inb4 muh freedoms

All citizens should be guaranteed free public healthcare.

Inb4
>durr i don't want to pay for fat women's liposuctions
>hurr smokers brought it on themselves
>derp socialism

>>2160030
Or how about we all take some personal responsibility and buy some insurance?

socialized medicine lowers quality

it also opens the door for the govt to enforce what we do with our bodies, since they are financially responsible for our health.

>>2160052
That would be great if the insurance industry was an altruistic non-profit bunch.

>>2160052

Personal responsibility burns Europeans like the sun burns gingers.

Free market would fix it.

no thanks.

socialised medicine is garbage

Single payer master race reporting.

>>2160052
like you can afford it
>>2160055
unless you have money in America healthcare is shit... we spend more and get less, so no socialized medicine doesn't lower standards

>>2160056
whats wrong with insurance companies being profit driven?

if there was actually competition instead of ridiculous regulation such as preventing you from buying insurance across state borders they wouldn't be so corrupt

>>2160030
But it is true that people have unequal healthcare needs. Some people go through life without needing a single major operation and finally die having never spent more than a few thousand dollars on health related issues. Other people end up spending hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars on medical procedures.

Furthermore, personal choices play a significant role in the health of an individual. It is an uncontroversial fact that people who smoke, who overeat, who lead sedentary lives, or who use drugs *will* be more unhealthy than other people.

It is fundamentally unjust that everyone should pay equally into a healthcare system that they will benefit from unequally.

>>2160080
that's just utopian thinking you dumb shit. if you get to buy across state borders costs will remain high and care will remain fucked and idiots like you will find another scapegoat to blame.

>>2160075
Most people who don't have insurance don't have it because they don't think they need it, not because they can't afford it.

Look at the NHS.

That is how it is done.
America are you even trying? With your knack for organisational logistics you could do it better and show us how its done. Instead you worship the free market and kill yourselves.

>>2160080
number one because denying you coverage makes them greater profit, so guess what they're going to try to do, number two who do you think lobbies for that regulation?

>>2160103
>people actually think this...
>no seriously people actually think this
>really really guize people never leave their upper middle class white neighborhood and go about thinking this

>>2160103
That's just bullshit. Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US, and everybody who isn't braindead knows that not having insurance is a huge financial risk.

britfa­g here. My opinion of national healthcare is horribly fucking negative. Major operations take forever to get done, taxes are high, and quality is low.

>>2160075
healthcare is so expensive because of govt subsidies and over regulation.

doctors are overpaid, most medication should be available on shelves like aspirin.

you should be able to buy glasses and contacts without a prescription, same goes for birth control, its this kind of regulation that increases cost.

>>2160103
But that's not true. It's not even a little bit true.

Something like 75% of the uninsured are uninsured because they're are in poverty, not because they choose not to buy insurance.

>>2160135
>people uninsured because of poverty
>USA

the absolute poverty rate in the USA is less than a percent. It's almost literally nothing.

>>2160128
most people can afford insurance, but they buy iphones, computers, and big screen tvs, and cable.

also insurance is over regulated making it overly expensive.

Im all for national healthcare, except put a limit on how fat you can be and still recieve it, if you have a BMI over 27 you wont get shit, and if you are over a certain age you wont recieve shit either (dont know what age prbably 85 or around that)

>>2160144

MUH WELFARE! GIMME GIMME I POOR!

>>2160132
Fucking this. Every time I've gotten sick, I've known exactly what I had and how to treat it, but I had to go to a doctor and pay that white-coat nigger $100 for a prescription for the pill I already knew I needed.

That shit is unfathomably evil. Like, mafia-tier evil.

>>2160135

>>2160144
absolute poverty means nothing in a developed country you dumb shit.

>durr a poor american makes $7 an hour
>africans make less than $1 an hour
>obviously the american is just dumb and lazy

>>2160172
I know absolute poverty means nothing in a developed country. This is why it's ridiculous to claim anyone in the US is in poverty. Nobody in your country is.

>>2160183
Relative poverty is still poverty.

If you believe otherwise you're deluded.

>>2160160
>television
>refrigerator
>clothes washer
>etc.
You do realize that the cost of all those "amenities" is less than the cost of insurance for a family of four, right?

>>2160153
next you'll justify forcing people not to smoke or eat fatty foods because people are paying for other people's healthcare

once everyone is responsible for everyone else's healthcare financially. this opens the door for the govt to regulate our bodies. even more than they already do

>>2160183
try to buy utilities in America with 7$ an hour job let alone healthcare... shit in developed countries is expensive

Any so called 'developed country' should have the facility to look after the weak, poor and needy. You can pretty much define a society by how it treats the needy.

Anyone who disagrees is most likely someone who is comfortably well off, probably upper middle class.

>>2160190
Nope. If a country has 10 people, all earning $100k a year, then nobody is in poverty. If 9 of them become billionaires, and one starts earning $200k a year, then his situation has improved, he hasn't fallen into poverty simply because everyone else has done better.

Relative poverty is a nonsense, it is only important if you are envious. The only measure of poverty is the measure of destitution.

>>2160213
If someone prioritises utilities above healthcare, go ahead.

