|
The Case Against Obama in a Nutshell (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well the service at private hospitals will be better as far as waiting times go (and availability of treatments/drugs that it is not possible to get on the NHS), but I doubt very much whether the quality of the actual doctors themselves will be much better.
Either way, I care about the quality of service to the entire population, not just the top 5% like you appear to do. The UK is ranked much higher than America for the service it provides to the entire population.
You cannot judge a policy on how it benefits only the top 5% richest people but gives no benefits to the other 95%...
The stats say the UK's nationalised system is better than the American privatised system... |
not surprisingly you entirely missed the point. I don't care about your medical services compared to ours, and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that all I care about is the top 5%. If you trace our conversation you will see the point I was getting at was whether private enterprises can retain better professionals than those retained in public enterprises. From your response it appears that private services are better (from your implication that the top 5% in the UK utilize private enterprises, which from the tone of your response appears to be of higher quality). That would contradict your claim that the government would be able to retain the best chemists in a pharmaceutical nationalization to create the same breakthrough drugs. |
|
|
| _Ocean_Drive_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
I love America. But the point that I want to make is that Americans has shifted from individual responsibility to government dependence. People expect for college tuition to be free, to have free helthcare, the jobless want to be paid fopr not doing anything.
I mean let me give you an example... I'm proud to say that I work to pay my bills, college tuition, health care, and personal expenses without relying on the government. Plus, and now we have "the chosen one" that has an illusive bracket on what he considers rich. All of a sudden, he wants to take more of my paycheck, for which I work hard, for someone that enjoys living off the government. |
Nice to know you care about your neighbour.
What is wrong about giving someone job seeker allowance who is struggling to find a job because they were made unemployed by the companies who moved jobs abroad in exchange for tax breaks?
What is so outrageous about someone from a poor background who is intelligent, going to college for free? My cousin came from a poor family, went to a top University in London, graduated with distinction in surgery, and is now an A&E doctor. Why the hell should she have to be £35k in debt, just 'cos she's intelligent and wants to study?
Give me ONE, just ONE good justifiable reason why healthcare shouldn't be free.
I tell you what, the next time you're diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and your insurance company refuses it on the grounds of 'experimental treatment', come back and post the same you just did.
ing tool.  |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
Give me ONE, just ONE good justifiable reason why healthcare shouldn't be free. |
 |
|
|
| _Ocean_Drive_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
|
Point taken. But there has to be a way of getting round this, surely? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
Point taken. But there has to be a way of getting round this, surely? |
similar arguments can be made about junk food/transfats, obesity in general, ect..
i dont know how you'd get around it because what it then comes down to ultimately is how far are you willing to submit your current lifestyle, your civil liberties basically, to some un-elected health board for the greater good?
i realize in Europe and the UK these things are common occurance and people tend to deal with these decisions with relative ease but this is America ffs, you know?
we got 300,000,000 people here that have been doing whatever the hell we want for generations. im not saying thats a good thing but thats just the reality in where we are as a society.
i'm in agreement with what Shakka said on this board years ago that healthcare is never free, it's a service provided by highly skilled and highly trained professionals. you're going to pay for it one way or another whether it's nationalized or not...if it is nationalized youre naturally going to be paying for other people's health indescretions as well as your own.
i'm not as pitiless as others. i believe healthcare costs can be offset or made cheaper by indirect means such as malpractice reform, tax incentives, maybe even limited government oversight/regulations or whatever. but i think the highest quality, most affordable, most specialized and realistic healthcare is obtained, like anything else that is provided by highly skilled professionals, through free market competition. certianly not the Federal government |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
similar arguments can be made about junk food/transfats, obesity in general, ect..
i dont know how you'd get around it because what it then comes down to ultimately is how far are you willing to submit your current lifestyle, your civil liberties basically, to some un-elected health board for the greater good?
i realize in Europe and the UK these things are common occurance and people tend to deal with these decisions with relative ease but this is America ffs, you know?
we got 300,000,000 people here that have been doing whatever the hell we want for generations. im not saying thats a good thing but thats just the reality in where we are as a society.
