems tend to "work."

Slavery "worked" too. Both concepts rely on taking something from another person by force.

I'd prefer to see the current system overhauled, restrictions put on the gvt for how much they can be involved, and leave it private. Not because I've experienced a gvt-run operation anywhere else, but because I amalready aware of the age-old debate of taking another's property by force.

 

I am sure lots of people are happy in a nanny state.

I wouldn't equate taking someone's money by force with being "civilised" tho.

 

But if indeed a universal/socialized health care/insurance operates because people are so darn happy and willing to give selflessly, then let them do so voluntarily. establish a gvt program where people can voluntarily contribute to the program, instead of arresting them or penalizing them for NOT participating.

THAT would be civilised.

[TXMomof4]

I don't know about Italy and Spain, but not everyone in Austria hates it. For the most part it works out fine. However, you are correct in saying that people still pay for privat insurance as well. This, in fact, is one of my pet peeves. Americans think that providing National Health Care is easy and cheap (Yes, I am grossly exaggerating here). It is neither easy nor cheap. What it does do (ought to do) is give everyone a 'basic' coverage. Beyond that basic coverage people are still responsible for any additional care they may want or need. People who are more responsible will buy more insurance. Yes, of course, money helps.

Now, if I understand the current bill correctly, then I would not be allowed to purchase additional privat insurance. That is an outrage!

 

 

 

All this to say this: National Health Care is Basic. You want more you are still responsible for it yourself. I do not want that right to go away, the right to buy more or better insurance.

 

Susie

 

That's exactly the point. No one is expecting "basic" care. And in the process of giving care to everyone, people who have insurance are *allowed* to keep it, but not make any changes.

 

I can envision the chaos now. The first time someone is denied a treatment for ingrown toenails (being a little facetious here) or told they can't have laser surgery, it has to be a good old knife there will be a lot of anger and outrage. Because, after all, isn't it the government's job to provide for everyone? I have said before - I feel like these decisions are being rammed through without thinking of the consequences.

[LBC]

I'm curious, for the Canadians who posted they are very happy with their health care, could you give us an idea of what percentage of your salary goes to taxes?

 

I am another Canadian who is content with our health care system.

 

Here is a copy of the Canadian federal tax rates:

Federal tax rates for 2009 are:

 

 

• 15% on the first $40,726 of taxable income, +

• 22% on the next $40,726 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452), +

• 26% on the next $44,812 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,452 and $126,264), +

• 29% of taxable income over $126,264.

Each province has a different provincial rate. Here is the rate for my province (BC):

5.06% on the first $35,716 of taxable income, +

7.7% on the next $35,717, +

10.5% on the next $10,581, +

12.29% on the next $17,574, +

14.7% on the amount over $99,588

 

I pay a medical "premium" of $108 per month, as does everybody in my province who has a family. It's less for a single person. I am also entitled to a Child Tax Benefit, which could be as high as $800 per month for someone with 4 children and a lower income. Our CTB is currently $238 for our family combined income of $100,000/year.

 

Lori

Edited July 20, 2009 by LBC

[Moxie]

That's exactly the point. No one is expecting "basic" care. And in the process of giving care to everyone, people who have insurance are *allowed* to keep it, but not make any changes.

 

I can envision the chaos now. The first time someone is denied a treatment for ingrown toenails (being a little facetious here) or told they can't have laser surgery, it has to be a good old knife there will be a lot of anger and outrage. Because, after all, isn't it the government's job to provide for everyone? I have said before - I feel like these decisions are being rammed through without thinking of the consequences.

 

 

Yep, the widespread entitlement mentality in the US is a huge issue.

[Kathy in MD]

........In America, there are more conservative/religious organizations that step up with their own money because they want to help their neighbor w/o sucking everyone else dry.

In America, people who tend to believe in supporting causes with their own money actually GIVE more of their own money than do people who believe in universal or socialized programs:

.......

 

 

 

If this system is so good and so flush, why is it that we have so may on this board alone that don't have health insurance and care?

[Mabelen]

I lived in Italy, Spain and a very short time in Austria (my DH was military). Everyone there hated it. The quality of care is way below what most Americans are used to. The wealthier people I knew paid out of their own pocket for private doctors. One of my close friends had to bring her daughter to the US (from Italy) to receive care for a rare type of cancer. A few times we had to go on the economy to receive health care (our tiny base did not have the necessary equipment and it wasn't necessary to send us to Germany for) and we were shocked to see how out dated the equipment was. My DH needed an MRI on his knee and the doctor told us it was an old US machine that was thrown away because it was outdated. It could be that we are that wasteful but I doubt it. My Austrian friend would bring her children to Germany to the US military base for all but the most routine of care. All of that being said Italy had the best plastic surgeons I have ever seen. :D

 

I can't talk for Italy or Austria personally although I had a lot of Italian friends while we lived in the UK and they all seemed happy with their own health system, but I digress.

