WHY NOT A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SERVICE FOR EVERYBODY?

The fact that we do not have a National Healthcare Insurance in the US means (more than likely) that either one's employer pays for it or individuals themselves do out-of-pocket.

Which means this:
*Companies must recuperate privatized HC-costs from the products/services it sells, meaning further,
*Their customers (we-the-sheeple) thus all help pay for the company's privatized HC-insurance. Meaning also,
*A great many of its customers who cannot afford private HC insurance on their own are obliged to to pay for others who are covered!
*Meaning the privatized HC-system in America today is Greatly Unfair!

And why should the case be different for government employees? Meaning the health-care of government staff is paid out of Income Taxation is a privilege that need not exist just for a select group of Americans.

But such unfairness is decidedly the case today in America. From "Overview of the Government Health Care Programs" here:

Which provokes this question "And what about the other two-thirds?" Why not a National Healthcare Service for everybody financed by national taxation* - just like it exists today for those who work for the American government ... ?

*Yes, of course that is going to augment total government expenditures - and very likely higher taxation to cover them. But, why not compensate by:
-Reducing the expenditure of the DoD now comprised of fully more than half the US Discretionary Budget (57%)! (See that fact demonstrated here.) Or,
-Raising upper-income taxation that is presently comparatively unfair and even indecently low.

 

Why not just create a not-for-profit government (people)-owned/operated, taxpayer funded medical care system? We just expand what the taxpayer funded DoD medical care system already has for its servicemen, but nationally for all citizens.(Is that what you're advocating, or just an expanded healthcare payment system? If the former, I would definitely agree with you!)

Advantages:

* Generates millions of secure, meaningful & fulfilling government-paid jobs in healthcare & health education, and with good pay.
* Competes with, and will wipe out private (for-profit) health providers.
* No risk of taxpayer funding going to private drug companies for research, who then patent the drugs & make $billions.
* Eliminates need for any type of health insurance.
* Eliminates need for companies to pay employee health insurance.
* Ensures fiscal healthcare costs remain low/reasonable, no wasteful spending, no greedy CEO's to pay, and far less administrative costs (ie, efficient, simple, and streamlined).
* Ensures lowest cost, safest, highest quality, most effective, cutting edge medical care (not-for-profit = no cutting corners & no suppression of cheaper, safer, more effective therapies).
* National per capita health improves greatly (no stress over medical bills, top quality care, lots of healthcare jobs/education, etc.).
* No long lines, no bed shortages, no doctor/nurse shortages, no lack of medicines or top quality care at any of the facilities, no fussing about which insurance or which doctor or which hospital/clinic one goes to, no stress about medical transportation costs (ambulance, helicopter, etc.).
* Saves each person/family tens to hundreds of thousands annually & eliminates risk of bankruptcy.
* Bigger hospitals can be located in beautiful, cleaner & peaceful locations well outside city limits (to facilitate quicker healing), such as oceanfront, forest, river/lakefront, desert, and mountainous areas.

Once this is established, it will be that much easier to move onto a nationalized (people owned/operated/funded) utilities system, transportation system, food/agricultural production systems (plus, for would-be farmers, small farms will be encouraged, funded & expanded everywhere), communications system, science/technology research & development system (including invention/idea centers), education system, the arts, distribution system, appliances/electronics/furniture/other home goods, textiles & clothing (including education in sewing, fashion, etc.), construction & maintenance, mining & industry, space travel/technology, "prison" (ie, rehab) system, etc. (Plus, defense can & should remain on home turf at all times. No more foreign invasions/regime changes/covert ops/assassinations/creating terrorist groups/proxy wars/etc.)

There won't even be any need to force private businesses to shut down. They will simply be unable to compete with the people, and will naturally fail (who will want to work for any of them other than maybe their family members?). Private businesses that may succeed (to a point) may essentially become limited to family owned/operated restaurants, small farms, artisan bakeries & other specialty foods, specialty guilds, specialty art/crafts, specialty clothing, specialty furniture, etc.

