Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Socialist Healthcare is Fundamentally Flawed watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's failed everywhere it was tried. It makes everyone pay higher taxes. It lowers the quality of healthcare. It makes longer waiting lines. It eliminates people's ability to choose their own healthcare plans and their own doctors. It means lesser healthcare for the elderly. It makes things even easier on people who don't work and skim off government. There is absolutely no desire for anyone to be a doctor. Oh and don't forget that ever since England adopted universal healthcare, patient deaths due to doctor negligence have risen nearly 80% more than they were before.

    This is America, if you need a surgery, you get a job and you work for a living like a normal person, don't skim off government programs that let you sit on your ass for 5 years, or wait, even more years now, since they extended unemployment. For every one person who is legitimately bad off and incapable of rational thought and/or working, there are a thousand people who abuse the system for their own personal gain and take money off of social security. Plus it's not like people don't all get healthcare when they need it, liberal propaganda has people believing that if you go into an emergency room you won't get treated simply because you're not "super rich" which is a complete and utter lie. They are required to treat you, it doesn't matter how much money you have.

    Why should the government decide what healthcare I get? Why should the government decide who my doctor is? It shouldn't, but that's what people want. People are getting lazy and stupid, they want the government to do everything for them, since they're too lazy to actually get off their ass and do something like they're supposed to. If anyone remembers during the 2008 election, reporters were asking random people off the street why they were voting for who they were voting for, and the number one answer for people who voted for Obama (a Democrat), was that he would "take care of them" and "pay off their debt for them" because they were too ****ing stupid to pay off their own debt, in fact, they were stupid enough to get in debt to begin with by purchasing things they don't need on credit.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    So why is the UK healthcare rated higher than the US? None of the best healthcare systems are fully private. Most tend to be hybrid.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3stiny)
    It's failed everywhere it was tried. It makes everyone pay higher taxes. It lowers the quality of healthcare. It makes longer waiting lines. It eliminates people's ability to choose their own healthcare plans and their own doctors. It means lesser healthcare for the elderly. It makes things even easier on people who don't work and skim off government. There is absolutely no desire for anyone to be a doctor. Oh and don't forget that ever since England adopted universal healthcare, patient deaths due to doctor negligence have risen nearly 80% more than they were before.

    This is America, if you need a surgery, you get a job and you work for a living like a normal person, don't skim off government programs that let you sit on your ass for 5 years, or wait, even more years now, since they extended unemployment. For every one person who is legitimately bad off and incapable of rational thought and/or working, there are a thousand people who abuse the system for their own personal gain and take money off of social security. Plus it's not like people don't all get healthcare when they need it, liberal propaganda has people believing that if you go into an emergency room you won't get treated simply because you're not "super rich" which is a complete and utter lie. They are required to treat you, it doesn't matter how much money you have.

    Why should the government decide what healthcare I get? Why should the government decide who my doctor is? It shouldn't, but that's what people want. People are getting lazy and stupid, they want the government to do everything for them, since they're too lazy to actually get off their ass and do something like they're supposed to. If anyone remembers during the 2008 election, reporters were asking random people off the street why they were voting for who they were voting for, and the number one answer for people who voted for Obama (a Democrat), was that he would "take care of them" and "pay off their debt for them" because they were too ****ing stupid to pay off their own debt, in fact, they were stupid enough to get in debt to begin with by purchasing things they don't need on credit.
    A few corrections:

    1) Not ENGLAND - but UNITED KINGDOM (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland). Having geography problems?

    2) Programmes, not Programs. We don't spell it like that. I don't think we even use the term 'programme' - just Americans do that.

    3) A good response from one contributor is that our system is far better rated. It is based on need, not income. For example, I haven't had to use the NHS for over 8 years - I had an ear infection in January, and then almost broke my foot in a fall last Tuesday. Surely paying insurance for eight years would have been a terrible waste of money for these two little things?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3stiny)
    Why should the government decide who my doctor is?
    Since when does the gov't decide who your Dr is?

    If you don't like your GP, change doctors.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3stiny)
    Oh and don't forget that ever since England adopted universal healthcare, patient deaths due to doctor negligence have risen nearly 80% more than they were before.