 

I lived in Spain for 24 years, I was born and grew up there. All of my family are still there, I visit regularly and use their system if needed during those times. I have been/am happy with the system in Spain. Is it perfect? By no means, but the level of care is very good as are the facilites. In terms of waiting times, I would think for some things they are longer than what you have here with a PPO, but not much worse than with an HMO. At least you will never be denied any treatment if your doctor recommends it as long as it is available. It is true that some types of treatment might be available in the US that are not available in Spain, but then again Spain has never been as rich a country as the US, so that is to be expected.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Mabelen

[Peek a Boo]

If this system is so good and so flush, why is it that we have so may on this board alone that don't have health insurance and care?

 

where did I say this system is so good and flush?

 

I have said before that "this system" of freedom is not always easy, and doesn't guarantee success for everyone. It does allow people to help unhindered and w/o the force of having things taken from them.

just because something is "equal for everyone" doesn't mean that it is right, and just because something is right doesn't mean it will be equal for everyone.

 

"this system" is flawed by the gross amount of gvt intrusion and use of force against the people.

 

our gvt practically discourages people from really helping each other with the licensing requirements and litigious society it allows.

Lay midwives are OUTLAWED in the state of NY, yet many still practice underground because they want to HELP the people get the type of care those people want. Even the Good Samaritan laws are being ignored and/or attacked.

 

so if you really want to examine the causes of "why don't" people have health insurance and care, I'd suggest starting there.

 

But I refuse to consider instituting or supporting a system that further erodes the rights we are already losing very quickly.

[Colleen]

In short Sweden's taxes pay for a Nanny State.

 

And they like it that way :)

 

I know, sad isn't it?

 

Not at all. On the contrary, the fact that many people in this world prefer, and thrive under, a different system than that present in the United States is cause for good cheer.

[Colleen]

 

Ignorance is bliss.

Are you speaking from experience?

 

[Audrey]

I am another Canadian who is content with our health care system.

 

Here is a copy of the Canadian federal tax rates:

Federal tax rates for 2009 are:

 

 

• 15% on the first $40,726 of taxable income, +

• 22% on the next $40,726 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452), +

• 26% on the next $44,812 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,452 and $126,264), +

• 29% of taxable income over $126,264.

Each province has a different provincial rate. Here is the rate for my province (BC):

5.06% on the first $35,716 of taxable income, +

7.7% on the next $35,717, +

10.5% on the next $10,581, +

12.29% on the next $17,574, +

14.7% on the amount over $99,588

 

I pay a medical "premium" of $108 per month, as does everybody in my province who has a family. It's less for a single person. I am also entitled to a Child Tax Benefit, which could be as high at $800 per month for someone with 4 children and a lower income. Our CTB is currently $238 for our family combined income of $100,000/year.

 

Lori

 

Just adding my notes.... my provincial tax rates are slightly lower than yours and we have no medical premiums at all. Our CTB is $212/mo.

[Peek a Boo]

 

Not at all. On the contrary, the fact that many people in this world prefer, and thrive under, a different system than that present in the United States is cause for good cheer.

 

not always.

depends on the system and issue.

when people's rights are being eroded and force is used to accomplish that, i find it difficult to cheer.

[Peek a Boo]

Are you speaking from experience?

 

more likely observation and studying history.

[tmkclscroggins]

I don't think anyone is arguing that fact that the US system needs a change. You know what rolls downhill. We've got hospitals charging 12.00 for 1 Tylenol and insurance companies adding these expenses to the consumer who in turn has to pay higher premiums for less care.

 

I think my question is......no matter how badly we need some healthcare reform, do we, as citizens, trust those jokers in Washington to do what's right for the people? Do we have enough faith in them ? I say NO WAY! I don't care what party they belong to. It seems like our ELECTED officials are only after power and what they can do to promote their agendas.

 

 

Researching on the internet, it seems like Switzerland has a good system. Can we hire them? Can we impeach the entire House and Senate and replace them with reliable men and women?

 

Sorry....hope this doesn't count as a political post1

 

 

melissa

[Colleen in NS]

not always.

depends on the system and issue.

when people's rights are being eroded and force is used to accomplish that, i find it difficult to cheer.

 

You might find it difficult to cheer, but those "many people" that Colleen mentioned are not finding it difficult.

 

That's the whole point of *this* thread - there are many of us in or who have lived in other parts of the world who *like* this way of living. And that has nothing to do with whether or not the U.S. should adopt it.