Due to limited revenue & limited workforce, any private business will be unable to (1) expand to such a point where it becomes a threat to the well-being of others & the environment (including to other private businesses), (2) abuse its workers, or (3) hoard & control resources critical to the well-being of others.

With a reasonable human population living a high & very advanced standard of living, earth can then be allowed to return to its former pristine garden state.

 

Private sector employees who have health care through their employers pay for those benefits with their labor.
Government employees who have health care also pay for their benefits with their labor.

Providing free healthcare for everyone simply means that the employees/workers will not only have to pay for their own health care with their labor, but will also have to pay for others too. Essentially, the workers will have their labor usurped and distributed to others. This amounts to exploitation of the labor class. The fruits of the worker's labor is being expropriated for the benefit of others!

Wait a second! Isn't exploitation of the worker exactly what socialists complain about??? Yet they want to steal the labor of the workers and give it to others? What the hell!

 

Why not a national free food service for everybody and a national new car and new house program for everybody while we're at it? Makes sense I'm voting for Bernie this time.

 

FIFTY-TWO PERCENT!

Good question! One I have been asking here on this forum for at least five years!

Because there IS a different manner in which to educate our children up to the necessary level of a post-secondary degree. Moreover, that present Discretionary Spending "system" is generating one of the largest quotients of National Debt in America's history.

Is THAT the heritage that you want to leave your children? Because, like it or not, with the National Public Debt that is what happens! Depending upon the dollar-volume of that debt, you and/or your kids will be paying it for a good long-time!

Wakey, wakey! Why not do it as done in Europe where both Healthcare and Post-secondary schooling are nationalized? But Europe does not have the world's largest public expenditure like Uncle Sam's national Defense Spending at 52% of the total US government Discretionary Expenditure.

You don't believe that? Then see here:


Whoa, horsey! It's time we got off the DoD Merry-go-round ... !

PS: Yes, look at the numbers. The US government spends only 5% of total Discretionary Spending upon Healthcare! (And only 7% on Education!)

 

Such is the natural result of the united states ultimately paying for a large percentage of the defense of other nations. If the united states withdrew all defensive aid being contributed to other foreign nations, ultimately forcing them to worry about their own defense, a great deal more could be spent on the people. But such would ultimately mean leaving foreigners to die since they have no funds budgeted for their own defense.

 

Social welfare and education is more the obligation of the state. State taxes goes wholly to such things. The federal government is supposed to focus on military and foreign matters. If you want more social programs, shrink the federal government and grow state government. Stop trying to grow a corrupt federal government bent on sending us I to bankruptcy.

 

Enough of the anguish over state and national governance and keeping that divide. That's soooo "ancient history" that we used to call the Industrial Age!

If we want an EFFECTIVE Healthcare System, it must be national in nature. Workers will move around more and more in the future. So, why not be able to access the same level of Healthcare Service wherever we live?

Healthcare must be the same across all states, because nobody is "married to a state" just because they were born there. More and more of the nation is moving around because that is the way the New Economy functions best. Face realities - is what I am saying. We are no longer in the Industrial Age which was highly local in nature. People spent their lives working for just one manufacturer. (I remember that vividly of my parents!)

Those "industrial"-jobs have all moved to China! We are now in the Information Age (which is far more services orientated. That is, we access information to employ it in our work in most higher-level jobs today. And to do that properly, we also need a higher level of studies to be able to work in industries with a need for a better educated workforce.

It's that or, as a nation, we go down the tubes. And that fundamental change in workstyle is upon us NOW, TODAY and TOMORROW and WELL INTO THE FUTURE.

Wakey, wakey ... !

 

You would have, less, almost no say in how your Healthcare operates on a national level.

I am not too concerned about switching healthcare between states. It wouldn't be difficult to set some national ground rules that allowed for you to transition plans smoothly. If you don't like how a particular state operates, you dont have to move there. Under your plan, if you don't like how the federal government operates, you are just screwed. Do you really think you will get the plan you want? Do you really believe the other half of the country will let you?