>>2160227
what are you talking about.... check income level versus cost of living and that should be your guide to poverty.. think Zimbabwe errybodies billionaires

>>2160227
The US doesn't have 10 people, it has 300 million, out of which 46 million make too little. Not $200k to $10 million, but $10 to $100k

(besides, in your closed world example the $200k guy would still be fucked due to inflation)

>>2160245
Obviously you weight the figures for inflation. That isn't relevant in the slightest though.

>>2160241
You shouldn't have to choose between utilities and healthcare. Do you want people living without running water and electricity?

>>2160241
keeping the lights on, flowing water, and heat vs buying $1500 dollar a year healthcare... sorry if you don't know where most people live... its called the real world

>>2160215
I love how no one, not even americunts, have tried to dispute this one. Have fun being bled dry by insurance companies

>>2160253
I'm using dollars as a measure of wealth. If you want to use potatoes or something else, go ahead. When everyone in a country becomes richer, relative poverty is said to increase. This is ridiculous. Relative poverty isn't a measure of poverty at all. It is only a measure of envy.

>>2160267
>When everyone in a country becomes richer, relative poverty is said to increase

no

learn to maths

>>2160227
this.

>>2160253
>inflation

jesus leftists are economically retarded.

>>2160263
>$1500 dollar a year healthcare
In the real world, a private system would never lead to that being the best option.

>>2160260
If you think that, donate. I'm more concerned with other things.

>>2160153
the person in charge of determining where the line is only has incentive to ease the requirements in order to get more votes. people who have security from a government program tend to be complacent about any expansion.

>>2160276
Yes. As the median income increases, the number of people below 60% of this will increase.

This is why poor countries have very little relative poverty, while the richest countries have high relative poverty. It's a nonsense measure.

>>2160279
>right wingers in charge of economics

>>2160265
the private sector can provide the best quality to the most people. i get your naive idealism, but its just naive

>>2160265
dependency programs create more dependency

>>2160289
> hi my parents pay for everything

>>2160320
>ad hominem
and wrong at that. Guess you're another shit-tier tripfa­g for the filter.

>>2160323
fine
>I am upper middle class and have never struggled to make ends meet...
happier?
also ad hominem hypocrisy... all I'm saying is that insurance in America is really really expensive for many americans

>>2159983

How is that Philosophia 101 class treating you, op?

is it okay to use BATHOS, OP?

example: Most American citizens are against socialized medicine, including one resident of Ohio who recently died of an infected tooth because he couldn't afford insurance. From beyond the grave, he was quoted as saying, "This is real-time proof of Darwinism. Once I got laid off, I knew I deserved to die."

>>2160320
typical spoiled leftist

>>2160309

> mfw democrat controlled house and senate

>>2160358

He died because he decided to not buy the medicine he could afford to fix it.

>>2160382
>hurr the free market will fix it

deregulate healthcare and stop subsidizing it and prices will drop

>>2160395

>>2160378
>>2160378
That was the point I was calling anon out on his shit but he couldn't handle the truth so he just went muh filter and left

>>2159983

Small sample of MRI prices:
Europe - $250
New York - $1000
Austin - $1469

Y?

>>2160415

>>2160423

Europe uses analog mri machines?

>>2160417
he was only anon, no need to get butthurt.

>>2160431

>>2160423
information needed:

government subsidy in each case

>>2160451
I wanted anon to come back and be angry with me though.... I like fucking with angry anons almost as much as fucking with drunk people at my uni

>>2160392

Incorrect. He went to the dentist, and was prescribed an antibiotic AND a painkiller. He spent what money he had on the painkiller instead of the antibiotic - indicative of a shit-tier education system more than anything else.

If socialized medicine existed, he would not have had to make financial decisions that were beyond his medical expertise.

I don't feel sorry for the guy, he sounds like a real fucking idiot. But the point is, this is the kind of thing that demonstrates the effectiveness/failure level of the ENTIRE SYSTEM. And embarrasses an entire society.

>>2160431
>cannot find myself

>>2160423
govt subsidies raise costs.

if the govt is providing the cost of healthcare through subsidies and continuously increasing them any smart business man can see this and see that raising costs is good business.

Were I president, my ultimate goal with regards to healthcare would be a NHS-style, ala the UK's.

Or at least that's what I would want compared to the other systems I understand. I know Canada's is also pretty good at what it does, but I don't know much about it. Doesn't it still rely on private insurers?

>>2159983
Health care isn't a right and is not a role of the federal government

>>2160508
The UKs? It sucks, really. We get worse healthcare year on year and it costs more year on year.
If you want socialised, go with France's system.

>>2160501

> doctor: okay, this one cures you, this one helps with the small amount of pain you have
> patient: hmm pain pills? i can resell these for a profit and/or i would rather have pain relief and the tooth ache than pain and a fixed tooth ache problem
> patient dies

And I laugh.

Some problems with healthcare that I think need to be fixed before any system can work:

Malpractice. Under the current system, a doctor commits malpractice, deals with whatever his insurance doesn't cover, lets his insurance handle the rest, and then if it wasn't murder or anything, goes back to doctoring. Without malpractice being a significant enough issue to deal with insurance companies over, medical service costs would go down. I propose malpractice be limited to criminal claims. Doctors will make a mistake. They are only human. But we shouldn't overly punish them for it.

