Socialized Health Care System Saves Right Wing Leader's Life

[PoliTalker]

Hello Yoda,

I didnt comment on wait times because I simply dont know, when I said I dont care about the UK I should have been clearer, I have enough to care about right here.
Its common sense that any world leader gets the best of the best care when their in need, ours especially. Thats not an indication of whether the UKS health care is better than anyone elses.

Theres are a year old but they are the latest ive found and its a sure bet waits have gotten longer since the virus hit

Britain's Version Of 'Medicare For All' Is Struggling With Long Waits For Care

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallyp...-medicare-for-all-is-collapsing/#3ef1e20036b8

Hospital waiting times at worst-ever levelHospital waiting times at worst-ever level

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50397856

Canada doesnt seem to be any better


Canada’s health-care wait times eclipsed 20 weeks in 2019; second-longest wait ever recorded

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-...n-2019-second-longest-wait-ever-recorded.html

From your first link:

"Yet some lawmakers are gunning to implement precisely such a system in the United States. The bulk of the Democratic Party's field of presidential candidates -- including Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren -- co-sponsored Senator Bernie Sanders's 2017 "Medicare for All" bill. "

Um, No, Democrats have not said they want a system with extended wait times or fewer doctors. And no matter what some Democrats want, Joe Biden wants a Public Option. That doesn't abolish private insurance at all. All it does is offer a profitless cost-only system to offer the same coverage of health insurance for the lowest price possible, with all the profits and high paid investors cut out of the tally. Insurance buyers would have the choice of using private insurance or using the government system. Private insurance should have no problem with this at all if the government screws up everything it ever does and the Public Option presents no savings.

But if it does turn out to be cheaper and better then we will know we have been getting ripped off.

Especially if the goal is achieving the best possible care instead of trying to make the biggest profits. There should be enough savings without the profits to provide more thorough coverage with fewer treatment denials, or cost savings with the same coverage, or a combination of both.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

No it shouldn't. Nothing that has an economic scarcity or a cost associated with it should be a Right. By making something a Right you, and I, are entitled to as much of it as we want whenever we want it. Yes, there are some restrictions on Rights, mostly involving your not trampling other's Rights.
When you make something that has is tangible, has economic scarcity or cost attached to it a Right, you cheapen all other Rights by making them something government gives you. That means government can not ration your Rights and take them away whenever they want.

When government makes something like education or healthcare a Right, the next thing they do is tell you just how much of that Right you are entitled to and when you are entitled to exercise it.

Not a bad argument. Commendable. But I can counter it. Just because a tangible right has to be regulated does not automatically weaken other rights. Instead, it guarantees something that the country was previously not great enough to be able to provide. That is an advancement in civilization. Actually, everything in FDR's Second Bill Of Rights should be guaranteed by the government.

" The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education."

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

Bad idea. Very bad idea. Why? Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The most likely outcome from a one-world government is an absolute dictatorship. Since that single government now controls everything and they have no competition they can easily impose a dictatorship and then decide just what you deserve and don't deserve.



Lenin's song is an idiocy of unthinking consequences. It defies basic human nature. Oh, and as Toynbee points out in A Study of History the nations that do the worst, fail the most often, are ones with few or no adverse conditions facing them.

Agreed, humans have not progressed to a level where a planet-wide functional society with an altruistic government is possible. And end of war. Actual World Peace. Currently unthinkable. That could only happen if we eliminate poverty and greed, then come into balance with energy production vs the environment. And manage to feed and provide for every human. Logically then, we would also have to control population growth. Religion would also be a huge limiting factor, since some religions seek to impose special restrictions on society which others do not. That could be handled by region under one world government, but only if the other problems are solved first, which of course, doesn't appear to be likely in any of our lifetimes.

But you know. Humans have only been around, what, a few hundred thousand years? Dinosaurs lasted hundreds of millions of years. What if humans last as long into the future as dinosaurs did in the past? If we can get past this self-destructive phase we might really make something of ourselves. A pretty big 'if,' that's for sure.

 

[Nordberg]

No it shouldn't. Nothing that has an economic scarcity or a cost associated with it should be a Right. By making something a Right you, and I, are entitled to as much of it as we want whenever we want it. Yes, there are some restrictions on Rights, mostly involving your not trampling other's Rights.
When you make something that has is tangible, has economic scarcity or cost attached to it a Right, you cheapen all other Rights by making them something government gives you. That means government can not ration your Rights and take them away whenever they want.

When government makes something like education or healthcare a Right, the next thing they do is tell you just how much of that Right you are entitled to and when you are entitled to exercise it.

Someone will be in charge. If not the government, it will be the wealthy and healthcare companies. Medicare is very well run on a couple [percent of its revenue. It gives you preventative care so they save money. Our system, the for profit system pays doctors per procedure. Better results cut profits. They want you to come back. Our medical system is fundamentally wrong and a creator of abuse and theft.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,



Not a bad argument. Commendable. But I can counter it. Just because a tangible right has to be regulated does not automatically weaken other rights. Instead, it guarantees something that the country was previously not great enough to be able to provide. That is an advancement in civilization. Actually, everything in FDR's Second Bill Of Rights should be guaranteed by the government.

Let's go through these:

" The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

What if you are incapable of doing such a job correctly or efficiently? Do you still get one? Who decides who gets hired where?

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

Define "enough." What is considered "adequate" and who makes that decision?

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

Will someone also determine what the farmer raises? If that decision is left to individuals, it risks that their products can't sell for enough to make a "decent living." Or, what happens when a farmer cannot make sufficient product due to drought, etc.? Is the farmer to be subsidized?

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

What constitutes unfair competition? Is the buggy whip manufacturer facing unfair competition because somebody invented the automobile for example?

The right of every family to a decent home;

Define "decent." Is 1500 square feet of detached dwelling the standard? Is a 800 sq ft apartment the standard? Who determines this? Who determines who gets a home where? Let's say I have a job in town A but there's insufficient "decent" housing. What happens? Am I entitled to force a contractor to build such a home for me at government expense?

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

What constitutes adequate? Who decides? How good of health is good health?

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

Define adequate. Who decides what age, etc., it is given at. Unemployment? Several of the above say I am entitled to a job. Why should I be unemployed?

The right to a good education."

How good is good? Do I have a Right to a high school education? What's the standard for that? Is it simply sitting through 12 grades of classes or is there a viable measurable standard involved? How long do I have to complete that? College, same thing.

All of these ideas involve measurable economic or other standards with costs associated with them. Who decides what those standards are? Who pays for all of this? These things are not free. What is my recourse if I feel I didn't get my Rights fulfilled?

It all sounds good, but in practice everywhere this has been tried it has come up way short of the promises made when those laws were enacted.