Why is the US so opposed to free healthcare for all?

Werbung:
Look I can make completely wrong statements about who pays taxes!

http://www.politicususa.com/en/half-americans-taxes

Of course anyone who suggests changing that, the Right would also Scream about them Raising taxes....

Its such a great point for the Republicans...because its false, and there is no way the left can address it without them crying about it.
Even your Hardcore Leftist Blog pointed out that almost half of all Americans pay no federal INCOME tax. Of course the spin is that those people pay other federal taxes but you Progs aren't talking about raising those other taxes, you're always calling for higher INCOME taxes... Only on the "wealthy" of course, because that's Progressive.

So if you're done playing with your strawman, perhaps you could take the time to address the questions I posed to you a couple posts ago...

Explain how higher taxes and/or deficit spending does anything to lower the cost of PROVIDING healthcare. After all, that's what you're proposing as a "solution" to the problem... So explain exactly how that would work.
 
Actually, we do have healthcare for poor people, just as long as they aren't working. I should have included category (e) people on welfare.

But, that's how liberals think: Keep people on the dole and under the thumb of the government. Don't encourage anyone to go out and get an entry level job instead.

I had 2 jobs...I had no health care....thats the republican thinking that somehow if you don't have health care you don't have a job,.
 
Even your Hardcore Leftist Blog pointed out that almost half of all Americans pay no federal INCOME tax. Of course the spin is that those people pay other federal taxes but you Progs aren't talking about raising those other taxes, you're always calling for higher INCOME taxes... Only on the "wealthy" of course, because that's Progressive.

So if you're done playing with your strawman, perhaps you could take the time to address the questions I posed to you a couple posts ago...

Explain how higher taxes and/or deficit spending does anything to lower the cost of PROVIDING healthcare. After all, that's what you're proposing as a "solution" to the problem... So explain exactly how that would work.

Funny...no one said Federal Income tax..they said Federal taxes....you know something that is Incorect...and something I am correct in...But go ahead and there are lots of taxes liberals have suggested besides income taxes...but those are a key tax so yes they get talked about a lot. I think we all should pay more in taxes...But it starts with the Rich paying there fair share first...not paying a fraction with there loopholes....Of course I could you know be like a republican...lower taxes lower taxes...spend more spend more ( say spend less while spending more) you know maybe one day when a republican in office actuly spends less...someone will listen...But when was the last time that happened in the white house? its a talking point to make the right happy while they spend. At least when I think we should spend more, I say pay for it...Its so easy to run as a republican...you give Americans more money and then spend more of it...then bitch about Democrats and the Debt as soon as out of office...
 
I think we all should pay more in taxes...
Of course you do... except of course the poor... and the elderly... oh and anyone else that Progressives feel are already over burdened by "sharing" in the cost of supporting the tax base. So if you're done with your red herring....

How does raising taxes reduce the cost of PROVIDING healthcare? You're the one who trotted out the specious claim that other countries pay less per capita for "better" healthcare, so lets hear an explanation for how that's accomplished.
 
The fact that republicans can get their supporters, most of whom would benefit from free state healthcare, screaming against it just because it is 'socialised' shows how weak the argument against it is. It is just the result of rich people not wanting to share their wealth to help their fellow countrymen with as basic a human need as healthcare. They much prefer strutting around showing off about their charity work which we all know is just self-serving 'look at me' publicity. And as they mostly profess to be Christians they should read the tale of the widow's mite. But then they are pretty good at ignoring the inconvenient bits in the bible aren't they?

They are disgusting hypocrites and anyone supporting their nasty politics is either stupid or nasty or both
 
Of course you do... except of course the poor... and the elderly... oh and anyone else that Progressives feel are already over burdened by "sharing" in the cost of supporting the tax base. So if you're done with your red herring....

How does raising taxes reduce the cost of PROVIDING healthcare? You're the one who trotted out the specious claim that other countries pay less per capita for "better" healthcare, so lets hear an explanation for how that's accomplished.

I am smart enough that you can't get blood from a stone...also its pretty stupid and inefficient to tell someone to pay you , so that you can pay them back if they are poor. And If you have not paid any attention the 10,000 times people including me have shown stats, graphs and anything else we could showing the cost per capita for health care and such...well sorry if I don't jump to show you more for you to ignore. Put your head in the sand and just keep thinking everyone has health care, and we pay less then everyone else...
 
I had 2 jobs...I had no health care....thats the republican thinking that somehow if you don't have health care you don't have a job,.

I'm not a republican so it's not "republican thinking". Govt run health care is bad health care. Govt run anything is not the best we can do. The private sector has an incentive to not waste money because it affects them immediately.
 