Insurance companies also need to get out of bed with the Government. It is my belief that if there truly were a free market for health insurance. prices would plummet. Unfortunately, there isn't, and there hasn't really been.

I believe in the Jesus method

everyone gets complete care (health/dental/mental) regardless of who they are and where they are from. doesn't matter if they can pay or if they've ever paid anything at all to anyone. doesn't matter if they are nice or mean, hardworking or lazy.

if any politician is against this method then they aren't a christian

>>2160521
What are the differences?

>>2160542
heretic!

>>2160542
if Jesus comes back and does all the work for free Im ok with that.

>>2160544
They're completely different. I cannot really outline "the differences." Pretty much the only point at which France and UK are the same is that services are free at the point of use. You'd have to do some reading on the systems really.

>>2160542
How's that make sense? When did Christianity ever advocate stealing from people to pay for something another group of people wants?

republicans use their religious belief as justification to spend loads of money trying to make something happen or prevent something from happening. abortion or gay marriage is a great example.

if they were actually followers of Jesus then they would have no trouble applying the same effort to modeling their healthcare after Jesus: everyone gets everything for free

republicans could have saved millions of lives by now if they had chosen to follow Jesus

so jesus is okay with stealing your money to pay for this healthcare?

>>2160583

> i got this car no money down
> its freeee!!!!!1!!!

Sure is yuroschooling in here.

>>2160597
replying to this
>>2160542

you're arguing that jesus advocates theft.

>>2160597
>>2160592

If republicans loved Jesus their money wouldn't need to be taken. They would be willingly giving their time, money, and effort until 100% of humans were medically taken care of.

they aren't christians

>>2160600
>how do I into words?

I very clearly said "at the point of use"

>>2160611
True. But then you're advocating a sort of cultural change rather than a political one.

The problem in the USA is the same problem it's always been - two different economies.

The cost of insurance under the Ameritard system is based on how much AN EMPLOYED PERSON WORKING A FULL-TIME JOB AT AN UPPER-TIER WAGE should be able to afford.

Which is really pretty funny considering that so many Ameritards are out of work completely, and 10 times more than that are "underemployed" and do not earn a living wage.

The verdict? We are willing to back a system that GUARANTEES an EXTEMELY high percentage of the population can never afford to go to the doctor. And because it is the Ameritards backing this system, they back it with their usual compassion -

"He should have gotten a job!"

"He couldn't get a job, he'd been unemployed too long."

pic related - suck a nigger dick ameritards

>>2160608

Jesus advocates wealthy people not keeping their money. He specifically told them to give it away.

So if you want to call Jesus a thief then that's fine. I'm simply repeating his words.

>>2160030
The irony is that many people oppose national healthcare because they do not want to pay for someone else healthcare. But if they were paying for national healthcare, the payments they would be making towards that service is for EVERYONE's healthcare, even for people who are opposed to it. Because those same opponents would take advantage national healthcare they paid with their taxes if they get sick or need emergency health care.

>>2160052
About 50% of people get priced out of insurance. How good is personal responsibility if you can't afford health insurance, if your job does not offer health insurance, or you can't get a better job that has health insurance.

I seriously think that many people who are opposed to real health insurance reform don't have health insurance of their own and are simple repeating what other opponents say.

>>2160508
>Or at least that's what I would want compared to the other systems I understand. I know Canada's is also pretty good at what it does, but I don't know much about it. Doesn't it still rely on private insurers?

Canada is still reliant on private hospitals. The provincial governments themselves pay for health care.

>>2160358
They're most likely against it due to the fear of socialism and a socially accepted belief of social Darwinism.

>>2160612

> i got paid no money down on this car, AT THE POINT OF USE
> Iits freeeee !!1!!!!

Sure is still yuroschooling here.

>>2160634
It's free at the point of use yes. Nobody was arguing it was free. Did you just come here to spaz out regardless of what people were even saying?

>>2160625
i'm not religious, and i think jesus was a socialist. but its irrelevant.

thievery is one of the ten commandments.

not paying for someone else's healthcare when you've got your own family to take care of is not a commandment

>>2160628
those of us who don't want national health care don't want to pay for other people and don't want to let the government get involved in another aspect of are lives. I don't care that I would be able to use it to and would benefit I prefer the money in my pocket and I don't want the government to create another department when we are spending 1 trillion dollars plus over are budget. Health care in this country is a complete none issue. Spending is the issue right now and until that is settled we can't even think about national healthcare.

>>2160623

HAHAHAHA

laws yes, M-O-O-N, that spells class warfare

>>2160691

>thinks it's okay that they spend the money they might otherwise use for national healthcare on blowing up the middle east

mark

10:21 And Jesus, looking on him and loving him, said, There is one thing needed: go, get money for your goods, and give it to the poor, and you will have wealth in heaven: and come with me.

10:22 But his face became sad at the saying, and he went away sorrowing: for he was one who had much property.

10:23 And Jesus, looking round about, said to his disciples, How hard it is for those who have wealth to come into the kingdom of God!


If republicans were truly christians they would not keep their wealth. This is how you know Romney isn't a christian. If you put together all of the wealth that just republicans have you could 100% fund healthcare for everyone. Dental too.

