In countries with Socialized Medicine, should Government legislate what people eat?

'Basic' foods in the UK, which is most foods, are Zero rated (i.e. you don't pay any tax) for VAT (Value Added Tax) on purchases, but 'luxury' foods (which are sometimes the unhealthiest anyway - this includes things like confectionary, chocolate, ice cream, crisps (sorry, chips!), soda, etc., and hot takeway/restaurant food) are subject to the normal levels of VAT that would be paid on any other kind of purchase.

 

This is exactly why socialized healthcare is a horrible idea and ultimately leads to tyrannical, oppressive government. Government should not be allowed to dictate everything God (*)(*)(*)(*)ed part of our lives.

As for the foods you say should be banned I disagree with as not everyone fits within some cookie cutter mold for a diet. I have to eat healthy because I have a slow functioning thyroid (just like my mother), but my friend eats all he wants and never gains a pound and rather would feel sick if he didn't constantly eat. My grandmother ate a pound of bacon with a few shots of whiskey every morning and she lived to be in her late 90's.

Except its not really healthy without some protein in your diet and red meat like all things is good for you in moderation.

In my good days of running I could run with the best of them. I would run at least 2-4 miles a day, but since I had a tumor excised from my knee I haven't been able to keep up a decent running program and its hard to keep the weight down.

In essence, socialized healthcare will lead to tyranny.

In America this is the antithesis on the ideas and beliefs we were founded upon.

Never.

 

I suspect that is true - I have only ever heard it refered to as 'sociliazed' healthcare by people in the US, which is quite interesting.

That rises another point about terminology of the NHS's name. It is the National Health Service, in the same way as we have a Fire Service, Police Service and Coastguard Service. There are services provided to all, and paid for through taxation. It's important to realise that that is how the NHS is viewed, not as a 'business' that the government runs intead of it being run by private companies. It's a subtle distinction, perhaps, but an important one - the NHS in the UK is part of the general public services (like police, fire, etc.), not associated by people with private insurance services or whatever in any way.

That is how it is seen, that is how it is run, and that is how it works. You wouldn't expect the police to act as a business or 'law insurance' firm, you would expect them to act on behalf of the public, to serve and protect the public. That is exactly how the NHS works - it is a service which serves the people, and that makes it a somewhat different animal from a business-model, profit-making, insurance-led concern, both in the way it operates and in the place it has within society and the public conciousness.

 

Then why in the last 60 years of the NHS has that not happened in the UK? Why do we not have bans on all unhealthy foods? Why do we not have an oppressive manditory exercise regime for the population? Why are we not daily saluting thee flag and pledging our allegience to the state?

The answer is simple - the suggestion that 'socialized healthcare will lead to tyranny' is wrong. It has been proved wrong through 60 years of experience. It just isn't true. If you don't want an NHS, that's fine, but dismissing it on the ground of arguements that simply don't hold water is not the way to go about making such a decision.

I can only think of one country in the western world where anybody is expected to recite a pledge to their country on such a regular basis, and that is the schoolchildren of the USA. I have never been asked to recite any 'pledge' to the UK.

 

Sarcasm!!

Having Universal healthcare dose not equate to having an authoritarian government.

It was actually kind of a play on




But now that you mention the similarity....

 

Right wing Americans on public health systems -

"Mummy, mummy, I hate broccoli"
"But Johnny, you've never eaten it before"
"Yeah, but I still hate it. The kids in 2nd grade told me it will turn my hair green".

Please define "ultimately". 10 years, 25 years 100 years?

Look mate, you've never experienced public health before, so you're not qualified to make comments like the above.

 

Soft tyranny is still tyranny.

 

Please specify exactly what 'tyranny' ('hard', 'soft', or whatever) has resulted in the UK from the introduction of the NHS in the UK (or any other comparable example of healthcare system, if you prefer).

 

Don't worry too much about this cenydd. Just the rantings of the misinformed and undereducated.

 

Cute. I try to honor you by acknowledging and continuing a point. I'd appreciate the same consideration.

 

Translation:

I (lizarddust) don't want to consider what you're talking about (because it's not pleasant)!

You have never restricted you freedoms with a public health system so your argument is meaningless. Restrict your freedoms for awhile, then you'll understand.

Just relax. It doesn't hurt a bit.
​

 

Sure. No way that it could be a marketing ploy at your end, huh?

 

I read through most of the thread but not all and I didnt see a few points that come to mind raised

first...when govt pays that means WE ARE PAYING FOR OURSELVES and therefore its not "charity". We all pay and we all participate. Its not a gift that we "owe" someone something back for so the idea that the "govt" now has a right to determine what we eat because it pays for healthcare is faulty.

Also just because someone pays for something doesnt meant they gain total control over you...an employer pays for your time and labor but that doesnt mean they OWN you for that time nor does it mean you give up all your freedoms or individual rights. A spouse may pay all the bills for their partner but that doesnt mean they OWN their partner and their partner is now stripped of all individual rights over their own person.

Lastly the govt does have a great deal of control over how its populace eats via how it subsidizes the food supply. Subsidizing corn has actually made junk food more profitable for companies and cheaper to the consumer....therefore we consume much more of it. What the govt COULD do is to subsidize HEALTHY foods which would make them cheaper and more accessible. Currently we seem to do the opposite...including nations who do have a socialized health care scheme.

