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

Are you talking about those tribes that tied vines to their kids ankles and then pushed them off of high platforms? Those guys are nuts. I bet their life expectancy is in the cellar.

 

Sounds like Animal Farm and 1984.

 

Still, the rate of homicide in the wealthiest country in the world versus seemingly less wealthy countries also draws into question the reason why - why is such a wealthy country ranking so low on many indices?

Like a bungee cord mate.

 

Because of a large number of drugged up people in the ghettos with no where to go. I am deeply sorry for them I wish that cities were broken up. Send the people to the countryside.

 

Nah, cities are good.

 

Yes, it does. I would imagine that the elevated homicide rate accounts for at least part of the discrepancy, as mentioned earlier.

Too right, cobber!

 

Well money can't fix cultural problems. Wait, it can - poverty incites lawlessness!

Maybe money does make the world go round.

 

No completly, but just the ghettos.

 

Huh? You kind of went off on a tangent there.

 

Absolutely not,

I am a supporter of socialized healthcare and have a reasonable knowledge of many health systems around the world. I don't believe the best systems are the ones that excludes or make it difficult to obtain private health care. It should be provided by all via tax to care for the less fortunate that cannot afford private cover, it should be a safety net! Just like unemployment benefits.

 

Pardon, was just musing that the homicide rate could be related to the amount of poverty the US experiences versus other developed countries, which in itself is a sign of a failure of infrastructure to pick up the slack. That in turn ties into the fact that cheap, universal social welfare programs are a must have for a civilized society.

 

Exactly what I said, although we have to have balance.

 

Thank you for bringing some focus to this rambling, agenda laden, discussion.

The OP's question seems not to have any point, as there are no societies, socialist or otherwise, where the government mandates exactly what the population may eat. But subtly implicit in the question, is the assumption that any society with a significant element of socialism is going to be oppressive, unreasonable, proscriptive and inhumane.

 

Savings is a silly way to deal with high medical costs....medical costs can hit very hard and be quite high. I also doubt most folks under 30 would be able to save enough to cover medical costs. Its just not a realistic or feasible idea.

Thats not choice, thats the reality. Not many folks can just pay out of pocket for surgeries, and to do so after paying for private health insurance seems rather silly.

This "alternative" you offer isnt really a realistic one for the majority of people.

No

 

Well said.

Now I'm wondering, if the lower life expectancy in the US compared to other industrialised nations has anything to do with lack of universal health care?

 

No, it doesn't. This has been answered several times, and seems to be a concept that isn't being understood. What you are referring to as 'socialism' in terms of 'socialised' healthcare is not socialism or communism. It is part of social democracy. This idea that the people of Europe are not 'free' to live their lives as they choose, and have to live according to how their governments tell them to live because their governments are authoritarian bodies in control of society is entirely false. That is not the way life in Europe is.

 

You underestimate the ignorance of American conservatives.

 

I would think that has more to do with diet and exercise habits.

 

So are we in Europe, and in the UK, where we have had a UHC system for over 60 years.

 

So you don't think that an elevated homicide rate would have an effect on the average life expectancy of a population?

 

That is true. Pure 'socialim', communism and collectivism inevitably ends in authoritarianism because the government is in control of pretty much everything (economy, manufacturing, etc.), and the state control eventually (quite rightly, in my opinion) becomes resisted by the population.

However, that shouldn't be confused with the systems of 'social democracy' that exists in European countries. They have survived very well, because the democratically elected government does not have authoritarian control over the population, as has the USA, which has a pretty similar system of government (with a slight difference in emphasis on where the balance between society and individual is struck in the tax/spend equation when it comes to healthcare in paticular, but it's essentially the same system of democratic representative governments, with electe representatives carrying out programs of tax/spend according to the democraticaly expressed will of the people).

 

Which is what we have in the UK. Everyone pays towards it, and everyone uses it for the basics (GP services, emergency services, etc.), so everyone 'gets something for their money'. Then people are free to choose private insurance (with private hospitals, etc. - they could also decide to choose this for GP services and emergency care, of course, but nobody does) for further care.

 

That's the death knell of liberty. Not only to people believe they don't have to be responsible to pay their way, but that it's silly to even consider it.

Insurance for catastrophes is sensible, but to look at all healthcare as silly to even consider saving to pay for is so irresponsible that it should be considered criminal.

Then to suggest that Americans would react in an identical way to an identical system would be, to use a fav word of yours, silly.

 

But people do pay their way because they are the ones that fund the govt and the publically funded health care system is funded with OUR OWN MONEY.

Thats the purpose of govt, its a means for us to run our society in the best way possible for ourselves and making sure our health is taken care of is certainly one of those tasks.

There is no liberty in losing everything because you were badly injured or need a surgery.

Not all people CAN save that kind of money. There are plenty of folks that barely have enough money to pay for the basics each month.

Health care needs are very unpredictable and so we need a scheme that isnt "save up for a rainy day" because saving for a rainy day just isnt going to cut it by a long shot and thats why I characterize that approach as silly.

People getting sick isnt about "culture" and people needing health care isnt about culture, thats just a basic human need and the way the US is handling that issue isnt good. Americans are getting less but spending more, I would say that illustrates quite clearly that the US model isnt working well for americans.

 

Nice rationalization, but the government is not and should not be an insurance company.

That may very well be the purpose of your Swedish government. The original purpose of the US federal gov't was far less intrusive, and should be pruned back to that original purpose.

True. Life is cruel sometimes. There is no liberty in being forced to pay for someone else's failure to take responsibility for him/herself.

And many, many more barely have enough money at the end of each month because they THINK they don't have the money. So long as you can pay your cable bill, internet bill, full-coverage car insurance, etc, don't claim you can't make ends meet - and certainly don't claim poverty that you can't afford food if you have any of these things. Live within your means.

So don't even try?? That's irresponsible.

Why start in the middle? Why haven't I read anything from you about providing food for everyone, clothing for everyone, or shelter for everyone?