Of course you do... except of course the poor... and the elderly... oh and anyone else that Progressives feel are already over burdened by "sharing" in the cost of supporting the tax base. So if you're done with your red herring....

How does raising taxes reduce the cost of PROVIDING healthcare? You're the one who trotted out the specious claim that other countries pay less per capita for "better" healthcare, so lets hear an explanation for how that's accomplished.


The likelihood is that other nations, in fact every advanced nation in the world, pays less per capita than the US for health care is due to:

Providers know what they will be paid for a given procedure. There is no game playing by billing triple what is necessary and then hoping to collect enough to cover costs.
There is no need to go to the emergency room for non emergencies.
It is more likely that people will get preventative care when that care doesn't cost them.
There is no need to maintain an army of clerical staff whose expertise is to bill the correct entity and put the right codes in the correct boxes, then keep after the private for profit insurers to be sure that they meet their obligations.
There is no incentive to perform unneeded procedures and tests just to collect the money from insurance.

But, that's just a guess, and could be wrong. It could be a combination of all of the above, or there might be another reason altogether why we have the most expensive health care in the world, and no better outcome for the extra money.
 
The fact that republicans can get their supporters, most of whom would benefit from free state healthcare, screaming against it just because it is 'socialised' shows how weak the argument against it is. It is just the result of rich people not wanting to share their wealth to help their fellow countrymen with as basic a human need as healthcare. They much prefer strutting around showing off about their charity work which we all know is just self-serving 'look at me' publicity. And as they mostly profess to be Christians they should read the tale of the widow's mite. But then they are pretty good at ignoring the inconvenient bits in the bible aren't they?

They are disgusting hypocrites and anyone supporting their nasty politics is either stupid or nasty or both

I bolded the most absurd part of your statement...but I coud have bolded it all.

Look at your statement and think about your argument: "It is just the result of rich people not wanting to share their wealth to help their fellow countrymen with as basic a human need as healthcare."

Essentially, your statement is "they have it, I want it, so I am entitled to it." If you want to talk about a disgusting position -- look no further.
 
I bolded the most absurd part of your statement...but I coud have bolded it all.

Look at your statement and think about your argument: "It is just the result of rich people not wanting to share their wealth to help their fellow countrymen with as basic a human need as healthcare."

Essentially, your statement is "they have it, I want it, so I am entitled to it." If you want to talk about a disgusting position -- look no further.

Exactly. It's also called "greed" and "covetousness". Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, those are bad character traits.
 
But, that's just a guess, and could be wrong.
So... You have no idea how, much less if, a UHC system would actually lower costs but you support adopting such a system anyway... And you think you're position is one of reason and logic?

Rather than speculate, I'll offer some actual examples...

Half of German doctors prescribe placebos, according to a new study for the German Medical Association.
The report says placebos, from vitamin pills to homeopathic remedies or even sham surgery, can prove highly effective in various treatments.
In Bavaria, it found, 88% of GPs have sent patients home with prescriptions for placebo drugs.
...
"Placebos can maximise the effect of medication," says Robert Jütte, author of the study and a BÄK board member.
"They can reduce undesirable side-effects and are a more efficient usage of our healthcare budget."

Fake medicine? Check...

...​
Growing numbers of patients are being denied treatment for conditions such as loss of sight, arthritis and infertility as the NHS increasingly rations healthcare in order to save money, research by the Guardian shows.
Denial of service? Check...

...​
The Mid Western Regional Hospital in Limerick has already overspent by €21m this year and has closed 25 acute care hospital beds in response. The hospital has experienced a sharp rise in demand after the closure of a smaller acute hospital in the region two years ago. Almost 20% of patients were waiting between 12 and 24 hours to be admitted through the regional unit’s emergency department even before the latest cutbacks.
Waiting 12 to 24 hours just to be admitted into the ER? Check...

We could start saving millions by doing all those things now... Of course, when private companies do such things they get sued but the ever-loving-and-all-caring Government is exempt from such frivolity.

GOVERNMENT+HEALTH+CARE.jpg
 
Kinda pissed... Spent an hour pulling together links and articles only to have the site lock up when I tried to post... I'll try this again... Luckily there is no shortage of articles on the subject.

But, that's just a guess, and could be wrong.

Bottom line is... You have no idea how, or even if, UHC would reduce the cost of providing care in the US... And you don't appear in the least bit interested in finding out, you just know we should do it here. Unlike Pocket, I must give you credit for actually comprehending the question I posed to you and, while futile, attempting to answer.

I found several articles detailing actual example of HOW the UHC systems in other countries were cutting costs...

