Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

Exactly.

Mind control alert: the US government is the government of the US (and of the owners of the US), not of the people. The Founding Fathers of the US were the government of the people. Too bad that it's only history.

But what does Australia's UHC do?

 

I never understood why america bothers to have elections when the people dont trust their own winners with importance such as universal health care.

Instead they meakly watch while the corperations swindle the general public.

 

The US government has failed in every task set before it when it comes to social issues. Here are a few examples

Food Stamps - We were promised that it will eliminate hunger in America. Did it?

Welfare - We were promised that it will eliminate poverty in America. Did it?

Social Security - We were promised that we can retire on social security. Can you?

The vast majority of government programs end up in failure. Now the Left wants to run our nations healthcare. Really?

Here is a deal. The day the welfare state actually delivers and there are no poor in the US. The day each and every American child can graduate high school and actually read the diploma that they are handed. The day I can live off Social Security and not need to save for retirement. Then let the government run the health care system. But before the government takes on more work, they have to deliver on their present commitments.

 

Funny how I missed this post. What's even funnier how one country is burdened with immigrants from all over the world and the other has it's immigration policy as tight as fort knox.

Remind me again Makedde how most of the immigrants get you your country as compared to ours? If I were a betting man I would say most of the people that walk into the US outweight those that swim and fly into yours.

Then when you're done thinking about that think about why the US cannot afford to supply UHC to everyone again. 350 million and growing....

 

Nothing is free, especially in this case.

 

Public goods, given non-rivalry consumption characteristics, certainly provides a result consistent with a 'free lunch'. Those ignoring the nature of health care are then merely attempting to coerce an inefficient result

 

The argument against universal health care is a surreal insane mess of mega health insurance corperations controlling the hospitals with an iron fist. Although on this masive scale the american chatters dont want the goverment involved. A strange sense of corp loyatly exists even with the realisation how corrupt it actually is.

 

As an American, I agree. See the power of the media. (Or whoever owns and controls it.)

Moreover, this is against the interest of corporations too, as soon as they plan to start business in the USA. (Operating costs.)

 

Reagan's "trickle down" theory which was admitted to be nothing more than welfare for the rich by its creator David Stockman. The only government programs that have failed were those designed to enrich the wealthy. By contrast, FDR reforms all worked for society's improvement. Had UHC been created years ago as it was in Canada, Europe, Japan, and Israel, it would have been equally successful here as there.

 

Why don't please explain to us how the media makes us all slaves to the corps? A commercial on TV does not engender loyalty and I fail to see how nightly news media is "in on the fix".

 

I don't beleive that. Our Government is an incompetent joke that simply cannot be trusted.

 

You are clear on where government, yours or mine, gets their revenue. Perhaps your government is in the black, but mine is seriously in the red.

In the US we have very good medical care, the problem is that it's become so expensive that many cannot afford it. Why? Insurance. No, not the 'evil' insurance companies, the very inclusive coverages that have been a source of 'benefits' over salary.

Cut the 'all inclusive' coverages. Make doctor visits 'pay as you go.' Doctors staffs will be cut by at least 2/3, maybe 3/4. No need for all those people dealing with insurance companies and checking co-pays, whether you've met your 'deductibles.' With the reduction in staff, the doctors costs will go down, as will fees.

Offer 'hospitalization' care, with a high deductible. If Jonny breaks his arm, parents will have to pay for services in the main or whole. But if little Susie does so a week later, most of hers will be covered. More importantly, if mom comes down with cancer, it will be covered.

 

You call what we have now a success?

What about all the hungry people. Don't we have food stamps?

What about all the homeless people. Don't we have public housing?

What about all the uneducated Americans who can't read or write. Don't we have public schools and public libraries?

I can go on and on. I have facts on my side. Not feel good feelings. The vast majority of government programs are a failure.

And the sad thing is that America will never learn. They will throw good money after bad. If these government programs were private firms they would go out of business real fast. Every see a restaurant that produces bad food. How long does that last.