Republicans choose not to follow Jesus

I'm against "national" anything. Fuck you.

>>2160705
never said that

>>2160691

corporate slave detected

funny thing about the usa - guess who's against national healthcare? people who already have insurance

guess who's for it? people who don't

srsly, if i had a button in front of me that would blow up the usa and put it out of the rest of the world's misery, i wouldn't even hesitate

>>2160597
Taxes are not "theft." Jesus said, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's."

>>2160731
I don't have insurance. try again

>>2160691
So you are suggesting that you are willing to die even if the government can actually save your life with the tax dollars you pay towards it.

Where do you prefer your tax dollars go towards then?

Subsidizing private health insurnace
Subsides for corporations
or
For more military adventures.

>>2160757
So how do you get your health care?

>>2160731
if you honestly believe that you should look back at how violent the world was when numerous medium size powers were fighting eachother over influence.

and people who don't have health insurance are niggers and white trash etc. hardly people who are educated in the enormous complexities of what a national healthcare system would involve

I wonder how non-elite-class americans who are backing the elitist agenda think they are viewed by the rest of the world. They probably think we view them as people willing to make tough choices in tough times.

Actually we just think you're a bunch of pitiful assholes who don't have the first clue what's good for you.

>>2160734
he says nothing about forcing you to give up your possessions.

its a suggestion.

and forcing me to give money under threat of prison is theft anyway you slice it.

>>2160809
There are plenty of white americans who can't afford health insurance, even with part-time jobs.

>>2160811
>I wonder how non-elite-class americans who are backing the elitist agenda think they are viewed by the rest of the world. They probably think we view them as people willing to make tough choices in tough times.

Because blind obedience to people who are knowledgeable.

>>2160811
the rest of the world especially europe has zero credibility when it comes to telling people theyre stupid.

deregulate healthcare and the cost issue disappears.

>>2160786
>you pay towards it
I don't pay the government for health care. I don't expect them to help me. The same way I don't pay for health insurance so I don't expect an Insurance company to help me.
>Where do you prefer your tax dollars go towards then?
the enumerated powers of congress and nothing more.

>>2160806
From a doctor. But I haven't gone to one in years.

>>2160757

So you're willing to make sacrifices so that your fellow countrymen can live well, even though your life is at shit-tier white trash level.

O' the nobility!

>>2160871
that doesn't even make sense.

>>2160865
How much you pay for one?

>>2160827
HURR DURR FUCK YOU I GOT MINE DERP DERP I DON'T OWE THE STATE SHIT HURR COLLECTIVE SOCIETY CAN FEND FOR ITSELF DURR ME ME ME DERP DERP FUCK OTHER PEOPLE DURR HURR

>>2160900
nothing since I don't go to doctors.

>>2159983
Works fine here in Sweden.
Not flawless but definitely functional.
But then again we spent about 150-200 years getting the system adapted to our levels of taxation and vice versa.

And no, cosmetic surgery is not covered by this.

If such a system could be made to work in USA in, say a decade...well, of that I'm not so sure.

>>2160886

Makes perfect sense actually - here's a guy so brainwashed by his media that he's willing to accept his own premature death in order to help the upper class in its efforts to gain exclusive access to quality medical care.

tl;dr - usa is a joke - just not the funny kind

>>2160903
if you asked me to donate some money for somebody in truly need of healthcare i might do it. but stealing it and creating a govt monopoly just makes things worse.

do you really want your healthcare to be the same quality as public education?

>>2160949

sshhhhhhhhhhhhhh! (they don't know they're an international punchline)

>>2160689
What do you do when you pay for your family's health insurance?

Pay for other people's healthcare.

derp.

Nationalized healthcare is CHEAPER.

Nationalized healthcare is HIGHER QUALITY (in general, retards fuck off with your cancer numbers. Cancer research and treatment is SUBSIDIZED in the US).

>>2160949
I would only be making a sacrifice if I was giving up a portion of my money to pay for national health care. I'm not advocating that. And how am I going to die prematurely? Because I don't go to a doctor when I get a cold?

>>2160949
>thinks american media is anything but prosocialised medicine


>i know about america because i read something on the internet

>>2160948
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbTEzhaXZ3w

>>2160852
deregulation will lower health care costs? hah-hah. nigga be smoking crack on a muthafucking sunday. you out'cha damn mind, fool.

>>2160993
There is around a .3% chance annually that you will get an injury that requires health insurance.

>>2160987
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Ranking_of_Household_Income

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

could be worse. we could be poor.

>>2161020
That faggot is just jealous that he isn't Ingvar Kamprad and tries to blame the Swedish taxation levels for his incompetence.

As I said, the system is not flawless but it works.

>>2161053
then their is no reason for national healthcare.

>>2161082
It may work for you but that doesn't mean national health care in general works

>>2161102
most people don't know shit about their healthcare or its quality since you rarely have to take advantage of it.

The american cancer survival rate is so high because it normally strikes at an early age. It isnt due to better medical care since your medical system is vastly inferior to most nationalised systems. Not to mention you pay 3 times as much, or more, for the same healthcare as the next nation.