[shinyhappypeople]

Question for Americans who are uncomfortable with universal access to health coverage: do you support universal access to public education for those who can't/won't homeschool or can't afford private school? What about police protection? Fire? Why is health care different?

 

Seriously, wouldn't it stink to have to have "Fire Dept. Insurance"? What if you can't be covered by Fire Dept. Insurance because - through no fault of your own - your last residence suffered fire damage? What if, based on your uninsurability the fire dept. did nothing to save your home but just hosed down the (insured) neighbors' homes to prevent the fire from spreading?

Edited July 20, 2009 by shinyhappypeople

[Peek a Boo]

You might find it difficult to cheer, but those "many people" that Colleen mentioned are not finding it difficult.

 

i know.

there were quite a few slaves that weren't thrilled with being free either.

but as long as we're tossing around opinions, I'll add mine.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't know about fire depts, but I know a few Libertarians who are fine with privatizing just about everything--libraries, parks, schools, roads, etc. You asked a great question.

 

:iagree:

 

Our Constitution gives the federal gvt a pretty specific list.

 

There are plenty of all-volunteer fire departments that DO a good job w/o gvt funding.

 

We had an education system and libraries long before it was funded by the gvt.

 

I'm not a staunch libertarian or capitalist, but i do think there are MUCH better ways to structure the gvt and use the resources that people WANT to share to serve a truly civilised society that minimizes the use of force.

[pqr]

Some would call it [a nanny state] civilised.

 

Of course ML King may have disagreed when he said:

 

"A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on an installment plan".

 

I think we would agree that Nanny states certainly facilitate “soft minded men”

 

 

And if Mr. or Mrs. Wealthy had made their money by selling bullets to terrorists? What if they'd made their money selling bullets to the terrorists and their opposition? As I said in one of the spin off threads, money does not necessarily equal virtue. In this case, I hope Mr. and Mrs. Wealthy get taxed to the ground.

 

I was only talking about our hypothetical Mr. and Mrs. Wealthy because some people seem to think that money only results from hard work so rich people are virtuous, and all those poor people could have been that way too.

$350,000 is a lot of money! If I made that much, I don't think I'd care what percentage I was being taxed! Our PM doesn't make that much. Wow.

 

Rosie

The only thing sad is that you can't see that others are happy living in a country where everyone is looked after. It's not entitlement mentality, it's giving a **** about your neighbor.

 

I care about my neighbor, I just do not care to have someone else tell me how to do so or take my money to care for him. As you are willing to take my money to give it to someone else because it is their “right” (your word not mine) then it is an entitlement mentality.

 

 

 

Yes. Health care for health need is a RIGHT not a privilege. And I'm proud to have lived in two countries that see it that way.

 

A right to take my money??? What happened to right to one's property?

 

---------------------------------

 

Wow Class warfare at its best!!!

 

If your Kulaks (you do not mind me calling them that do you as this is the road you are going down?) earned money illegally then they would generally be fined and imprisoned not taxed. You are calling for special taxes on individual groups of people who you do not like, you are condemning and demonizing them and then deciding based on your philosophy how they should feel about their money. As I said class warfare.

 

It seems to me that we can sum up your views in a quote “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” As it took over 70 years and the deaths of over 70 million people to demonstrate the fallacy of this belief, I had hoped we would not see it, but.....alas.... Marxism light is, it appears, alive and well.

 

Perhaps we should remember our classics

 

The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.-Plutarch

 

The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.-Aristotle... but of course if we did this then your argument for class warfare would fail.

Edited July 20, 2009 by pqr

[pqr]

Originally Posted by pqr

Ignorance is bliss.

 

Are you speaking from experience?

 

 

Yes, I am. I have lived in enough places and spoken to enough people to know that this is true.

 

The ostrich phenomena is alive and well. The belief that if we take from someone else and couch it in terms of right, social conscience, caring etc but bury our heads in the sand to the truth of what we are doing and thereby remain ignorant and blissful is a sad truth.

[TXMomof4]

(1) Our financial situation is worse. We're the biggest debtor country in the world already.

 

(2) Illegal immigration. Until there is some kind of border fence, there won't be a way of controlling who comes into the country and uses this system.

 

 

 

I heard an NPR story a few months ago about immigration in the EU. The only country in the EU that grants citizenship if you are born in the country is Ireland and they are desperately trying to change that (according to this story). In all of the other countries, you will owe the gov. for the birth of your child and you will immediately be deported after you give birth there. Can you imagine this in the US? Can you imagine how much money would be saved in the long run?

 

There's so much more to this than health care, really.