    You sure about that bro? How many people died because they couldn't access healthcare prior to the formation of the NHS?

    This is America, if you need a surgery, you get a job and you work for a living like a normal person,
    .
    No, this is the UK. If you need surgery, you won't be refused treatment on the basis that you can't pay for your surgery.

    Just a thought - if someone needs surgery and is not in a state of health in which they can work, what do you suggest they do?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3stiny)
    It's failed everywhere it was tried. It makes everyone pay higher taxes. It lowers the quality of healthcare. It makes longer waiting lines. It eliminates people's ability to choose their own healthcare plans and their own doctors. It means lesser healthcare for the elderly. It makes things even easier on people who don't work and skim off government. There is absolutely no desire for anyone to be a doctor. Oh and don't forget that ever since England adopted universal healthcare, patient deaths due to doctor negligence have risen nearly 80% more than they were before.

    This is America, if you need a surgery, you get a job and you work for a living like a normal person, don't skim off government programs that let you sit on your ass for 5 years, or wait, even more years now, since they extended unemployment. For every one person who is legitimately bad off and incapable of rational thought and/or working, there are a thousand people who abuse the system for their own personal gain and take money off of social security. Plus it's not like people don't all get healthcare when they need it, liberal propaganda has people believing that if you go into an emergency room you won't get treated simply because you're not "super rich" which is a complete and utter lie. They are required to treat you, it doesn't matter how much money you have.

    Why should the government decide what healthcare I get? Why should the government decide who my doctor is? It shouldn't, but that's what people want. People are getting lazy and stupid, they want the government to do everything for them, since they're too lazy to actually get off their ass and do something like they're supposed to. If anyone remembers during the 2008 election, reporters were asking random people off the street why they were voting for who they were voting for, and the number one answer for people who voted for Obama (a Democrat), was that he would "take care of them" and "pay off their debt for them" because they were too ****ing stupid to pay off their own debt, in fact, they were stupid enough to get in debt to begin with by purchasing things they don't need on credit.
    Maybe there should be a healthcare whereby you give what you can. If you are unemployed and need surgery or need medication to treat something you give a donation based upon what you can afford. If you are employed you give what you can. There should be some onus on people to keep healthy and fit as well. As a nation we are so unhealthy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Maybe there should be a healthcare whereby you give what you can. If you are unemployed and need surgery or need medication to treat something you give a donation based upon what you can afford. If you are employed you give what you can. There should be some onus on people to keep healthy and fit as well. As a nation we are so unhealthy.
    Agree, but the US is even unhealthier and having privitized healthcare doesn't seem to make people take care of themselves...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Maybe there should be a healthcare whereby you give what you can. If you are unemployed and need surgery or need medication to treat something you give a donation based upon what you can afford. If you are employed you give what you can. There should be some onus on people to keep healthy and fit as well. As a nation we are so unhealthy.
    Been reading Marx?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Rubbish. England adopted universal healthcare in 1948 - before which, most of the population could not afford to see a doctor at all. To say that there is 80% more medical negligence now is almost completely meaningless.

    The American healthcare system costs vastly more per capita than the 'socialist healthcare' systems in Europe, but your life expectancy is worse, and your outcomes for many individual diseases are worse. In the USA, many people unlucky enough to develop a chronic illness are bankrupted by medical costs. Such events are unknown here. No-one in Europe is turned away from a hospital because they aren't rich enough to deserve healthcare.

    In the UK & most European countries, basic healthcare comes out of general taxation +/- compulsary insurance (called national insurance here). But, individual taxpayers do not have to spend a huge proprtion of our incomes on health insurance because we know that the NHS will provide for us.

    In the USA, most people are weighed down by exhorbitant health insurance. Why? Because you are parasitized to fuel the profits of amoral health insurers and health providers. Your litigation culture is so out of control that your doctors have to order whole-body scans at the drop of a hat. In the UK, health services are not run for profit. Whether a patient gets a certain test or treatment is based on whether it offers reasonable health benefits, not on whether it happens to be profitable.

