You might want to think again about "free" socialist medicine

No, it's not. I am British and we have had a healthcare system for 70 years. We will never be socialist or communist. I kinda understand the fear but at the end of the day, you're being duped into believing Communism is an inevitable outcome of healthcare.

Again, equating healthcare to what happened in Cambodia is quite extraordinary.

 

NZ has had socialised health care since the 1940s, we are by no means a "communist country" we simply realise that for all people in our society to be healthy, healthcare must be as cheap as possible.

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Does this mean you'll just forget about people like me, and leave us out of your wonderful healthcare plan? Can I just opt out of your wonderful idea?

 

Too many of our kids cannot get an advanced degree because it is too damn costly. $14K a year on average in a state-school and far, far higher if not. Compared to $1K in Europe and perhaps even less in India!

It should be free, gratis and for nothing in America and funded by Uncle Sam. It is a key investment in America's future well-being - far more so than the DoD!

In fact, in some postsecondary-schools "tuition is free" (but these schools are not the majority). Anyway, find them here ...

PS: One of the schools mentioned also has a work-for-tuition program. Which is a damn fine idea!

 

British? lol!!!!! OMG! Umm, let's just say that I think even less of you than I do aussies and kiwis. You guys are doomed!

Does Rotherham ring a bell? Or how about brexit? You can't even do a simple thing like leave the EU. You guys couldn't tie your shoes if your shoelaces were made out of velcro.

 

And that fact is due to what "magic".

Meaning, I think (but do not know) that most of the original settlers in NZ were Brits - as in Australia. And they probably brought with them the same notion that a postsecondary education was essential?

Could that be the reason .... ?

 

gotta love lefties and their ability to provide a cogent rebuttal. lol!

 

fyi, no one gets turned away from the hospitals here, even if no insurance & no money, they get treated... so no need to rush into uhc, lets fix the costs first.

 

Of course, they are. Because the healthcare market is "open". So, you-plural are getting royally-screwed. (And let's not talk about the current pharmaceutical epidemic that is killing people, which we need not go into here - but would never ever happen here in Europe because it couldn't - no drugs are available here without a doctor's prescription.)

Here is what happens in France, as just an example:
*It costs us less than $20 to see a doctor because medical-salaries are state-funded. (A GP in France earns about half the salary of an American GP who earns (on average) $200K a year.)
*If necessary, a French MD either prescribes the medecin to be taken (and patients go to a pharmacist, whereupon the patient pays for the prescribed medicine (but is reimbursed by the NHS) or further tests are necessary and prescribed.
*Those test-costs are also assumed by the French National Healthcare Service (NHS).
*Any necessary surgery is also covered by the NHS.
*And an ambulance taken to and from the hospital is also paid for by the NHS.
*YES, ALL THE ABOVE IS EXPENSIVE! But, so what?

What is not covered is the ability to chose a selection of bed-accommodations (private or not-private). And, in some hospitals, a more expensive food-service ...

 

Why would you dislike Britain?

If you could show me when Pol Pot introduced a healthcare system designed to cater for everyone that would be great.

 

Given that most people end up in an ER when it is far too late to even treat some illnesses, let's just say it is curative but not preventive - and even then lifespans still are four years less in the US than in Europe. ...

 

You've picked the right monicker.

Your belching nonsense once again. Bad habit you got ...

 

I'm not interested in explaining communism to a communist. Pol Pot was influenced heavily by Marx and Lenin, same as you. Just commies, is all, and I know your number.

 

Some of the Yanks on this forum are so dense that they cannot possibly imagine that elsewhere healthcare can be government-funded.

Which is the key-reason (for instance) that the US has an average lifespan four years less than in Europe (which has uniformly a National Healthcare Service).

Which is the reason Bernie proposed it four years ago in his candidacy. He saw something that was "good" and even "better" - so he proposed it. (And Hillary had sufficient wisdom to adopt the idea into her platform.)

And yet, we still voted in such a manner that the illicit Electoral College could get this present jerk into the White House.

Shall we exchange about "learning the hard-way" ... ?

 

What in heaven's name does Pol Pot have to do with anything we are discussing here.

Get your act together ... !

 

and the french... gotta love the french. lol!!!

What you frenchies don't understand is simple math. See, you say it costs you less than 20 bucks to see a doctor because medical salaries are state funded. What you're incapable of figuring out is where the state gets its funds.