[TXMomof4]

And if Mr or Mrs Wealthy had made their money by selling bullets to terrorists? What if they'd made their money selling bullets to the terrorists and their opposition? As I said in one of the spin off threads, money does not necessarily equal virtue. In this case, I hope Mr and Mrs Wealthy get taxed to the ground.

 

Rosie

 

The fact is that MOST Mr and Mrs Wealthy are hard working people who do NOT deserved to be taxed to the ground.

 

Using your logic Mr and Mrs Dirt Poor are probably taking advantage of the system and using my money for sex, drugs and rock'n'roll and should be put in jail for taking advantage of the system.

 

For every stereotype out there, there are plenty who don't fit the mold.

[WishboneDawn]

 

Of course ML King may have disagreed when he said:

 

"A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on an installment plan".

 

I think we would agree that Nanny states certainly facilitate “soft minded men”

 

I think we don't know what MLK would have thought on the issue and that it's probably not safe to presume there's any agreement here on what constitutes a nanny state or what manner of men they produce.

[pqr]

I think we don't know what MLK would have thought on the issue and that it's probably not safe to presume there's any agreement here on what constitutes a nanny state or what manner of men they produce.

 

Well Rosie said

 

Some would call it [a nanny state] civilised.

I suspect that we at least are in agreement as to what a Nanny State is.

When people grow up with a sense of entitlement, be it because they are too wealthy or receive too much it does, in general, generate people who are soft in mind and body. You may argue all you like, but it is true. People who work for what they have tend to be a little tougher.

[WishboneDawn]

(1) Our financial situation is worse. We're the biggest debtor country in the world already.

 

(2) Illegal immigration. Until there is some kind of border fence, there won't be a way of controlling who comes into the country and uses this system.

 

(3) Higher expectations. The American people expect the greatest medical care in the world, and our government can't afford it.

 

Also, we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to other countries, but to Massachusetts, which is the state Obama is looking to as an example. I haven't studied their situation extensively, but what I

has made me wary.

 

I'm on dial up so I won't be looking at your link. Sorry. :(

 

I don't think you detailed anything that would prevent the US from coming up with some kind of UHC though. Special challenges perhaps but each nation that adopted UHC had special challenges that others nations didn't.

 

Sure, it will be hard because of those considerations but, keeping in mind that this is the anniversary of the moon landing, when has something being hard stopped the USA from doing it?

[Lovedtodeath]

I haven't read through all the posts, but I'm an American living in Canada and I have to say both types of systems have big plusses and minuses.

 

The plus in the US is that IF you have the money you can get whatever kind of care you want, pretty much when you want it.

 

The big minus (in my experience) is that if you don't have the money you don't get care, or if you do you get treated very, very badly.

 

The minus is that there can be huge delays or lack of some services. My FIL waited two years for ankle surgery - so long that the bone had decayed to the point that he couldn't get the kind of surgery that would have really helped him to walk more comfortably.

I haven't read hardly any of this, and as far as the political side or what the bill is planning, I am staying out of it. But I do think that our current health care system is messed up.

 

I paid $500 a month for state insurance for 3 months and they turned every claim down when I had it. EVERY claim.

 

My mom is on an income based program here in the US. She has been waiting three years for foot surgery and the doctor said that it will be getting worse in the meantime.

[elfgivas]

i've lived in germany, england and canada as well as here now in the usa. the health care was better in all three than here. every system has problems. i found germany the hardest of the three universal care countries, but even it was fine. the thing i like is that no one went without care. the thing that was hard was that when we were there, the thing they saved money on was anaesthetics.... so i had our first without any meds. i had our second in canada, and they offered me meds "if i really needed them". i decided i didn't. the last two were born in the usa, and i had real trouble convincing them to NOT medicate me. they kept asking and asking. sigh.....

 

one thing i like is how that moves the health care system to focus on preventative care. right now, my dear dad is registered in a "falls" clinic in toronto. he is turning 80, and they offer everyone a four week course on how to improve balance, strength, and how to avoid falls. they have found it very cost effective, and its certainly much nicer than a broken hip!

[Colleen in NS]

when people's rights are being eroded and force is used to accomplish that

 

there were quite a few slaves that weren't thrilled with being free either.

 

I just don't see it this way here in Canada, and I'm just trying to keep to what I thought were the main questions of the original post. I thought Colleen's cheer post was relevant to those questions, so I supported it.

[Sara R]

I don't think you detailed anything that would prevent the US from coming up with some kind of UHC though. Special challenges perhaps but each nation that adopted UHC had special challenges that others nations didn't.

 

Sure, it will be hard because of those considerations but, keeping in mind that this is the anniversary of the moon landing, when has something being hard stopped the USA from doing it?