    If people in the UK want add-on extras, eg being able to choose which consultant does their surgery, and if they want non-urgent surgery next week rather than in 2-3 months, and if they feel that pretty nurses and deluxe carpets matter, then they're free to supplement NHS care with private insurance. I don't bother because I am happy that the NHS provides reasonable care. I work full time, and I pay my taxes, and I am delighted not to have the worry of medical costs hanging over me if the worst happens & I become seriously ill.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Been reading Marx?
    No. I've never read Marx.

    I think it is far more reasonable under the present circumstances to reform the NHS to make it a more fair system to all. In this way, those that need surgery or treatment should pay for it, and contribute part of their income no matter how small - a kind of mutual exchange which could improve services (i.e., nurses, surgeons and doctors could get higher wages from a percentage of the money) and make medication more accessible in the long run. Those who are unemployed and need treatment need only offer a £1 per week or something for so many weeks. A £1 per week after getting cured and back to normal is so worth it. Those who do work can also contribute to paying something along the same lines as those who could not otherwise afford to pay. Of course, I suppose I'm unable to see what problems such reforms might cause. To avoid going into hospital too many times, and to avoid getting ill there should be some onus on people to keep fit and healthy. We should start from the bottom up. Our kids need to learn the advantages of exercise and healthy eating, and staying healthy. Caring for ourselves is the first step. We won't be able to care for others otherwise.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The NHS isn't a perfect system, by any means, but generally it doesn't discriminate people based on their income. In the UK, you have the option of private health care if you choose.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    p.s. "There is absolutely no desire for anyone to be a doctor". Lol. So why are our medical schools so over-subscribed?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3stiny)

    1) It means lesser healthcare for the elderly. It makes things even easier on people who don't work and skim off government.

    2) There is absolutely no desire for anyone to be a doctor.
    1) Why does socialist healthcare mean lesser healthcare for the elderly?

    2) So why are medical school admissions so competitive? The NHS isn't perfect, but a lot of young people aspire to be doctors.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A more pertinent question is why is our education system failing so badly that idiots like this actually exist?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Socialist healthcare allows equality. If you think people who don't work should just be allowed to sit and die, that's awful. I'm really struggling not to start shouting at you at the minute.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3stiny)
    It's failed everywhere it was tried. It makes everyone pay higher taxes. It lowers the quality of healthcare. It makes longer waiting lines. It eliminates people's ability to choose their own healthcare plans and their own doctors. It means lesser healthcare for the elderly. It makes things even easier on people who don't work and skim off government. There is absolutely no desire for anyone to be a doctor. Oh and don't forget that ever since England adopted universal healthcare, patient deaths due to doctor negligence have risen nearly 80% more than they were before.
    -It has not failed everywhere it's been tried.
    -It does require higher taxes, but there's no reason to assume that money would have been spent more efficiently by taxpayers than by the government.
    -How on earth am I, an ignorant moron with no knowledge of medicine nor the inclination to acquire any, supposed to choose my own healthcare and doctors on a rational basis?
    -Far better the poor and unemployed should die of influenza than trouble the hard-working middle classes and erase the profit margins of big corporations, eh? Just so long as they do it somewhere we don't have to look at.
    -No idea where you got that. How about a source?

    (Original post by D3stiny)
    This is America, if you need a surgery, you get a job and you work for a living like a normal person, don't skim off government programs that let you sit on your ass for 5 years, or wait, even more years now, since they extended unemployment. For every one person who is legitimately bad off and incapable of rational thought and/or working, there are a thousand people who abuse the system for their own personal gain and take money off of social security. Plus it's not like people don't all get healthcare when they need it, liberal propaganda has people believing that if you go into an emergency room you won't get treated simply because you're not "super rich" which is a complete and utter lie. They are required to treat you, it doesn't matter how much money you have.
    -This isn't America and that's not relevant any way.
    -No, the majority of people who are off work are either genuinely incapable or unable to find any. Sure there are scroungers, but tax evasion by the rich costs all of us a lot more.
    -There's a lot more to healthcare than emergency treatment. You can suffer a huge amount, unable to afford to go to hospital, before it's serious enough to be an emergency.