...​
"They can reduce undesirable side-effects and are a more efficient usage of our healthcare budget."
Fake drugs...
...​
Drastic cuts in government-provided health care are spreading across Europe in the wake of the debt crisis and the austerity measures taken to stem the red ink. Christian Science Monitor reports:
In Spain, the Catalan government introduced a 10 percent budget cut earlier this year, which meant closing or reducing the opening times of 100 outpatient centers. Increased health charges in Italy are now being passed along to patients, who must pay an extra 10 euros ($13) for a medical consultation and another 25 euros ($33) for non-emergency hospital treatment. French officials are cutting some reimbursements for health services and raising taxes on cigarettes and soda to bring in more revenue.
Those who would have us look to the European model of health care as an example to copy should also look at the down side of that model: bankrupt countries that fail to deliver the basic care they promised, where people suffer long waits for reduced services.
Reductions and outright denials of service...

...​
A report in October from Britain’s health regulator found 20 percent of hospitals are breaking the law by failing to provide minimum standards of care to elderly patients.
Officials on unannounced visits found patients shouting or banging on bedrails to get a nurse’s attention. Some struggled to eat without assistance. At one hospital, inspectors found some patients hadn’t been given water in more than 10 hours.
Another health watchdog accused hospitals of imposing minimum waiting times on patients for elective surgeries, suggesting officials hoped to cut costs as people either decided to pay for private treatment or died on the waiting list.
Substandard care...

Of course, while you can sue a private company or individual for such things, your ever-loving government is exempt from such frivolity. I'm quite sure if private companies and individuals were equally exempt from lawsuits, no matter how fraudulent or negligent they may be, that would certainly reduce the costs associated with providing health care.

GOVERNMENT+HEALTH+CARE.jpg


 
Kinda pissed... Spent an hour pulling together links and articles only to have the site lock up when I tried to post... I'll try this again... Luckily there is no shortage of articles on the subject.



Bottom line is... You have no idea how, or even if, UHC would reduce the cost of providing care in the US... And you don't appear in the least bit interested in finding out, you just know we should do it here. Unlike Pocket, I must give you credit for actually comprehending the question I posed to you and, while futile, attempting to answer.

I found several articles detailing actual example of HOW the UHC systems in other countries were cutting costs...

...​
"They can reduce undesirable side-effects and are a more efficient usage of our healthcare budget."
Fake drugs...
...​
Drastic cuts in government-provided health care are spreading across Europe in the wake of the debt crisis and the austerity measures taken to stem the red ink. Christian Science Monitor reports:
In Spain, the Catalan government introduced a 10 percent budget cut earlier this year, which meant closing or reducing the opening times of 100 outpatient centers. Increased health charges in Italy are now being passed along to patients, who must pay an extra 10 euros ($13) for a medical consultation and another 25 euros ($33) for non-emergency hospital treatment. French officials are cutting some reimbursements for health services and raising taxes on cigarettes and soda to bring in more revenue.
Those who would have us look to the European model of health care as an example to copy should also look at the down side of that model: bankrupt countries that fail to deliver the basic care they promised, where people suffer long waits for reduced services.
Reductions and outright denials of service...

...​
A report in October from Britain’s health regulator found 20 percent of hospitals are breaking the law by failing to provide minimum standards of care to elderly patients.
Officials on unannounced visits found patients shouting or banging on bedrails to get a nurse’s attention. Some struggled to eat without assistance. At one hospital, inspectors found some patients hadn’t been given water in more than 10 hours.
Another health watchdog accused hospitals of imposing minimum waiting times on patients for elective surgeries, suggesting officials hoped to cut costs as people either decided to pay for private treatment or died on the waiting list.
Substandard care...

Of course, while you can sue a private company or individual for such things, your ever-loving government is exempt from such frivolity. I'm quite sure if private companies and individuals were equally exempt from lawsuits, no matter how fraudulent or negligent they may be, that would certainly reduce the costs associated with providing health care.

GOVERNMENT+HEALTH+CARE.jpg



Great post. Excellent articles.

But just like AGW, the socialists can never accept the truth. Truth always destroys socialism.
 
Werbung:
Alias describes the desire for free healhcare as 'greed' and 'covetousness' (an oddly biblical term...maybe alias is good old hate filled christian)

It is none of these things. It is a right in a civilised society.

And whoever says the private sector does everything better....do you guys have to just keep trotting out the propganda platitudes used by the right to sell you their barking mad ideas?

The private sector charges a fortune and a large part of that charge goes into shareholders pockets. And the price of such a system is over a hundred million Americans with no healthcare.

If you think runnng a country with this huge number of people bereft of such a basic human right as healthcare is somethng that makes the US great you are a viscious unfeeling fool.

I bet loads of the people seeking to deny the provision of healthcare to everyone by the state are christians and if you ever wanted a better argument against becoming a christian you couldn't find one.
 
Back
Top