How is Universal Health Care socialism?

Question

Last night I heard that a**hole Glen Beck on CNN going on about how it is not a big deal that we're ranked 37th in the world for Health Care because even if not everyone is covered, the people that are covered get superior care than that of other nations - he then proceeded to say that who cares what the World Health Organization thinks anyway because they are a bunch of socialists......WTF?
So answer me this for those who agree with him - We have basic nessecities that we totally take for granted, we can call the cops if we are victims of crime, we can call the fire department if our house in on fire, our garbage gets taken away even if we don't pay for it....these are all things that are given to us because we pay taxes......why should health care be any different? Health care is covered in many other democratic nations and it's not considered "socialism", it's a basic human right!

Answer 1

Why not? I mean, if health care is a basic human right, why not make housing a basic human right? Then, let's make owning a car a basic human right. And, while we're at it, let's make a daily trip to Starbucks a basic human right.

Why, because gosh darn it, it makes us all feel so darned wonderful.

Answer 2

Not to tack on any more, since most of the previous answers have demonstrated just how horrible it would be to have the government run our health care, but just look at the countries that currently provide some form of universal health care.

Countries like Canada have people pouring over the border to get routine operations. People are dying waiting for critical health care. The waiting lists for specialists is at over 875,000 right now. Then take Cuba where Castro had to get health care from Spain and he's one of the richest men in the world ruling over some of the poorest people in the world. There are various versions of universal health care in parts of Europe, but it always fails, just like any other socialist program.

Sorry, but the truth wins in this case. Read "1984" if you don't already know how bad things are when run by the government. Orwell saw the dangers 50 years ago. Good thing he was wrong on the date.

Answer 3

Socialism is a government methodology - not a program. The people against universal health care HAVE health care and probably have never been without it. For those of us that have not been so fortunate, well, having a universal safety net (which I draw a distinction from complete and total health care) I believe is a government responsibility. As far as tax burden, there would likely be none - as those without health care of any type will go to the most expensive health care - the emergency room. IF the government would allow for universal pretentive care, the total cost of health care may actually go down.

peace

Answer 4

Maybe I can explain the situation to you. It is socialism if the Federal government controls it. Now for some facts:

We are rated number 37 by a World Health Organization study and the reasons are dubious at best. Here is why this "study" is seriously flawed:

The main criteria is life expediency. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada. When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

The W.H.O. judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution. Low quality equally distributed is exactly what universal coverage offers.

Our poor ranking had a lot to do with the number of people without healthcare coverage, 45 million. But let us see who these 45 million are:

17 million are in households earning over 50k per year.
15 million are eligible for Government programs but are not enrolled.
9 million are not citizens.
That leaves 4 million in the category of "other". Many of these are young people in entry level jobs who would rather spend their money on other things since the don't have any health issues.

I don't see any major problem with our health care system that is not caused by governement issued mandates. It has much more to do with departures from free-market principles. The system is riddled with tax manipulation, costly insurance mandates and bureaucratic interference.

.

Answer 5

The simple answer is that some things, such as police, fire, and garbage service are best provided by government - although, some cities have been effective opening garbage service to public competition. These services are most often offered on a local or, at most, a regional basis. Whenever we speak of any service being offered on a larger scale by any government, that is when we see problems. To truly understand the value of keeping the "government" out of offering services, you have to appreciate the amazing phenomenon known as capitalism. In other words, competition is a good thing. If you want to understand the negative of having "state run" healthcare, you only need to look as far as Canada. Even the simplest of medical procedures can take weeks, even months to schedule. Why? Because there is no incentive to be better and, more importantly, no incentive for more and qualified people to join the medical field. Furthermore, when we think of any U.S. program run by the government, we too often think of waste and poor management (ex. Social Security).

I'll leave it to you to look up the meaning of Socialism and make the connection between that and government run healthcare, but if you look at it in an objective manner I believe you'll find some strong similarities.

I, personally, would like to retain some control over those things important to me (health being one). I also like the idea of having some level of control over the money I work so hard to earn. I also like the government to be as divested from the daily life as possible.. Government run healthcare forces me to give that up for inferior care. I've been poor and I know what it means to be without healthcare coverage. That motivated me to do more with my life. I like having that option as well.

I hope you asked this question to hear another opinion and not simply to advance your own. Best of luck to you and I hope at some point you can find some peace; right now, I sense a great deal of hostility, mainly because someone has a different opinion from yours.

Answer 6

First of all, the rankings are skewed. Apples are not compared to apples. A good example of this is how the infant mortality rates are counted differently in places like sweden. They don't count stillborns as deaths. The baby must first breath before it is counted.

You have the right to buy any healthcare you want. You have the right to buy insurance to pay for your healthcare in an emergency. You have the right to buy a plasma t.v. and shiney spinners for your car instead of saving it for the doctor. You don't have the right to make me pay for your doctor visit every time you get a runny nose.

The government is there to supply us the things we can not supply for ourselves. Mainly defense, which includes the highway systems. The police departments, and the trash you talk about, are all state programs, not national ones.

Answer 7

the only way someone can get healthcare is for someone else, to go to college, work and earn a degree as a doctor. then use their hard earned knowledge and money to buy supplies to treath people. but how can they do that and not charge anyone? someone has to pay. You do not have a right to someone else's time and money and services. this is simple. you must earn money and then you can pay them, that is how it works in america, not for long as this nation doesn't have much longer before it will be in complete ruin, a democrat will surely hurry it along probably faster than a republican.

Answer 8

Let's see, Universal Health Care funded and totally regulated by the government. A big jump in our taxes to support it. I think that is socialism.

Also, health care is not a "right." It is a service.

Answer 9

single payer common wellness care would possibly no longer be a powerful thought yet that's no longer what the Democrats are featuring. The Republicans call it that because of the fact they want to apply worry strategies to rigidity people remote from the Democrats yet while somebody actual reads and knows what the notion is (no longer something in any respect offered by way of the Republicans- i think their plan is don't get ill), no pay close atteniton... inexpensive wellness care. hazard is that in case you have wellness care coverage the place you paintings now you heavily isn't waiting to tell the adaptation. according to hazard your top classification could flow down a dollar or 2 or up a dollar or 2 whether it does that now besides. funds already paid into the federal gadget could be diverted to help pay for common coverage offered by way of common coverage firms for individuals who can no longer locate the money for coverage now. they could pay a top classification and deductable and the money from the help might improve what they pay. it relatively is one plan. yet another is to require all employers to furnish wellness care and the government might cut back the quantity paid for medicare and medicaid as they might no longer be necessary. The enterprise could use that medicaid and medicare funds, somewhat of government run software, to purchase inexpensive coverage for his or her workers. for people who're retired and no longer working they could be signed up with a common coverage provider and that section could be paid from a pool offered by way of employers. coverage firms might probable could lessen the fee of rates, take smaller salary, legal specialists does no longer be waiting to sue scientific vendors for the outrageous quantities presented now and different such issues. this is not a suitable plan whether that's greater helpful than the no longer something offered by way of the Republicans. we won't be able to enable hundreds of thousands of individuals to flow devoid of wellness care as no remember if that's some form of luxurious. it relatively is merely inhumane. those maximum adversarial to the proposed inexpensive wellness care plan are often boastful,grasping people who've been fortunate so a techniques as to no longer have a catastrophic ailment that motives their coverage organisation to drop them like a warm potato and that they are caught having to sell their domicile, vehicle and each thing else to pay scientific charges. they pays one way or yet another, now or interior the hereafter.

Answer 10

Because if they told the truth and said we don't have universal health care because then the pharmaceutical companies and politicians wouldn't get paid, people would be angry...