 

That's part of the problem too. America of 1969 is not today's America. We have been decaying since then. People still think of America as the richest country in the world, and it just isn't true anymore. Right now we are only existing as well as we are because the Chinese continue to accept little pieces of paper in return for their stuff. As soon as they figure out that that they are throwing good money after bad, things are going to get much worse fast.

 

But people still think of America as the richest country in the world (American hubris), so they expect the best medical care. If the socialized system doesn't give great-grandma a quintuple bypass (sorry for mentioning this so much; it's the example from my family), people are going to scream euthanasia. And the government is not going to fight the people on a huge scale like this, so they will pay for it, with money they don't have.

 

You can't underestimate the financial problems this country is in. It was at a crisis point in 2007, even before all of the bailouts began. If peak oil has arrived, as many in the oil industry think it has, that means that the economic growth that this country (and world) have been used to is going to slow and reverse. That means that most people will be unable to afford the expensive new medical advances.

 

I agree that something has to change. But I think the quickest way to convince Americans that they can't afford as much medical care is by making them responsible for the bulk of it themselves. We switched to a health savings account last year, and it's amazing how much less often we go to the doctor now. (Not that that's necessarily a good thing...but it was a quick way to convince us that we can't afford it.) Do all you can to make the private system sustainable and less expensive: make it easier to comparison shop between insurance policies; have prices posted; quit making people who pay their bills subsidize those who don't (that's a biggie, I think), make insurance cover only the catastrophic and not the day-to-day; eliminate the laws that say what health insurance has to cover, make all insurance private not provided by employers, eliminate pre-existing condition refusals. Maybe even create cheap policies that downgrade the covered medical care back a couple of decades. See how many non-drug solutions people come up with for depression and ADD etc. Cut costs in the government-run systems we already have (Medicaid and Medicare); charge at least modest copays (or creative barter payment or labor for the very poor) so using Medicaid/Medicare is not perceived as "free" and thus abused. I think that only when people figure out that cutting-edge medical care is unaffordable, they might be willing to accept an affordable single payer system. In the meantime, such cost cutting measures would make insurance more affordable to private citizens.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Sara R

[WishboneDawn]

Well Rosie said

 

Some would call it [a nanny state] civilised.

I suspect that we at least are in agreement as to what a Nanny State is.

 

I think she was simply acknowledging that she knew what you meant by nanny state. The very fact that she used the word civilized should imply that the two of you are NOT in agreement.

 

You may argue all you like, but it is true. [/i]

 

If it's true because you say it's true then I assume you'll accept my claim that UHC is the best thing since sliced bread just because I said it?

[pqr]

 

If it's true because you say it's true then I assume you'll accept my claim that UHC is the best thing since sliced bread just because I said it?

 

There are certain truisms that few would argue against. My point that people who earned what they have, and did not receive hand outs, tend to be a little tougher than those who were simply given things is one of them.

 

We may, and do, disagree on much but do you seriously argue that toughness is engendered by hand outs????

[WishboneDawn]

There are certain truisms that few would argue against. My point that people who earned what they have, and did not receive hand outs, tend to be a little tougher than those who were simply given things is one of them.

 

We may, and do, disagree on much but do you seriously argue that toughness is engendered by hand outs????

 

I am not arguing that at all. I probably would agree with you on the matter. I was objecting to what you were asking me to do, which was to accept your claim as if there is no arguing with it.

 

Even if I agree with your claim I don't know where it gets you. Is the roundabout argument that UHC would make soft-minded people? Well then there's a huge middle ground surrounding what constitutes handouts and nanny states that you're essentially asking me to simply take for granted. Which I don't.

[pqr]

The dictionary definition of a Nanny State is

 

"A government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations."

 

If we agree that hand outs make for softer citizens and given that a nanny state is defined as above then surely it follows that your initial statement

 

"it's probably not safe to presume there's any agreement here on what constitutes a nanny state or what manner of men they produce.".

 

is incorrect.

 

Anyway you are correct that this is becoming tedious.

 

 

Anyway here, in Europe, it is late.

 

Good Night, I am sure we will debate on the morrow.

[shinyhappypeople]

 

There are plenty of all-volunteer fire departments that DO a good job w/o gvt funding.

 

 

I've never lived in a place with volunteer fire fighters, though I'm sure they do a good job. But, who pays for the equipment, fire trucks and the other related costs? I'm assuming they don't show up with garden hoses :001_smile: Anyway, this is getting OT (sorry OP), but it's always seemed incongruous to me to say YES to the existence of gov't funded police protection, fire protection, road maintenance, parks, public schools or even child protective services but freak out at the mention of universal access to health care.

[Rosie_0801]

I think she was simply acknowledging that she knew what you meant by nanny state. The very fact that she used the word civilized should imply that the two of you are NOT in agreement.