 

Nobody needs to pay for healthcare. If you are sick just go to the ER. Be sure and call an ambulance to take you AND pick you up. When you get the bill just ignore it. Nobody is going to come after you and if they do they will just be wasting their time. It's the American way.

 

As long as we can have a national healthcare that doesn't penalize people for not buying into the public system, when they are preferring a private system.
Maybe we are talking some sort of voucher system.

If you make people pay taxes in exchange for a service, and don't give them any voucher for using the services from somebody else, it's effectively a big penalty if they want out of the public system, many middle-income people may not then be able to afford care from the private sector.

However, we see how much opposition there already is against vouchers in the public education system.

Maybe some sort of compromise? Conservatives will concede to a rudimentary national health system, but in exchange the Left has to concede to vouchers in both healthcare and public education?

 

The employer is providing a medical payment system. The workers are neither being provided medical services, nor are they directly channeling their labor into all the services they NEED (unless their job entails a direct supportive role or benefit to those necessary services).

For example...a burger flipper may be receiving company-provided health insurance, but the worker is not contributing essential labor to support healthcare SERVICES. In fact, both the burger flipper & the company are a parasite because both are contributing nothing of value to essential social services, to people, or to the environment. Such companies & jobs waste valuable labor & resources, and this type of work is an example of a "sh!t job"-----tedious, boring, tiring, depressing, and soul-destroying.

If they work for the federal government on behalf of essential public services (like healthcare, emergency services, roads, etc.), then yes...they're contributing labor to those services.

But if they work for the government in some capacity on behalf of the interests of the wealthy, at the expense of the working class, at the expense of environmental protection, or at the expense of social safety & stability, then no...their labor does not contribute to essential public services.

If there is free medical care for all, then employers will no longer need or feel obligated to provide health insurance. Those savings will translate into higher wages/benefits for workers.

Socialists see that capitalism is a parasitic means by which socialist programs (labor) can be exploited to funnel most of the wealth & control of essential resources to the Few, and away from the Many. Socialists seek only to ensure that the working class will reap the fruits of their own labor, rather than be channeled to those who seek to hoard/control it.

 

What's the point of living as a group if not to cooperate & share resources & the fruits of labor, to ease the struggle for survival, and to provide social support & security? If you feel individualism is important, I agree. But what is the individual without the group? To what extent can the individual explore his/her potential alone vs with the support of others? Does it make sense that most of the fruits of labor & essential resources get funneled to the Few and away from the Many who are performing all the labor? That would defeat the purpose/benefit of living as a group because it introduces a parasitic element.

Humans are an extremely social/gregarious species. They don't do well when alone. But whether as part of a family, a village, a city, or a nation, the individual is greatly enhanced which allows humans to thrive & advance in a multitude of ways. The group is what gives the individual a firm platform from which to launch his/her creative potential. When all individuals of the group are provided this benefit, there is no limit to human progress.

If you still doubt the value of a socialist system, you can test your "rugged individualism" by living off the land on your own with none of the tools, modern comforts, or support that socialism provides. See how far you get.

And speaking of free food, new car, and a new house, check out the impressive list of what Libyan leader, Gaddafi, provided for his people before the U.S./Western powers assassinated him & destroyed his nation. His social programs put even Scandinavian nations to shame.

 

One of many & predictable symptoms of parasitic capitalism infecting what should otherwise be an unwritten "social contract" to invest in one another for the benefit of all.

 

The biggest and simplist reason is because I don't want to pay for other peoples healthcare. I avoid junkfood, take nutritional suppliments, brush my teeth regularly and get reasonable exercize. My medical bills are nearly nil. Until a national health care plan can figure out how to seperate my healthcare from the folks that live on cheetos and soft drinks and tv, its a no go for me.

 

WASTING TAX-REVENUES IN THE MIDDLE-EAST

Yes, your egocentricity is readily obvious! You think evidently that you are all-alone in the world, and what matters in life is just you-you-you and yours-yours-yours.

Proper Healthcare and Education are two key-elements that are "national" in nature and all Americans deserve to benefit from the services nationally. You know, like the Dept. of Defence that protects the nation!