I know you guys pay your taxes, but you can't quite figure out that taxes should probably be added onto that 20 bucks you see. It's a sleight of hand trick that you just can't figure out. I figure the real men all died in ww1 and ww2. What's left are... well... your post says it all.

"it costs you less than 20 to see a doctor because medical salaries are state-funded"

lol!!!!!! You can't even figure out that the state is funded by taxes paid by you.

 

Okay, you've kinda forgotten that I've tied communism to this inch-at-time approach to nationalized health care which is based on marxism, Something I believe you are in favor of. I've also explained that Pol Pot was heavily influenced by Marx and Lenin - both of whom were communists. The Khmer rouge were communists and took over Cambodia, only to start killing dissidents. Now what might you ask is a dissident? Well, that would include me when it comes to communism.

So I would probably end up with the same shovel upside my head that I was forced to use to dig my own grave.

 

That you arrived at that conclusion is... well... it eliminates any indication of impartiality. People know that their taxes are spent to provide low cost healthcare to them. The state gathers taxes and then tells medical providers — through economies of scale — this is going to be the price or we will find someone else. There is very little extraneous costs such as insurance billing, administrative overhead at the doctors office plus the hospital plus the medical billing plus the medical coding plus the insurance overhead. On top of that the profit motive is removed from both the place of care and the medical insurance facilities.

We would see prices fall — at minimum — 20% just removing insurance out of the equation just on their profit and overhead alone.

If you add in copays, deductibles, and premiums we pay significantly more than we would if we just had a national healthcare system with private plans being optional.

What would it take for you to support a national healthcare plan? Lower costs, better care, higher efficiency, less infant mortality, increased life expectancy — or does any of these items matter to you as long as it isn’t what you deem “socialist”.

 

Ahh... so now it's not just the 20 bucks? well, that's not what Lafayette said. He's just paying 20 bucks and the rest is well... funded by the state. So yeah, it's not just 20 bucks. At least you're honest about that.

It's not about impartiality, but rather if somebody says "it only costs me 20 bucks to visit the doctor!" but then just glances over the costs to the state, then I'm gonna make fun of them. That's just too easy to pass up.

Your argument is different. You mention economies of scale, and I understand that. It's why if I want a widget that nobody else wants, I'm going to have to pay more for it than if a bazillion people want that same widget. The widget manufacturer is going to look at the math and think that bulk sales at a lower price than individual sales is going to result in more profit. so companies like walmart can sell in bulk at far cheaper prices than mom and pop can.

I've got no problem with this, but nobody is forcing me to shop at walmart.

Am I going to be forced to pay for nationalized healthcare? If it's just you and a bunch of like-minded people all getting together, then I got no problems with that. Get it cheap enough and I might shop at walmart as well.

If I'm forced, then no.

 

Two questions for you socialized medicine advocates.

If you were in charge, and I didn't want to pay into this nationalized healthcare thing, what would you do with me?

How is that different from Stalin sending people to the gulags?

 

There are two versions of national healthcare and then a hybrid version.
Version 1 is everyone pays into the system for medical services. This will eliminate hospitals not being paid (thus decreasing rates), removes insurances from the equation (minimum 20% cost reduction), and allows the national provider to negotiate the best services at the best rate.

Version 2 is a public option — which is what the ACA should have been but it was shut down. This would also eliminate insurances for people that choose to be covered under this system but allows people the choice of their private insurance. Costs would be reduced less but not to the level of version 1. The issue here is people that do not voluntarily join the program and see their taxes increase and refuse to get private health insurance would drive the cost up for the rest of us.

The hybrid system is one of the above plus supplemental private insurance — which is the one I like the best.

Either of the systems would be better than what we have now.

 

With a national program it would be taken out on taxes — likely by your employer, you wouldn’t have a choice. You would likely have a net gain on your finances after the removal of your premium and deductibles however.

With a public option if you didn't want it, well then you wouldn’t pay for it.

 

That's fine.

Come out of the capital cities some time and we'll have a beer down the range.

The country is beautiful.
The people are top notch.
The government is bad but not that bad compared to most of Europe.

New Zealand is another story.

 

Well then a public option is okay, so long as it's not using my money or money from the government.

but the question was not answered. If I simply refused, what would happen to me?

 

That would be right up my alley!