I think we would agree that Nanny states certainly facilitate “soft minded men”

 

Since I'm the "she" referred to here, then yes, you could say pqr and I were not agreeing :) The dictionary definition of nanny state, as posted by someone, said "excessive" interference. Excess is a sliding scale, and we are not all going to agree on what crosses over from nice and hospitible to excessive. It appears you consider any country with socialised medicine to be a nanny state, which means there are going to be quite a few of us on here disagreeing with you. I don't believe any of the Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Brits and Europeans on here consider themselves to be soft minded.

 

I find it interesting that people from so called 'nanny' states have been criticised for an entitlement mentality, and people in the US have also been criticised for an entitlement mentality. If this requires footnotes, you (whoever wanting footnotes!) may re-read the thread.

 

Rosie

Edited July 20, 2009 by Rosie_0801

[sandellie4]

Honestly Lazy? If someone loses a job, the entire family loses coverage. If someone's employer decides he can't continue offering health coverage, the entire family loses coverage. And if someone has a preexisting condition, he can forget about ever getting health insurance, at least for a pre-existing condition. An individual can have paid into the US health insurance system his entire working life, yet lose everything if he gets sick at the wrong moment. And current gov't programs are not designed for the average working person and especially not the high earner you think is protected against such things.

 

The current health insurance system in the US stinks for a large % of the population. The current proposal on the table may not be the right one, but for too many years too many people have been sticking their heads in the sand on this issue. The end result has been that fewer and fewer people have insurance or the ability to pay cash for their major medical bills. That means those with major medical problems that can pay, start paying for everyone who can't.

 

:iagree:

 

The current health insurance system stinks for a lot of people, including many who are not lazy, etc. We have to do something, and if this isn't the thing to do (though I don't like that this is being pushed through, I have to say), where were all the great ideas while families at my church lost jobs of 15-25-plus years and their health insurance, too? These issues have been going on in this country for years. But all that seemed to matter was whether *I* have health insurance or whatever else *I* need. Everyone else is lazy or hasn't made the investment in education, etc. Okay, so life's not fair and maybe we don't want to be responsible for anything aside from the freedom to pursue life's bounty. But assuming that the bulk of people who need help with health insurance are lazy? For heaven's sake!

 

My family is very comfortable right now while a lot of families are struggling. Overall, we feel pretty insulated. But when I take a long-term view, how safe are we really, if one of us is diagnosed with a major health issue that falls through the cracks of our excellent insurance? I hope to be as nonjudgmental and supportive to others in this situation as I hope they would be to me. Too many people are living in terror, and we have allowed that. So, since life isn't fair, maybe these people elected the current administration. Maybe I disagree with how they're going about it (I'm conservative in most issues, but not so much in health insurance/care), but after years of not addressing the issues, what did we think was going to happen?

 

Sandy

[Melissa in Australia]

 

 

I also agree that universal/socialized health care/insurance systems tend to "work."

Slavery "worked" too. Both concepts rely on taking something from another person by force.

 

:lol::lol: Are You really comparing slavery to universal heath cover?:lol::lol:

I think you are off your rocker.

[Barb_]

I've never lived in a place with volunteer fire fighters, though I'm sure they do a good job. But, who pays for the equipment, fire trucks and the other related costs? I'm assuming they don't show up with garden hoses :001_smile: Anyway, this is getting OT (sorry OP), but it's always seemed incongruous to me to say YES to the existence of gov't funded police protection, fire protection, road maintenance, parks, public schools or even child protective services but freak out at the mention of universal access to health care.

\

Not OT at all. You make excellent points and if I were on the fence I would be swayed.

 

Barb

[LizzyBee]

I've never lived in a place with volunteer fire fighters, though I'm sure they do a good job. But, who pays for the equipment, fire trucks and the other related costs? I'm assuming they don't show up with garden hoses :001_smile: Anyway, this is getting OT (sorry OP), but it's always seemed incongruous to me to say YES to the existence of gov't funded police protection, fire protection, road maintenance, parks, public schools or even child protective services but freak out at the mention of universal access to health care.

 

Most VFDs (volunteer fire departments) do a lot of fundraising to buy equipment. Sometimes the county or municipality contributes some funds to help offset costs.

[LizzyBee]

The last place we lived, we were required to pay a monthly fee(in the water bill) for the all volunteer fire dept. Perhaps just another stupid Texas quirk, tho.

 

 

Our annual property tax bill includes a small fee to help support the volunteer fire dept. But we have a well, so we don't have water bills. :D

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By ShinyHappyPeople Anyway, this is getting OT (sorry OP), but it's always seemed incongruous to me to say YES to the existence of gov't funded police protection, fire protection, road maintenance, parks, public schools or even child protective services but freak out at the mention of universal access to health care.