>>2160931
OK you get your health care from doctors, but you do not go to doctors?

Is it me, are you willing to die if you are sick?

>>2160993

You're going to die prematurely because you're not getting proper medical attention, that's all. You don't get check-ups. Ever. You could be dying right now, but you'd never know it. There could be some dietary adjustment you need to make for your heart health, or your liver, or your pancreas, but that information will remain undisclosed to you.

It's a 100% statistical guarantee that without proper health insurance you will not live as long as you would with it. By how much is the only real question.

>>2161141
no I just know the difference between a cold and a life threatening illness. Since I know the difference I don't need insurance.

>>2161140
nice source there kiddo.

>>2161162
>100% statistical guarantee
no it's not because people spend their whole lives smoking and or drinking and never get cancer or need a liver transplant. their is no guarantee.

A check up isn't a guarantee that anything will be found. I could change my diet and be heather sure but no one can force me to. even if a got regular check ups. So why should we tax people and let the government spend huge sums of money? They can't force people to change their way of life but they can allow people to spend huge sums of money on check ups and tests that are completely unnecessary.

>>2161102
Works in Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway.

This does not mean private alternatives don't exist.
Everyone is perfectly free to buy insurance and check in at privately run clinics if they so prefer.

But for the majority of the populations (wealthy people included) the tax financed system is enough.

Granted, it could use some streamlining because of technological advances having made some elements of the old administrative apparatus unweildy, but once again, for the majority of the population it works just fine.

A minority may not be satisfied but they can go get their insurance-financed healthcare wherever they feel like it.

It does not mean that a tax financed health care system is the best for each and every nation, however.
Some, like USA, have a different socio-economic structure and there a privately funded model could be the best.
After all it does seem to work pretty good for a majority of US citizens.
And USA too has alternatives. There are tax financed clinics as well.

Different situations, different systems.

To claim that a solely tax financed or a solely privately funded (market driven?) health care system is the end-all solution to everything, everywhere is equally foolish.

>>2161171
Suddenly: Cancer!
"Sorry, too late to treat".

>>2161265
insurance wouldn't change that situation.

National healthcare is bad because it just wouldn't work well.

A powerful state isn't bad because it's evil, it's bad because it can't do anything right.

>>2161304
Oh I don't know.

Governments are pretty good at waging wars.

>>2161316
No, asshole leaders at good at waging wars. There is FAR more to the government than Dubya or Obongo.

>>2161246
I would agree in part to what your saying, however if the government will provide, through taxation, healthcare services and their is no way to opt out, then the government has prohibited peoples ability to seek alternatives. I will use the Libertarian word free market for a moment: The free market allows everyone to choose what they feel is best for them. The government doesn't give anyone a choice. They take your money and that's that. That is what, IMO, Americans hate the most about national health care.

>>2161322
So...we need more asshole leaders?

While I am against national healthcare on principle, my main motivation for being against it in the us is that, honestly, you know the US is going to fuck it up. It's not going to improve a damn thing, just be a big, expensive clusterfuck that lowers standards for everyone whilst costing much more.

>>2161245

>They can't force people to change their way of life but they can allow people to spend huge sums of money on check ups and tests that are completely unnecessary.

okay pal, i know who i'm talking to now

you're actually going to sit there and act as if getting regular, specific lifestyle advice from a certified medical doctor is not going to help you?

then i can't help you either

protip: this guy is one of the people reflecting the american will on this matter

>>2161346
>specific lifestyle advice
I need a doctor for that? Don't smoke don't drink exercise regularly. I didn't need a doctor to tell me that and I can pay a personal trainer at a gym to give me the same advice while having a place to work out. Hell I can Google search for info on how to be healthy. I'm not sure where you get the idea that only a doctor can tell people how to live a healthy life.

>>2161346
why can't doctors compete on price?

i can diagnose myself in most things and don't need an overpaid doctor to tell me what drugs to take.

if i do i'll go to a doctor.

>>2161082
>argumentum ad hominem

Do you have any real criticisms for him? He seems to give an accurate view of how the system works.

I suspect that Sweden has an actually freer market for drugs and such despite the national healthcare.

It would be better to have that socialized healthcare if we had a completely free market for drugs and such. Having socialized on top of regulatory capture won't help.

>>2161381

>I'm not sure where you get the idea that only a doctor can tell people how to live a healthy life.

i never said anything remotely close to that

i will say this though - a doctor is probably the only one who's going to tell you you've got a (currently) benign lump on your prostate, or an iron deficiency in your blood, or that you have developed adult diabetes, or that your cholesterol level is giving you high blood pressure, etc., etc., etc.

you're talking out your ass bud - or is it the undiagnosed rectal cancer talking? you'll never know until you shit a tumor and drop dead

>>2161328
You can opt out insofar that you can move somewhere else.

And, once again, the vast majority of the citizenry don't want to opt out in Scandinavian countries.

This of course stems from different experiences with government.
In USA there seems to be many negative experiences with the trustworthiness of the government and elected officials which, quite reasonably so, leads to distrust in state controlled systems for the common good.

Exactly what these experiences are I do not know, I'm not well-versed enough in US history to do so.
Perhaps some American poster could clarify?