i'm in agreement with what Shakka said on this board years ago that healthcare is never free, it's a service provided by highly skilled and highly trained professionals. you're going to pay for it one way or another whether it's nationalized or not...if it is nationalized youre naturally going to be paying for other people's health indescretions as well as your own.
i'm not as pitiless as others. i believe healthcare costs can be offset or made cheaper by indirect means such as malpractice reform, tax incentives, maybe even limited government oversight/regulations or whatever. but i think the highest quality, most affordable, most specialized and realistic healthcare is obtained, like anything else that is provided by highly skilled professionals, through free market competition. certianly not the Federal government |
Good points. People tend to be selfish which is where the problem lies. They don't realise that if they get taxed more and that money goes into healthcare, they will actually save money in the long run.
It's a short term cost, but increased health has been proven to increase productivity and general happiness among other things. This directly results in a better and more vibrant economy which benefits everyone.
Private health insurance is still good and those who can afford it should get it, but a basic healthcare system should always be in place for the people. This is what the US critically needs.
When it comes to taxes, I have no problems with governments spending it on health, education, transport and the like. It's when they start spending it on weapons for no reason and wars that people start to get pissed off.
As you said, health is a service provided by highly skilled professionals so it's only logical that it will cost people, but that cost is nothing when compared to the cost not only in monetary value but in lives as well in the long run. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Good points. |
thank you. i'm kinda stoned right now, when i get some sleep i'll wake up tomorrow and revert back to not believing in any healthcare whatsoever and relying on prayer alone to cure what ailes me;)
| quote: | | but a basic healthcare system should always be in place for the people. This is what the US critically needs. |
we already have that. it's called MEDICAID. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| Well not really. A quick glance on the net and wikipedia (sic) shows that it doesn't even cover most poor people. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
|
Well in the UK all taxes spent on cigarettes goes to the NHS ;) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
not surprisingly you entirely missed the point. I don't care about your medical services compared to ours, and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that all I care about is the top 5%. If you trace our conversation you will see the point I was getting at was whether private enterprises can retain better professionals than those retained in public enterprises. From your response it appears that private services are better (from your implication that the top 5% in the UK utilize private enterprises, which from the tone of your response appears to be of higher quality). That would contradict your claim that the government would be able to retain the best chemists in a pharmaceutical nationalization to create the same breakthrough drugs. |
But I don't think private hospitals do steal the "best" doctors from NHS hospitals, I think they use the same pool of doctors who are paid for by the government. I also didn't say the quality of staff was better at private hospitals, just the waiting times were smaller and some treatments are available that are not on NHS
There is a very easy way around private hospitals stealing the best workers tho and that would be to make private hospitals illegal
As for chemists, well pharmacy chemistry is a different subject at university than petro chemistry or other strands of chemistry, so I can't really see people switching mid career to get a "better paid" job, and pharmacy chemists would still be earning a load even if it were nationalised. I have no idea where you get this lie from that public sector workers must be p[aid poorly |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
But I don't think private hospitals do steal the "best" doctors from NHS hospitals, I think they use the same pool of doctors who are paid for by the government. I also didn't say the quality of staff was better at private hospitals, just the waiting times were smaller and some treatments are available that are not on NHS
There is a very easy way around private hospitals stealing the best workers tho and that would be to make private hospitals illegal
As for chemists, well pharmacy chemistry is a different subject at university than petro chemistry or other strands of chemistry, so I can't really see people switching mid career to get a "better paid" job, and pharmacy chemists would still be earning a load even if it were nationalised. I have no idea where you get this lie from that public sector workers must be p[aid poorly |
look at statistics. when i'm not so busy i will cite some for you.
EDIT:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1996/05/art2full.pdf |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Irrelevant, we're talking about a specific job, not public vs private sector jobs in general because obviously those in the public sector will not be paid as highly.
Also, if there is no private sector equivalent, then a comparison becomes even less relevant
Anyway, I like you and I enjoy reading your posts (I would even say the same about Shakka) but all I did was answer LatinLover's question on what industries I would nationalise and a comment that I believed it to be unethical to make a profit in an industry such as pharmaceuticals. I really don't think my answer warranted 5+ pages of petty and irrelevant squabbling between us all!
So, I'm out |
|
|
|
|