 

I definitely want to respond to this because I am an american who moved to Sweden so I have lived with both sorts of systems and I can tell you that the public health care/socialized/universal (whatever label you prefer) hasnt restricted my freedoms at all, in fact I have MORE freedoms with it.

In the US it took more that 8 months to get a silly cyst removed from my wrist while workmans comp and my private health insurance battled it out on who would pay. When I had my son and was ill the doctor wanted to keep me an extra few days but needed permission from my insurance company so it was numerous phone calls before we got approval for one extra day, not the few that he felt would have been best btw.

I was resticted in the US by my private insurance company as to what doctors I could use and what hospital I could use.

In Sweden when I has surgery for my hernia it was only 2 months to wait for the operation (and this was not at all any sort of emergency situation). I could and still can choose my doctor and which hospital I prefer. How long I stayed in hospital was determined by myself and my doctor. I wanted to go home as soon as possible and was informed more than once I could stay longer if I feel I needed to. I personally am more comfortable at home but its nice not to be shoved out the door when you arent feeling well.

Tell me what freedoms you think I lose leaving the US system and entering into a publically funded one, because I havent found any so far. I have only found more freedoms in the public system actually.

 

huh?

so if a public health system doesn't reflict his (our) freedoms, then whats to be scared of?

personally I think its a good thing that people on low incomes can get free cancer screening, general medical treatment and discount medicine if they need it.

I can'rt imagine why anyone would think that this restricts their freedom - or mine - for that matter.

I can choose which doctor I see, and as far as I know there are a lot of other choices I can make as well.

as I rarely use health services I haven't looked a great deal at it all - but nobody I have met who has had to go to a public hospital (where the best surgeons and specialists are available to public patients) has found their freedom restricted any more than those accessing private hospitals - and seeing the same surgeons and specialists.

 

In Canada I enjoy the benefits of a socialized medical system, I believe with out a doubt my country should be controlling the peoples food in take. If not controlling it then refusing treatments to people who smoked, drank and ate to much.

 

I don't think the naysayers here understand how a public health system works. I can't speak for the British NHS or the systems in place in Europe,I've never experienced their systems, so I'll talk about the Australian system of public healthcare.

In reality it's a multi tiered structure.

1. Public healthcare (Medicare). I can see my family doctor by making an appointment or cold call anytime I wish. I will be consulted, treated, advised or whatever. After the consultation I hand over my Medicare card to the receptionist, sign a form and walk out without money changing hands. Working people are levied 1.50% for this service but only one family member needs to pay the levy. A man can cover his wife and children but still only pay the 1.50%. The levy is also tax deductable.

There is sometimes a waiting list for non essential or elective surgery, depending on the treatment. Emergency procedures are instant and no money changes hands.Things like dental you'll have to pay out of pocket.

Our daughter had a horrific car accident some years ago, she was critical on arrival, by paramedic ambulance, to an orthopedic hospital.The chief of orthopedics was called. Nine hours on the operating table, two weeks recovery in hospital. Include physio and follow up psychological (she had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) therapy twice a week for three months. The cost,,,zero, nothing, nichts. She was admitted as a public patient.

2. Private health insurance. Bloody expensive in Australia. You have all the same benefits as a public patient but the chances of waiting in line for elective surgery are decreased. Also, above the cost of private insurance, there is always a hidden "gap" to pay, usually at a great cost.

3. Pay as you go. Pay all your medical costs when treated.

4. Many people in Australia cover themselves by way of private health insurance to cover things like dental, ambulance etc, but still rely on everyday medical treatment and hospital treatment via Medicare.

I and my family have never had private health insurance, not because we can't afford it, but in our minds it's usless and a waste of money. But we've always had private ambulance cover for around $50 per year for the family.

So,, back to the naysayers, how could this system stomp on our freedoms? Does this sound like a tyranical government? We have choices and bloody good ones.

 

If you had your own savings then you would have saved all of that waiting time. I'd be interested in hearing how a cyst is a workman's comp issue. Hazmat area?

You were restricted by your choice to cede that decision to your insurance company.

Are Swedes culturally identical to Americans?

 

Nothing. I've never said you shouldn't have whatever healthcare system you want. It's you that refuses to grant me the same courtesy.

 

And yet it remains a fact that many nations with universal healthcare are in fact more liberal in their consumption and drug policies than the US.

I know it's customary of Americans to try and make a (*)(*)(*)(*) sandwich appealing, but please. Universal healthcare as a precursor to some sort of tyranny is a ridiculous notion with no basis in fact.

 

Do people have the freedom to opt out of the Public healthcare tax?

 

Just so I'm clear on this logic...

Non-Americans who have never lived in America, should NOT be able to talk about America and it's political and economic system.

Until they become citizens, vote and have lived here a sufficient period of time.

correct???

 

In the US the government should tax unhealthy choices to change behavior. It would change the behavior of the fast food companies so that they really offer reasonable options. Restaurants would not add fat to everyting they cook to add taste. Citizens would have a real incentive to eat better and if not would be funding their own ridiculously expensive health care costs for being fat slobs.

 

Sure, let's have a poor tax.

 

Just as soon as you stop talking about foreign policy and conditions in countries that are intelligent enough to implement universal healthcare.