In the Scandinavian nations (and to a lesser extent most west- and northwest European nations) we've mostly had positive experiences from state controlled matters which have had (usually) very little effect on personal and political freedoms.
As a contrast we have some very negative, recent experiences with market driven alternatives in various areas.

This is the foundation for the generally pro-tax financed attitudes in our corner of the world.
This is further supported by constitutional checks and balances that limit governments of various political kinds to meddle too much and too fast. We tend to swing from left wing to right wing governments with some regularity, yet the social, legal and health care mechanisms remain more or less stable, which is appreciated.
Over time changes can be effected but not at the drop of a hat because a communist or libertarian (or whatever) minister of parliament suddenly gets in a reformative mood.

Cont.

>>2161505
Cont. from:
>>2161505


There are definitely some things that could benefit from letting free enterprise handle it but with the current socio-economic structure I am not fully convinced that the Scandinavian health care model is one of them.

What also is important to know about Swedish mentality in general is that "Freedom from Want" (In Swedish parlance known as "negative freedoms") is considered more important than freedom from restrictions which seem to be the focus for the US mindset.

I am of course generalizing (as I assume you are too) for the sake of the argument but I hope you see where I come from and where I'm kind of going with this.

>>2161450
A doctor isn't going to check for any of those things unless I complain of specific issues I'm having. If I assume a doctor will do all those tests every time I come in how can you not see how that would increase cost?

>>2161392
>It would be better to have that socialized healthcare if we had a completely free market for drugs and such

Alas, we recently did have the state controlled pharmacies turned into private businesses.

The only effect was a price hike and reduced availability for people on long-term medication.

>>2161565
There is a very free market, albeit illegal, for some kinds of drugs though.

Just not for medical purposes, but rather, shall we say, recreational purposes.

>>2161531

dude, you are aware of the thing called the "regular medical check-up" are you not? if not, most people do it once a year, and it involves going to the doctor

and what they do at those check-ups is, they check for that kind of shit - the kind of shit you CANNOT check for yourself, the kind of shit that requires blood tests, intelligence, expertise, and experience to diagnose

if you ever had a fucking check-up, you'd know this

tell me something, and i'm just pulling this one out of nowhere - how do you know you don't have hepatitis C right this minute?

you can get it from unprotected sex, or IV drug use, or even in some cases from a toilet seat - it's 100% non-symptomatic for most people - and it eats away at your liver until you either need a liver transplant or a coffin

answer: you don't know, and you never will until you are at death's door - but one blood test could tell you today, and it's 100% treatable now

just an example, friend - pic related, has about as much chance of holding water as your argument

>>2161641
why can't i learn how to do those things myself and give myself a check up?

you could even draw your own blood and send it in to be tested.

doctors are overpaid fucks

>>2161505
I see what you are saying. I've actually been to Sweden and it is a very nice place. I suppose my overall point is that the liberals (don't know if you have a different variety or definition over their) look at the Scandinavian country's and say "look it works". they ignore the differences in culture and the differences in tax law.

The reason we distrust the government is because of the British. It honestly dates back to the revolution and that is why are constitution is a negative document. It doesn't grant any rights it defines things that the government can't not interfere with. If you read it you will notice phrases like: congress shall not, can not. Are government is founded on the principle that governments cannot be trusted. I suppose their is some irony their.

We have a hard time removing any program once it's started as you can see from are social security and medicare programs. Are government was designed to be difficult to change. And I am talking about are federal government. it is well within the power of the state governments to have a universal health care system.
no one wants to give up their benefits even when we are hemorrhaging money. A national health care plan simply isn't feasible under these economic conditions.

>>2161692

absolutely no reason whatsoever you can't learn to do those things yourself - in fact, considering where you live, i think you better

>>2161693
>they ignore the differences in culture and the differences in tax law.

I believe you hit the target, right there.

If your liberals (a word generally associated with right wingers here, oddly enough) were to ram a Swedish model through more or less overnight, I fear you would have a nationwide medical and financial disaster on your hands within weeks, if not days.

But let us, for the fun of it, assume that USA would deem it prudent to actually get a tax financed health care system (the phrase "free healthcare" is obviously an oversimplification at best and a blatant lie at worst).

Then I suppose a classical conservative (as opposed to neo-conservative) approach with gradual change of the current system would be the wisest. In a nation as huge as USA it might not even be prudent to enact such a change in all states at the same time.

But perhaps we both are looking at things in too black-or-white terms?

A parallel system, somehow balanced, with both tax- and privately financed health care could possibly be a proper way?

I'm starting to feel a bit silly trying to solve what is a huge and complex question on a message board.

Nevertheless I do enjoy this conversation. It helps put things into perspective for me.

Take a look at the public school system.

Beautiful schools, shitty kids.

Little incentive for teachers to teach, they stay for the benefits, its a fucked system, and it's a lose/lose in the end.

Healthcare will never be perfect, but as long as we allow our current healthcare companies to be propped up and subsidized by the government, we will see the same ridiculous prices.

Remove the strict barrier of entry, and allow for competition to thrive.

In 10 years we will have more lenient policies available for people of all medical conditions, as the amount of competition will allow for the freedom to choose through a vast variety of companies with different plans, at competitive levels, with quality.

