Is socialized medicine better than no medicine at all?

Question

This is America, and we can afford $2-trillion wars and tax cuts. But, there's one thing we can't afford, and that's health care for sick kids?

Now, I know socialized medicine sounds like Stalin himself is going to come over to your house and perform a forced sterilization. But, really all it is, is universal health care. Which means everybody - not just the rich - gets to see a doctor when their erection lasts longer than 72 hours.

Please remember that if you hear the new radio ad from Rudy Giuliani, who says his chances of surviving prostate cancer in America were 82%, whereas, in England, under "socialized medicine," his chances would have been 44%. Numbers that, like the cancer, were pulled directly out of Rudy's behind.

Answer 1

I agree with you. i do not like Government health care but we need some kind of insurance people ca afford that do not receive it through work. I cannot get insurance because i have diabetes .Sounds a little like discrimination to me.I don't want free health care but Health care period.

Thank you for bringing this up as a discussion instead of calling us people who want freebies.

Answer 2

Socialized anything has been a disaster in this country. I'd rather have "True Freedom and Independence." The benefits of that far outweigh even the best socialized plans to be and/or have ever been conceived. Your point is moot. If ppl want to help those less fortunate, then let them as individuals step up to the plate and do it themselves. I don't need a government that can't tell its own a55 from a hole in the ground telling me i have to do it. Fvck em. because i don't, and neither do you nor does anyone else. That's the difference between those who want true freedom and independence while looking through the eyes of humanity and those.............well...............that use it as some punchline to gain more power and control over the very people they want to supposedly "help". To give a man fish will help in feeding him temporarily. To teach a man to fish will feed him for a lifetime. "Progression through conservative principle." If you truly want to help the people with the cost of their medicines and health care needs, then i would highly suggest researching the FDA with scrutiny. Afterwards demand an immediate investigation of how they truly operate. I just hope this makes sense to at least some.

Mel: sweetie if you want my best possible opinion on this. Support Small Business Health Plan Initiatives.

Answer 3

Question: Lets say you set up a fast food restaurant. Business is good, and you're making money. There happen to be some hungry people in your city. The government says "o...that guy over there has food...he can feed them". They pass a law that says that you're OBLIGATED to feed anyone that comes in your door and says "I'm poor and hungry".

Pretty soon, half of your customers are poor and hungry. People are driving 20 miles to get some free food. You basically have 2 choices: Go out of business or raise prices. Pretty soon, those few customers that still come, are paying $100 for a hamburger.

Health care is screwed up BECAUSE government has gotten involved with it. There's a direct and positive correlation with government involvement in health care and the cost of health care.

Think I'm kidding? 10% of Mexicans live in America. The majority of those have no health care. We pay our insurance, and are footing the bill for nearly 10% of Mexico's health care costs....and we've barely begun.

Government is what screwed it up to begin with....think they're going to be the people to fix it?

They've taken 3 attempts at running health care. Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. All 3 are in shams and bankrupt. ....and you want to turn it ALL over to them?

Where in the constitution does it say that all men are entitled to health care. As soon as the government gets out of it, prices will come down, and anyone who wants it will be able to buy it.

Answer 4

Don't the poor already get covered? They do. There are plenty of gov't programs at the state and federal level that do this.

So what more do we need?

There is an underlying problem with the healthcare debate. And it has to do with opportunity costs. Most of the people in this country can afford health care. What that means is that they have to give up other things. This is what is great about the economy we live in--we have choices. But with those choices comes the opportunity costs.

The underlying problem in this country is that people are unwilling to accept the opportunity costs of purchasing health care. That means no big screen TVs, fancy cars, DVDs, fancy clothes, cell phones, cigarettes, alcohol, ipods, etc. for lots of people.

This is the problem. There are opportunity costs associated with purchasing health care. Just like with buying a house, or a car, or going to a movie.

We shouldn't reward people for not accepting their opportunity costs. Yes there are people who genuinely can not afford to get health care. There are programs in place to help them.

Next problem with universal health care is that the rich will always be able to afford the best health care. Universal health care does not insure a quality product.

Also, would we want a corporation to monopolize any industry in the United States? No, because they're inefficient, wasteful, and charge higher prices.

Then why would we want the gov't to monoploize the health care industry? It would be wasteful, inefficient, bring higher taxes, and lessen choice. Canada and Europe are the best examples of this.

Universal health care is bad for a free market economy. We should not reward people for avoiding their opportunity costs.

Answer 5

No but it's much worse than the excellent care that those of us who are paying for it now receive. And what's worse the same people who are paying for it now will be paying the most under socialized medicine and receiving really bad care (picture the people who run the passport office running health care).

Answer 6

I'm from Down Under and was shocked that my trip to the hospital in the States cost $150 with insurance and would have been $800 without. Even paying the insurance was surprising, but hey, we pay for it in tax. I prefer it though. The inequality in the USA is very disturbing.

Answer 7

Yes, socialized medicine is better than no medicine at all. Fortunately, that's not the choice. The government already gives free healthcare to poor kids. If rich kids need healthcare, their parents should pay for it. Not the taxpayers.

If you think other countries have better healthcare than America, feel free to move to those other countries. I'll stay here.

Answer 8

I agree, I would like to see a system which covered those who truly can't afford their own coverage, at the very least. I don't mind some of my taxes going to help those who don't have enough to see a doctor.

And the W.H.O. ranks the US as 37th in the world for health care, so Giuliani is trying to make it seem like the US is much better then it is.

Answer 9

No because government is the primary reason why the current health-care system in the US is getting bad because of all the restrictions the place on drugs and licensing requirements they put on doctors.

Just to get a drug approved by the FDA on average cost $1 billion dollars and almost 10 years worth of time. Also consider that the FDA has a incentive to disallow a drug rather than approve it because it can save face. I wonder how many people have died because the FDA disallowed a drug for a few years until it changed its mind.

Answer 10

I really haven't heard any of the Democratic candidates talking about Socialized medicine. They have proposed AFFORDABLE health care. Their proposal may not be the best but it is better than the nothing proposed by the Republicans. Yes, something is better than nothing.