Well in a perfect world that would be the case. In ours it is not.

Sorry, but a lot of people who don't have health insurance work their ASSES OFF for increasingly diminished pay, and they pay taxes, in many cases paying MORE TAXES than rich people. Socialized health care is NOT FREE. It's paid for with taxes. I'm sick of people like you claiming somehow people who pay taxes don't deserve health care because it would be free, when it wouldn't be.

Sure it would be free to many if not most who would get it, esp under the Obama plan, from what we can see. The taxes are federal income taxes and those are not paid for by the lower end of the earning spectrum. We have been through this before. Don't confuse taxes you pay for stuff you buy or services you receive and federal income taxes. Federal taxes do not come from stuff you buy. We are talking about a federal program of health care. Just because you work your ass off for McDonalds does not promise you get anything.

I would just like to make the point that many people pay for insurance, but when they get sick, they are denied coverage. So private insurance ain't all that either, sometimes. The thing that would actually be GOOD about socialized medicine, is that it wouldn't be about profit. That would reduce a TON of waste, and leave more for the actual practicing of medicine.

You may be right about international contracts, but as far as the government being inefficient, I don't completely agree with that. The Post Office works pretty damn well. Some state colleges are very good, better than private ones. Some public schools are very good, others, not so much. So the system needs to be revised, but it is not completely bad and inefficient. (and I realize you didn't say it was.)

Honestly, I don't know why people pick on the government so much. I wonder how things would run if we had NO government. I don't think privitization of everything is good, because there is always greed involved, and that is never good for the people as a whole. the whole problem with health care right now is beause of the greed and corruption of insurance companies.

If it is run by the government and financed with taxes, it is socialized.

You are completely misinformed. Read some of this.

http://www.derbygripe.co.uk/nhs.htm

Wrong. It is socialized if it is available to everyone regardless of how rich or poor they are.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. You know where I stand. Right now we have socialist corporatism, not capitalism. Corporations get bailed out and are subsidized by the government, and they get to keep the profits. In many cases, their employees are on state funded medicaid programs because they get no insurance from their employers, even though they get government money, and they make hundreds of millions, sometimes billions, of dollars. I'm fucking sick of it. The system we have is B-R-O-K-E-N. We need to FIX it. Corporations are to greedy and corrupt to be trusted. The only system left is the government. Sad as that is.

Why? If I can afford it and feel it is worth it, why shouldn't I be able to pay for better or more extensive care? I have had a catastrophic coverage plan for quite awhile because on the whole that is the best balance for my family. A guy I know has the full boat plan through the same company. He feels it is worth the extra expense. We each get what we pay for. I kind of like that.
BS. People who work their asses off and still don't have healthcare are typically not earning enough to pay ANY taxes so you can take that myth off the plate.
Nope, it isn't free. It would entail some pretty hefty taxes. Those taxes would have to be paid by someone, certainly not the lower income earners who we certainly don't want to raise taxes for. That means going back to the well of the people who already pay the majority of the taxes for yet another benefit that actually doesn't benefit them in any way. So while the program wouldn't be free, it would be free to the people who actually want it.
Which is no different than any of the government run programs currently in place. That's life, aribitrary lines are drawn because they have to be drawn somewhere. That means someone will inevitably be just on the other side of the line and feel slighted.
While there is a lot of waste in the world of medicine, let me just ask this: which organization is more likely to run cost efficiently, one who has no concern over costs and profits or one who is trying to get the job done and turn a profit?So you are assuming the government isn't motivated by greed?

But, but, with better health care these workers would work harder,
making more money for their employers,
who would in the spirit of appreciation would pay those workers more money,
so the government would collect more taxes,
making the health care costs moot.

:lol2:

To me, universal health care means affordable and accessible to all.....not free or government run (socialized).

And from what I have read, the Obama plan, at least in the short term, is based on that concept.....there is little to suggest that it means "socialzed health care for all."

Persons currently covered through an employer-based plan (the vast majority of those with health insurance now) could continue with their current plan, where many have a choice of coverage at varying costs. Employers would receive tax incentives to lower or stabilize the cost of the employees share.

Not socialized.

Small businesses would be encouraged to create health pools through regulatory relief and tax incentives and then offer their employees a choice of coverage at varying costs similar to the federal government employees plan.

Again, not socialized....but a choice of private providers through a centrally managed program that might be government administered.

To the comment that "people who work their asses off and still don't have healthcare are typically not earning enough to pay ANY taxes" is just incorrect, IMO.

There are millions of working people paying taxes and just not able to afford health insurance....primarily because they work for small businesses who dont offer insurance and have to purchase health insurance on the open market and can expect to pay at least $12-15,000/yr for the most basic family coverage.

Which was why the SCHIP program was expanded by Obama this year (after being vetoed twice by Bush) to cover 4 million more children of working families making up to more than twice the poverty level threshold. Many (most) of these workers certainly pay taxes.

That leaves, the unemployed and the option here is Medicaid, not the best option but better than none, IMO.

Bingo....universal coverage - accessible and more affordable...not free or socialized.

I'm non-service connected for my health care at VA. I get too much money to receive travel pay for trips to VA So I pay 8 bucks per 30 days of meds, just don't let some asshole give you aspirin. You'll pay 24 bucks for 100. Some I get at Wal-Mart, it's cheaper. 90 days for ten bucks. But if the meds are N², like a Z-pack, it still cost me 8 dollars at VA.
I wonder, sometimes if they could run a two car funeral without a screw up.
But it's about all I got.
This should stir some crap. IMHO. Most of this started when the Gov. said lets get people off welfare and lets have a dose of affirmative action.
So they gave some a Gov. job.

I am with you BB. I think the VA system is a bit different. I can get my meds from an AD hospital system at no charge, if I use Tricare it is usually covered but not always. We do pay a minor copays but nothing like a private insurance system.

So you don't want the VA privatized, but you don't want the private system "socialized" either? Now I'm confused. What exactly is it we should all have? Whats good for one should be good for the other, no?

I'm torn on this issue. I want the privatization for some reasons, yet I think there should be much more affordable healthcare for more Americans. What I don't want is the Gov't managing it. How that gets accomplished...dunno.

Is it better to have insurance companies running it? I don't think so. look at how weel that's worked out.

What we need is for health care to NOT be about profits, but about helping people. And it would probably cost less if we focused more on preventative care, and less on disease care. Wouldn't it be better (and less expensive) to stop illness before it actually IS illness?