It's a shame we always look to the government for solutions... but in a country with many cultures like America, I do not see socialized healthcare viable.

>>2161840

>I'm starting to feel a bit silly trying to solve what is a huge and complex question on a message board.

i understand what you're saying, but factually it's not nearly as complicated as people think

what's more important, decent healthcare for the usa's citizens, or tear-assing around the globe blowing shit up

if we took 20% of the money we spent on war and put it into taking care of people instead, our country's problems would be solved

THAT'S how simple it is - we are the richest country on the planet, and the most backwards - we could take care of our people, but we choose not to

and the warmongers who rule our world spend billions of dollars every year just convincing people like the ones ITT to keep believing the problem is the laziness of the poor, rather than the greed of the rich

>>2161978
I think that pretty well sums up the problem for USA rather nicely.

I would rather bankrupt the nation then give us S.S. and Medicare. Whats the point of being a citizen if there are no programs that benefit me?

>>2161939
You ignoring the capitalist natural tendence to concentration, well documented since mid 19th century.
It'll start as various companies competing but it will derive in an oligopoly or even a monopoly controlling the market a piacere.

>>2161840
>liberals (a word generally associated with right wingers here, oddly enough)
I think that is what they were here if I remember right. It is funny though. makes it hard to use those terms

>"free healthcare"
I think politicians stopped using that term cause they figured out it was BS
>classical conservative
my understanding of classical is they are Libertarians essentially. Speaking from an American stand point
>all states at the same
I see your logic but that isn't a power of the federal government. Even if they wanted to and the people wanted it, it would not be a power of the federal government unless the constitution was amended. The states have that power though. The thought being that a state could try such a program and people could move if they didn't like it but still remain in the US. Also if the system failed it would be easier to change on a state level as apposed to a national level.
>A parallel system
The issue their is that the government has far more power then a private company. are medicare system is a kind of hybrid like that. The issue is if a medical procedure costs 1000 dollars and medicare says " we will only pay 500". The other 500 has to come from some where and that means other none medicare participants.

I think at the end of the day you would have to have an either or. Not both. The incentives and and costs would be distorted

>>2161693
>>2161328
>>2162077
me
>>2161978
not me

>>2162109
I see.

Well, he does still have a point.
US military expenditure is somewhat bloated.

>>2162077
So the State Governments in USA have a quite strong position compared to the Federal Government?
I suppose it's really a necessity, given the size of USA.

>I think at the end of the day you would have to have an either or

Fair enough.
I still think there should be legal tools available for courts and similar institutions to make sure that insurance companies uphold their part of the bargain.

I've heard some rather hair-raising stories about insurance companies who try to dodge their responsibilities, although I definitely hope they are the exception rather than then norm.

>my understanding of classical is they are Libertarians essentially. Speaking from an American stand point

That is fairly accurate.
They do have a stronger emphasis on religion and tradition than the average Libertarian but they do agree on "Small government, small spending".

But recent libertarianism (or rather, it's extremes) has drifted towards "wealth at the expense of others" which Classical Conservatives would find unacceptable.
Wealth can be had without having someone else becoming poor. This, I believe is at the core of both conservative and older Social Democrat thinking.

That's why I mentioned Ingvar Kamprad in my earlier, rather snarky, post.
He became a billionaire by creating IKEA in what was at the time a very strongly left leaning nation, which to me proves my point that you can be an entrepeneur and become fabulously wealthy even with a high level of taxation and without treating poor people like lazy bums.

Since I am definitely more left leaning (which should be fairly obvious by now) I definitely prefer a Classical Conservative stance to an extremist Libertarianist or indeed an extreme socialist one.

>>2162307
>US military expenditure is somewhat bloated
it is but not all of its spending is on war. He also assumes that all it would take is 20% and that cost would never change and I don't see it as that simple.
>their part of the bargain
well they can't commit fraud. You sign a contract where is spells out what they pay for and what they don't. I agree it is a lot of reading but it is their.
>Wealth can be had without having someone else becoming poor
yes it can. if you work for me you become richer when I pay you. I become richer because you have given me labor that I needed. Just because you are not as wealthy as me is irreverent. You have become rich by selling your labor. Taxation doesn't need to be employed to create wealth. It doesn't create any to begin with. Off on a tangent thier.
>libertarianism
I've never heard it explained in the way you describe. I'd say its more about personal responsibility and opportunity with out government intervention. But that gets back into the whole we don't trust the government thing.
You may have a point in regards to what Johan said but it doesn't take away from the fact you tax consumption and "sins" more then wealth. The Americans arguing for healthcare want to tax the rich not consumption. so we are back to difference in culture and tax law.