No you "don't know". You are just one of many who think that Private Healthcare Insurance is rightfully just-another-insurance. It aint. In the US, it is one of the most expensive on earth because it is privatized!

National Healthcare should be like the DoD that protects us-plural from a common enemy. In the first instance, this enemy is called "aging" for the elderly. But it should also cover everybody else if-and-when they need it. That per-capita HC-cost comparatively (on an international basis) presently looks like this:

 

AS REGARDS POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

As for Tertiary Education, the same public assistance is necessary!

Yes, America's families deserve an option provided by both states as well as nationally out of common Federal public-subventions. States/cities already fund secondary-schooling by means of laws that go back more than a century! Those laws should be the same for Post-secondary Education with help to assume the cost from the Federal Dept. of Education subventions (based upon a per-student basis in each state)!

These "education laws" that exist already need only be updated and made "national" in nature - meaning the Dept. of Education helps states fund post-secondary education in their state-universities (across the board - that is, the entire range from vocational to associates to bachelors to masters to doctorate degrees).

That is, the entire educational spectrum - city/state/national. The funding should be both state and Federal-taxation in nature.

Rather than pissing national tax-revenues down a hole in the Middle-east* ... !

*See here: America has spent $6.4 trillion on wars in the Middle East and Asia since 2001, a new study says

 

Its not expensive for me. I just want it to stay that way. And I don't care if you think thats selfish.

 

YOU are one of many.

Think about that fact and you just might exit from that egg-shell in which you live ... !

 

ECONOMIC INJUSTICE

Enough of the one-liner criticism of "capitalism"! You are showing your lack of comprehension of a market-economy in which you live and depend upon.

There is no alternative to the use of capital in a market-economy. There IS, however, an alternative to Wealth Accumulation at very high incomes, and it is called 9
98% taxation rates at all levels of income beyond 10/15 megabucks a year - as well as 100% taxation of all wealth after death to family members. Which will make parents shift the money over earlier before death - but that would be gift-giving and it too could be taxed at preventively high rates.

Yes, American Income Taxation is unfair - but that is the fault of who? We, the sheeple, because we don't really understand what we need to do in order to "fix-it" - that is, this unfair economy of ours! And the fixing-it is not just some simple new laws.

Just what is, therefore, is our Magic Solution to repair Economic Injustice in the US? Good question!

I say higher taxation on the rich and particularly the super-rich who benefit most from FAR TOO LOW UPPER-INCOME TAXATION! The reduction of the DoD-budget plus the extra tax-revenues will be necessary to build a National Healthcare Service and a very low-cost Post-secondary Education fees. But they won't be enough by a long-shot since both of those key-services are extremely costly - unless considered a public-investments.

What is the actual tax situation in the US? See from here:

Yes, I am suggesting even more taxation! At very high levels of income 40% is not enough! Because beyond a given level of millions-of-dollars a year revenue then comes a point where "even more revenue" for the super-rich becomes largely meaningless. Except to get it published thus making one "look good" in a country mesmerized by the rich and super-rich ...

 

AN AMERICAN "NHS" WILL NOT BE EASY TO BUILD

In Europe, the National Healthcare Services (NHS) are run by the governments. So, yes, they are taxpayer funded. It happens that some doctors work on a NHS-contract. But, those working individually (with their own offices) simply meet clients and suggest medications/analyses (all at NHS prices) that are bought in pharmacies/laboratories that private and reimbursed to patients.

The hospitals can be private in France, but they then charge non-governmental rates. The NHS-hospitals (built by the NHS-service) all have NHS-rates, which is reimbursed to the client at close to 90%. (The French have found that if it is free - 100% reimbursed - too many quacks pretend to be sick and need medical attention!)

The problem with expanding the DoD medical-system is that the hospitals likely do not belong to the DoD (ie. government). They will thus remain private and their public rates will remain high. What likely needs to happen for a Public NHS in the US is for the hospitals to be either bought outright, or NHS-doctors can employ them for surgery at a government fixed rate.