    (Original post by D3stiny)
    Why should the government decide what healthcare I get? Why should the government decide who my doctor is? It shouldn't, but that's what people want. People are getting lazy and stupid, they want the government to do everything for them, since they're too lazy to actually get off their ass and do something like they're supposed to. If anyone remembers during the 2008 election, reporters were asking random people off the street why they were voting for who they were voting for, and the number one answer for people who voted for Obama (a Democrat), was that he would "take care of them" and "pay off their debt for them" because they were too ****ing stupid to pay off their own debt, in fact, they were stupid enough to get in debt to begin with by purchasing things they don't need on credit.
    -Because the government--or at any rate a good government--consists of the best people in the country; and as such as they have more and better information, know a great deal more about healthcare, have the interests of the whole country at heart, not just themselves, and think carefully about issues rather than make rash judgements because it's their job to do so.
    -The reason people buy things they don't need is because the consumer culture created by the free market has convinced them that upgrading their iPods will bring them lasting happiness. If people are stupid it's because our debased capitalist society has made them so.

    A healthcare market will inevitably fail to deliver the best outcome because firstly, consumer don't have the understanding needed to make a rational decision about what to purchase; secondly, because healthcare is expensive and our incomes differ massively, we will value the currency we use to purchase healthcare more if we are already poor and so the rich will bid more for services that give them the less benefit, meaning they inevitably monopolise resources and get better treatment; thirdly, there isn't enough demand to have more than one hospital nearby, so there will be an absence of proper competition; and finally, because it's such an emotive issue, and because the market will fail, the government will be pressured into intervening, allowing healthcare corporations to suck up subsidies whilst delivering piss-poor care.

    It may interest you to know that the US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country in the world, certainly more than any with 'socialist' healthcare.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...ing-per-person

    Yep, you beloved free market doesn't always have all the answers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Having a healthcare system that is free at the point of delivery is the ultimate form of medical administration.

    I want to be a doctor in the NHS, and I don't want to have to tell a patient that they can't have lifesaving treatment because they don't have health insurance.

    Social policies in some settings work. Healthcare is a universal human right. No one has the right to limit people's access to good health simply because they are poor.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stanley Baldwin)
    3) A good response from one contributor is that our system is far better rated. It is based on need, not income. For example, I haven't had to use the NHS for over 8 years - I had an ear infection in January, and then almost broke my foot in a fall last Tuesday. Surely paying insurance for eight years would have been a terrible waste of money for these two little things?
    Surely though it's also been a terrible waste for you to have your money forcibly taken for eight years in order to cover health costs...with insurance, though, you'd be seen as relatively healthy and get charged a lower premium, it means that the externalities of an unhealthy lifestyle are generally internalised.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I do think hybrid systems are best, but there's two important points to make.

    1) America is not a good example of a free-market system.
    2) Socialised healthcare is not free, a fallacy you committed above.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilzman)
    Having a healthcare system that is free at the point of delivery is the ultimate form of medical administration.

    I want to be a doctor in the NHS, and I don't want to have to tell a patient that they can't have lifesaving treatment because they don't have health insurance.

    Social policies in some settings work. Healthcare is a universal human right. No one has the right to limit people's access to good health simply because they are poor.
    There are ways of ensuring universal access without the need to socialise it all (especially provision, but even financing), that is the point of many hybrid systems.

    Indeed, it was discussed in the MHoC: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1484835
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    Agree, but the US is even unhealthier and having privitized healthcare doesn't seem to make people take care of themselves...
    That's because of the way that the legislation directs health insurance to be bought in bulk by employers and given to employees as part of a package, which stops any consumer shopping around or price differentiation - so you lose the competition (and it's prohibited to compete across state borders too) and the responsibility since it's not people themselves buying the insurance. Furthermore, you lose the fact that people can tailor insurance packages to meet their own health needs.

    As it should be stressed - America is not a good example of a free0market health system, there are all sorts of hugely damaging regulation which precludes millions from being able to get healthcare because of vested interests like the AMA.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.