>>2162543
>>2162307

>>Wealth can be had without having someone else becoming poor

incorrect

in isolated instances, of course - but on a societal level, there are finite resources to go around

this is not that difficult of a concept to understand if you forget about the fact that there are 7 billion people on the planet and think of earth as being occupied by only two people - the more one takes, the less is available for the other to take

obviously neither would be suffering for resources in that scenario, but the point is, with 7 billion people, many DO have to suffer so that others can be comfortable

men are competitive, and we have constructed a society that reflects that

unfortunately, the game is now rigged, and getting more rigged all the time, as those at the top close doors on those at the bottom

it's an over-population issue, it's an irrational design issue, it's a greed issue, and it's a propaganda issue

it's as complicated as you want to make it

still, 20% of the usa annual military budget is about $150 billion - more than enough to insure every uninsured person in the country and still pump $50 billion into medical research

>>2159983

In a country that has enough money socializing education and healthcare is a good thing. People pay slightly higher taxes, in the end they save and they live healthy lives not having to worry about lack of care. Education in the US is a business. This generation that is just rolling off the line is going to fail. Hopefully the next couple of groups going through college are engineers, physicists, chemists etc.

>>2160052

What about an opt out opt in option for paying the extra tax on healthcare?

>>2162543
>so we are back to difference in culture and tax law.

Agreed.
And of course, an economy as huge as the US one the possibilities for economic mobility and the amount of actual opportunities and the very size of the local market allows for a lot more leeway for transit of labour.
Sweden...not so much.

We're a tiny country and if the economy in Stockholm is bad, it's usually not a whole lot better in Umeå or Malmö.

Actually, it's probably even worse in Malmö, but that would be me going off on a tangent regarding Swedish immigration policy.

>>2162674
>unfortunately, the game is now rigged, and getting more rigged all the time, as those at the top close doors on those at the bottom

>it's an over-population issue, it's an irrational design issue, it's a greed issue, and it's a propaganda issue

Is it time for a revolution?

>>2162674
I think that if one of the current candidates ran on a platform of cutting military spending, he would win. But cutting military spending doesn't even seem to be on the table anymore, which is ridiculous when you consider that we're not even engaging in national defense anymore, only offense.

IMO it would be easy to trim the military budget and still protect our homeland, if that was actually what we are trying to do.

Unfortunately what we are actually trying to do is maintain a state of constant warfare so that our shadow government can keep getting richer, and richer, and richer.

The funny thing about Americans is, they think they are part of "America!"

But "America!" is nothing more than a handful of elitist arms manufacturers and their government cronies who don't give a shit if the average citizen lives, dies, or gets a pineapple shoved up his ass.

You are nothing more than than the fuel for the machine.

What really needs to happen is, Americans need to start discussing the real problems honestly, instead of continuing to act as if a bunch of ludicrously wealthy, amoral assholes haven't taken over their country from behind the scenes.

pic related

>>2162674
your very wrong. The Chinese don't work for free. they produce goods and we buy them. they get money and we get goods. Both parties are better off.
>unfortunately, the game is now rigged
by government not by the market
>men are competitive
people are competitive
>it's an over-population issue
hardly. the US has plenty of open space. As does the world.
>it's an irrational design issue
the government part maybe. Not the market
>it's a greed issue
you can be as greedy as you want it wont get you anywhere. Only providing you with something you want at a price you agree to will get you anything.
>$150 billion
you make the assumption that the cost of health care will not increase. you also forget that people change their habits because of price. If people see health care as free they won't worry about whether a visit to the doctor is necessary they will go no matter what. Increased damned increases cost.

Well, this has been fun and enlightening but I have to go.

Thanks for a good time, /pol/!

Pic related for the lulz.

Swedenfag signing off.

>>2162834

well past time - the revolution should have happened in the 1960's, and almost did - at this point it is probably too late, the american people show no sign whatsoever of waking up out this nightmare

>>2163021
maybe thats because americans have it better then ever before.

Crime rates have dropped, technology improved life etc

>>2162770
then it isn't a tax. I'm not sure it would work if it's vonluntery. I suppose it depends on how its setup. And the then you get into the problem of people saying "it doesn't provide enough, we need everyone to be in it for it to work."
>>2162783
Yeah that is why it is a bad idea on a federal level. The state level would be a far better approach.

>>2162939

here's the scenario, bud:

let's take something very simple: a pair of shoes

now, all through the process of building a pair of shoes, people are benefiting - one guy gets paid to mold the leather, another guy gets paid to mold the heel, another guy gets paid to put the shoes together, etc.

now the shoes are done, and the capitalist process continues: one guy gets paid to ship the shoes to the retail outlet, another guy gets paid to stand there and sell them

let's say that by the time a pair of shoes is manufactured, shipped, and sold, a total of 20 dollars is "created" in the economy, based on creating an item of value out of items of lesser value

but wait

you paid $50 for those shoes

subtract the $30 that just went out of the economy from the $20 that went in, and you end up with a negative figure

so then your argument is, that extra $10, that "profit," actually found its way into someone's bank account ultimately - yes it did

if that person then turns around and reinvests the $10 into the economy, you've got a wash

but here's what's happening in the modern era: that $10 is being hoarded - it just disappears out of the economy and finds its way into the bank account of some billionaire - and there it sits, for 10, 20, 30, 40, 100 years

THAT is why the US economy is breaking down, and that is also why the rich can't get rich without making someone poor

you are simply confused - i understand completely, the entire system is intentionally confusing, so those with the knowledge of how it really works can simply rape the rest of us with impunity, and still have confused people like you taking their side

>>2163045

>has it pretty decent

>by extension all americans have it good

protip: life in the usa is better and better for fewer and fewer people, you are absolutely correct