It is best that the hospitals are run by the NHS and in this manner there is no "pricing competition". But, admittedly, to create an NHS is not an overnight-venture. It is going to take at least a decade if "the system" is totally run by the NHS. If private hospitals are - by law - forced to provide NHS-priced services - then private hospitals will likely not agree to support the necessary services. But, as shown below, almost two-thirds of all hospitals in the US are non-profit. (But what exactly does "non-profit" mean if MDs are earning $210k a year, which I have verified here? Most certainly much higher basic-costs than in Europe.)

The prospect of converting to an ALL-NHS system is a bit nightmarish. However, here is the situation regarding hospitals in the US at present, from WikiPedia here: Public Hospitals - US:

If the above is indeed true, then an American NHS-service would be easier to build nationwide. It all depends upon the present distribution of non-profit* hospitals. Getting staff to work for the NHS will require that the NHS-fund the education of doctors, nurses, etc.

*Again, "non-profit" does not mean inexpensive salary-wise! Because the new-doctors must reimburse their schooling costs, which are extremely high. It is therefor key that the NHS also pay the costs of education.

 

Your critique also applies to private health insurance and employer based insurance as well. However, everyone needs health insurance for unexpected health problems and preventative checkups. Also, many people are just old and sick through no fault of their own and the insurance pool (or tax base) needs healthy people like you to make healthcare affordable for people who get some bad luck.

I have some ideas for making people responsible for their health. First, almost completely cover preventative conditions, and offer only partial coverage for conditions that are often due to lifestyle problems. For example, cover wisdom teeth removal, since that helps prevent other dental problems. But don't cover cavity fixing very well. And make sure that having health problem is still somewhat expensive to encourage people to avoid them, so we don't want to cover everything.

Next, if healthcare is publicly funded through taxes, then start taxing things that make people less healthy. We have cigarettes covered here, but we can increase taxes on alcohol and junk food. If you are making lifestyle choices that will cost taxpayers more, then it only makes sense you should pay for those choices directly to fund your healthcare.

Lastly, offer reduced-cost health plans for healthy people. This will require checkups for BMI, and blood pressure. This might also require that people get annual checkups and dental appointments. Or that they do step counting. The more people do, the cheaper the healthcare.

 

MARKET AGGREGATION

Changing fundamentally private-enterprise is going to be a difficult objective in the US. Because of a mentality that thinks wrongly - such as "privatized means competition which means cheaper". Not at all, and America's recent history of market consolidation the opposite has happened!

Economists have already shown competently that by allowing companies to aggregate markets (buy-outs) competition is reduced and higher-prices are the rule. The US has made a very, very bad mistake in allowing some marketplaces to "market competition". (Aka "Market Aggregation" in textbooks.)

And it's the general-public shoppers who are forced to pay the higher prices of services/products due to market aggregation that results in insufficient competition!

Of course, one needs a US Attorney General to pursue that matter in a Federal court - and don't expect that from Donald Dork's government!

Wakey, wakey, America ... !

 

`he point of living as a group if not to cooperate & share resources & the fruits of labor, to ease the struggle for survival? All and good until realize there is a large percentage of supposedly civilized humans who will take the path of least resistance and live of the fruits of other people's labors. Ever hear of pimps, welfare cheats and millionaire politicians who were poor before they got their power positions?

All well and good until you realize there's a large percentage of supposedly civilized humans who will take the path of least resistance and live off of the fruits of other people's labors. Ever hear of pimps, welfare cheats and millionaire politicians who were poor before they got their power positions? Socialism needs either full compliance from a population of angelic citizens or a Big Boss to take over and crack the whip. They usually end up with the latter.

 

AMERICA'S HIGH RATE OF IMPRISONMENT

Let's not exaggerate. They are minor percentage of the total population. BUT, that minor percentage is the highest of any developed nation. See here:

It's a good question to ask why the US has such a high percentage of the population behind bars. From the above linked article :

Why is crime "popular" in America? I suggest it is due to the very high rate-of-poverty combined with the perpetual need to "keep up with the Joneses" (any way one can) ...