 

:hurray:

 

I could not agree more. It is tiring to hear that universal healthcare will only lead us to communism and the like. This is American for heavens sake and we have many public service entities that are socialistic-like (based on the definition) such as our dear military, our roads, police, and fire-fighters that none of us would want to do without.

 

We have a robust republic founded on principles of democracy. I am not afraid of our country degenerating into a communist or fascist state. I think these sort of arguments are fear mongering and are the talking points of the private health insurance companies.

Edited July 20, 2009 by priscilla
formatting

[TXMomof4]

 

 

We have a robust republic founded on principles of democracy. I am not afraid of our country degenerating into a communist or fascist state. I think these sort of arguments are fear mongering and are the talking points of the private health insurance companies.

 

 

Having the gov. tell me I won't have a choice - have their healthcare or be penalized - sorry, that has nothing to do with democracy. Do you think we've all been happy hunky dory up until now? The entire welfare system is arguable - I really think it should be handled on a local level. The consititution states the gov. is to provide defense, hence the military. The gov. mandating how old my children have to be before they can get out of car seats - not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. The gov. is limited by the constitution - and they are overstepping those limitations in bigger and bigger steps. It's our own fault though. No one screamed when they started nosing in and now it's pretty near impossible to get them out.

[teraberry]

I just have to say that I am so tired of politicians in leadership who blatantly step all over the constitution. The tenth ammendment clearly states,

 

“The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.â€

 

They've already stepped over these bouncaries with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs. (By the way, I think Democrats were in office when all of these were formed and they've all been disasterous economically.)

 

There should be no debate in the first place as to whether the president can choose to forgo the Constitution. I think that when there is an issue to be dealt with, it always should be done in such a way as to be in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America.

[keptwoman]

You might find it difficult to cheer, but those "many people" that Colleen mentioned are not finding it difficult.

 

That's the whole point of *this* thread - there are many of us in or who have lived in other parts of the world who *like* this way of living. And that has nothing to do with whether or not the U.S. should adopt it.

 

 

Yes. This thread asked "if you live/have lived in a country with socialised medicine are you happy with health care?"

 

Those of use who live or have lived with it have replied. I don't understand why our happiness with our situation is being insulted by others when we were asked the question and have replied to it. Yes many if not most of us on this thread living with Universal Health Care are happy with it. Why is that SO HARD to comprehend? It does not make us feeble minded, it makes us HAPPY. :D I know, I know....almost impossible to comprehend that someone could be happy in a "nanny state" but there you are. The world takes all kinds, so I guess it's lucky that you live there and I live here.

 

 

:lol::lol: Are You really comparing slavery to universal heath cover?:lol::lol:

I think you are off your rocker.

I know!! :lol:

Edited July 21, 2009 by keptwoman

[Margaret in GA]

:hurray:

 

I could not agree more. It is tiring to hear that universal healthcare will only lead us to communism and the like. This is American for heavens sake and we have many public service entities that are socialistic-like (based on the definition) such as our dear military, our roads, police, and fire-fighters that none of us would want to do without.

 

We have a robust republic founded on principles of democracy. I am not afraid of our country degenerating into a communist or fascist state. I think these sort of arguments are fear mongering and are the talking points of the private health insurance companies.

 

Agreed. You wouldn't believe the amount of money pouring into lawmaker's hands from lobbyists right now. And you think Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity aren't all getting the same notes about how to spin this?

Margaret

[Colleen in NS]

I find it interesting that people from so called 'nanny' states have been criticised for an entitlement mentality, and people in the US have also been criticised for an entitlement mentality.

 

I noticed that, too.

 

we have many public service entities that are socialistic-like (based on the definition) such as our dear military, our roads, police, and fire-fighters that none of us would want to do without.

 

And this is exactly how I feel about Canada's medical system, after many years of living here. I see accessible necessary medical care as a protective service.

 

I don't understand why our happiness with our situation is being insulted by others when we were asked the question and have replied to it. Yes many if not most of us on this thread living with Universal Health Care are happy with it. Why is that SO HARD to comprehend? It does not make us feeble minded, it makes us HAPPY. :D

 

Yes, and ya can't argue with how someone feels about something, only statements that propose something. I'm HAPPY! :D And that's what the OP wanted to know!

[Peek a Boo]

I don't understand why our happiness with our situation is being insulted by others when we were asked the question and have replied to it.

 

LOL! you might want to check out the previous Christian threads. There's a lot of that going on, just coming from the opposite direction. ;)

 

Yes many if not most of us on this thread living with Universal Health Care are happy with it. Why is that SO HARD to comprehend? It does not make us feeble minded, it makes us HAPPY.