Yep. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That is so true when it comes to the welfare state.

 

I failed to see anything worth replying to.

 

The truth usually stumps most people.

 

To the question of 'where does it end' I support government assistance in as much as it serves to be the best system of ensuring people have a basic form of subsistence and care that allows them to individually pursue their goals and participate productively in society. So, giving people money to keep them alive seems a basic entitlement and from there I think basic services should be made available, such as adequate health-care, education etc. The government does not tend to be the best system to provide such services, however. My point here is that society should make these things consistently and effectively available.

 

And yet you keep telling me you're fine with this incompetent joke of an institution to invade countries for their resources and for strategic hegemony!

 

How about BASIC health care, doc-in-the-box type stuff, for $20.00 cash only? Save a huge chunk of money there, and 20 bucks is not that much. Even if the proverbial little old lady down the street couldn't afford it, I bet someone would be able to cough up $20.00.

 

It is certainly true regarding the corporate welfare state. Giving welfare to the rich under the fake "trickle down theory" never has done our society even the slightest good. Yet, Republicans today continue to insist that we must have it despite the fact that is is total failure.

Food stamps? What about corporations that deduct meals to employees or business clients on their tax returns? By doing so it is the taxpayer that ultimately pays for those meals. Why allow this type of welfare to businesses?

Public housing? Why are churches allowed to own land that goes tax free and the businesses in them go subsidized by taxpayers?

Public schools & libraries? Thousands of people come from all over the world to use our educational institutions because they are excellent.

Government programs are failures? Did the Marshall Plan fail? did Eisenhower's highway program fail? Are land grant colleges failures??


Supporting al-Qaeda was a failure. Supporting Israel is a failure. Wall Street financing of the Bolsheviks was failure. Wall Street financing of Hitler was failure. War in Vietnam was failure. War in Iraq is failure. War in Afghanistan is failure. And if the warmongers get their wish and start a war on Iran that, too, will be failure.

Like you said, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

Here's why UHC is a good thing:




Thanks to RepubliCON care, 45,000 Americans die every year. This means that 450,000 die every ten years and 900,000 die every 20 years. This is more than the Civil War, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars combined. While Republicans call themselves "pro life", their actions kill tens of thousands of Americans much to the delight of certain far right delusionals.

Thankfully, there has been some change and this young lady will now live thanks to President Obama. I for one rejoice that her life has been spared.

 

You need a more accurate name.

The US is in the current situation because of FDR, if it wasn't for WW2, FDR would have utterly destroyed the country. Even his own advisors (Sec of Treas Morganthau for example) admitted they were following the wrong economic policies.

Universal health care is a failure. Japan's system is facing bankruptcy due to demographics of an ageing population, burdensome rules, govt imposed cost controls, and no incentive to improve.

Canada is probably in the best financial shape, but it has serious troubles. Wait times are long, access in some provinces is difficult, and the costs are increasing beyond expectations. Canada, unlike most others, is actually addressing their problems. Spend some time on the Canadian Institute for Health Information http://www.cihi.ca/ Canada is pretty open about the problems it is facing.

 

FDR's conservatism was the problem! We don't have to refer to Keynesianism until WW2 forced change

The empirical evidence does show that public healthcare systems are more efficienct (see, for example, the DEA analysis into inputs and outputs). There is also obviously a reduction in amenable mortality.

 

Nonsense. You need to stop reading Fox network historical revisionism and to learn the Truth. FDR saved the USA from the ravages of Wall Street's created Great Depression and for the Hitler war machine it financed.

See CONSERVATIVE historian Anthony Sutton's book for further proof.

As for Canadian politics, I happen to frequently post on a Canadian website where the majority agree their UHC is superior to what we have in the USA. It is right wing delusionism which teaches otherwise.

 

FDR's conservatism means "saved the USA" is a proper exaggeration. The rationality of Keynesianism was forced on the US by the war

 

Republican Nixon was the only president in USA history to call himself a Keynesian and his borrow-and-spend policy was not necessitated by any war.