 

i don't mind you being HAPPY; i do mind very much that you [general you] are willing to forcibly drag others into your own "happy" world. You probably wouldn't want to be dragged into my version of HAPPINESS. :D

I have said before that I would support a UHC plan that was voluntary: people could opt in or out as they wished.

 

I could not agree more. It is tiring to hear that universal healthcare will only lead us to communism and the like. This is American for heavens sake and we have many public service entities that are socialistic-like (based on the definition) such as our dear military, our roads, police, and fire-fighters that none of us would want to do without.

 

We have a robust republic founded on principles of democracy. I am not afraid of our country degenerating into a communist or fascist state. I think these sort of arguments are fear mongering and are the talking points of the private health insurance companies.

 

fear mongering only works if there is an element of truth to it.

I'm not a fan of the private health insurance companies, so you're wrong there.

we already have so many socialist programs it's not funny.

When you say "none" you are absolutely mistaken in your assumption: quite a few of us would rather see those services offered via voluntary funding, not forcefully taken from everyone.

 

The dictionary definition of nanny state, as posted by someone, said "excessive" interference. Excess is a sliding scale, and we are not all going to agree on what crosses over from nice and hospitible to excessive. ...

 

I find it interesting that people from so called 'nanny' states have been criticised for an entitlement mentality, and people in the US have also been criticised for an entitlement mentality. If this requires footnotes, you (whoever wanting footnotes!) may re-read the thread.

 

 

correct.

The US has marched towards increasing entitlement mentality for quite some time. I find it interesting that people DON't consider much of the US system socialistic.

and I've already given my view of "excessive": taken by force at the point of a gun. and yes, the US fits that.

 

I've never lived in a place with volunteer fire fighters, though I'm sure they do a good job. But, who pays for the equipment, fire trucks and the other related costs?

The last place we lived, we were required to pay a monthly fee(in the water bill) for the all volunteer fire dept. Perhaps just another stupid Texas quirk, tho.

 

It varies. some localities have direct fundraisers, some still tax, and some receive grants from public and/or private foundations. I would vote to keep it volunteer and privately funded, since that has already shown that it can work.

..... but it's always seemed incongruous to me to say YES to the existence of gov't funded police protection, fire protection, road maintenance, parks, public schools or even child protective services but freak out at the mention of universal access to health care.

 

manymanymany people did NOT "say yes" --those systems were implemented by a majority regardless whether it was right.

 

I've heard you say that about some slaves not being happy to be free before. What type of slave are you talking about?

 

Harriet Tubman encountered quite a few:

“I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.â€

 

I don't have an online source --i was reading about that in a narratives of slaves book several years ago. It's always stuck with me.

 

they were HAPPY being cared for in the civilised nanny state they had: a nice owner who truly cared for them.

 

 

Are You really comparing slavery to universal heath cover?

I think you are off your rocker.

QUOTE=keptwoman;1084433

I know!! :lol:

 

of course you do.

see the Tubman quote above.

[Peek a Boo]

Agreed. You wouldn't believe the amount of money pouring into lawmaker's hands from lobbyists right now. And you think Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity aren't all getting the same notes about how to spin this?

 

 

yeah....

and there's NO propaganda or money changing hands on the liberal side. :001_rolleyes:

 

puh-LEEZE! :lol: :lol:

[pqr]

Since I'm the "she" referred to here, then yes, you could say pqr and I were not agreeing :) The dictionary definition of nanny state, as posted by someone, said "excessive" interference. Excess is a sliding scale, and we are not all going to agree on what crosses over from nice and hospitible to excessive. It appears you consider any country with socialised medicine to be a nanny state, Rosie

 

Actually I said "In short Sweden's taxes pay for a Nanny State." I believe that you are the one who leapt to the conclusion that I was referencing Australia and NZ. I know for a fact that those two nations created men of real character and that the lands from whence the Anzacs came knew all about toughness.

 

I also never claimed that no men of character came from the Nanny State just that the conditions there made it easier for "soft-minded men " to develop.

 

So no simply having socialised medicine does not necessarily a nanny state make, but it is certainly a prerequsite.

Edited July 21, 2009 by pqr

[keptwoman]

I think the point is PQR that Australia and NZ have many of the things attributed to Sweden, including being paid per child. Although alas free tertiary education is a thing of the past and many graduates have the debt to show for it because they also don't have much of a scholarship system.

 

Anyway, I'll bow out now. The question was asked and answered. Yes I'm happy with our healthcare, yes I love living in a "nanny state" and if it makes a few soft men along the way, so be it.

I shall go spring clean my kitchen, well winter clean really LOL

Edited July 21, 2009 by keptwoman