National Health Insurance - To Sir, with Love (1967) Discussion

[–] JohnQ1127 12 years ago

Yeah, I've seen that part several times and it's always kind of odd from an American point of view. You couldn't even imagine your high school teacher giving you a National Health Care form.

I think they've actually had National Health Care since 1948 in the U.K. It's only in this backwards nation that we're the only industrialized country in the world still without national health insurance.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

Why is it "backwards" to be individually responsible for one's own health issues? I mean, if government screws up your health (i.e. war, Three-Mile Island, etc) or if it's a contagion that threatens society, I can see government's obligation to handle the medical issue. But I don't see treating my neighbor's throat cancer or broken arm as the role of government, as it really has nothing to do with a nation's functionality, safety or infrastructure.

That being said, I recognize that healthcare is out of reach for a majority of Americans and on a HUMAN level (I am a human being, after all), I can understand the desire for wanting universal healthcare. But from the perspective of this nation's founding principles, it just doesn't fit into the landscape of liberty.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] JohnQ1127 12 years ago

How is someone going to take "individual responsibility" of a broken leg or cancer? Is the person supposed to buy an x-ray machine and set the broken leg himself? Is the person supposed to buy a large chemo therapy facility and treat his cancer himself? How the hell is a child supposed to take "personal responsibility" for himself??

It's "backwards" because were the only industrialized nation on the Earth that doesn't provide health care for its citizens. It's "backwards" because 45-50 million Americans don't have health care in the richest country in the world. It's "backwards" because a civilized country would want to make sure its citizens were healthy. It's backwards because 8 million children have no health care in this country, it's actually scandalous.

How can a nation be functional if 45-50 million american don't have health insurance? It's not because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it because we have a private system that's way too expensive and inefficient and gives poor results.

Why should private corporations profit over sick people?

What does Universal National Health care have to do with the so-called, "landscape of liberty"

People want a single payer Canadian style system overwhelmingly in polls. If the landscape of liberty were really in existence then we would have a Canadian style health care system.

By your logic everything should be privatized: police departments, fire departments, schools, roads, bridges, parks, the military, beaches, libraries, the postal service,

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

How is someone going to take "individual responsibility" of a broken leg or cancer? Is the person supposed to buy an x-ray machine and set the broken leg himself?
Gosh. How did people do it before the technology was developed? It's not a right. It's a product and a service.

It's "backwards" because were the only industrialized nation on the Earth that doesn't provide health care for its citizens.
Again, how is that being backward? I can certainly see it doesn't fit in with your criteria of being forward or progressive. But that's not everyone's criteria. I see it neither as backward nor forward- just the infusion of a social program. I don't really care that other nations do that. They have their own countries to run.

How can a nation be functional if 45-50 million american don't have health insurance?
We seem to be functioning quite well. Some individuals better than others.

it's because they can't afford it because we have a private system that's way too expensive and inefficient and gives poor results.
WHY is it too expensive? Why were families able to afford doctors 40 years ago with less money? Unions, Insurance companies, lawsuits, etc.
Socializing it won't make it cheaper. It will heap an even bigger layer of bureaucracy on an already bureaucratic system. the only difference is that some people will be footing the bill for others. That doesn't make it affordable. That makes it pilfering.

Why should private corporations profit over sick people?
Why SHOULDN'T they? Doctors and nurses are the ones developing techniques, gaining experience and knowledge, going to school taking the risks. Corporations are the ones providing the venues, offering extras, administering and billing.
I expect an auto mechanic to make a profit off my sick car. I expect a plumber to make a profit off my sick house. I expect a veterinarian to make a profit off my sick cat and I expect doctors, nurses, hospitals and medical corporations to make a profit off my sick body.
I see no reason why a person's illness entitles them to money.

What does Universal National Health care have to do with the so-called, "landscape of liberty"
I have no right to the labors of another person, nor do they have a right to MY labors. I see no justification for taxing people to provide individualized health care to people. Can't you see how taking the hours of my day away from me to pay for someone else's priorities is wrong?

People want a single payer Canadian style system overwhelmingly in polls.
I'm sure they do. They would also favor everyone getting $1,000,000 from the government if you took a poll on that. We are not Canada. The system here is geared for profit. though flawed and in need of repair, it's still relatively a free-market system governed by supply and demand.

By your logic everything should be privatized: police departments, fire departments, schools, roads, bridges, parks, the military, beaches, libraries, the postal service,
Actually, by my logic, I stated earlier that one of government's jobs is maintaining the infrastructure. All those items in your list is part of that. Those items benefit the community and the nation as a whole and is the job of government to maintain with our tax dollars.

Arresting a criminal next door benefits me.
Putting out the fire next door benefits me.
Educating the children next door benefits me.
Maintaining the road down the hill benefits me
maintaining the bridge across the river benefits me
Maintaining the park up the block benefits me
maintaining a military for national defense (emphasis on national defense) benefits me.
Maintaining and patrolling beaches benefits me
Establishment of libraries benefits me
Maintaining postal services benefits me.

Mending my neighbor's broken arm really has no benefits for me nor the community. WHY would it be government's role to do so? I fully acknowledge government's role in vaccinations and immunizations. I never even had a problem with distribution of condoms as that also benefits the community.

But an overall healthcare program that takes care of everyone's stubbed toes, twisted ankles, sniffles and cancers? I don't see that as government's role.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] JohnQ1127 12 years ago

You didn't answer the "individual responsibility" question, you side stepped it.

If you don't understand why it's "backward" for our country to not provide health care while every other country does...well I feel sorry for you.

How are we functioning quite well? We have 42 million people living in poverty in this country the richest country on the planet. Check out our literacy rates, infant mortality, teen pregnancy etc,

our health care is expensive and ineffective because it's privatized system.

Your analogy between a car and human being is a false equivalency and a rather callous one at that.

Your Canadian point in false equivalency and a straw man argument.

So by your logic:

Why should I be taxed to pay for your child's school teacher's salary? Why should I be taxed to pay for your child's school?

Why should I be taxed to provide police protection to your house?

Why should I be taxed to provide street lights or a paved road in front of your house?

Why should I be taxed so you could use the library?

Why should I be taxed so a fireman could put out a fire at your house?

Why should I be taxed to provide a bridge across a river next to your house?

Why should I be taxed to provide a safe & clean park for you and your family?

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

You didn't answer the "individual responsibility" question, you side stepped it.
The short answer is: you want or need something you get it or pay someone to attain it. It's no different than most anything else in the marketplace. Why a commercial product/service should be removed from the marketplace and distributed by the government is beyond me.

If you don't understand why it's "backward" for our country to not provide health care while every other country does...well I feel sorry for you.
It's different. That's for sure. I still disagree that it's "backward". If it were cheap and affordable to all citizens ($1 visits, $1 prescriptions, $1 surgeries), would it still be "backward"- or is it the cost of it that prompts this feeling of backwardness?

How are we functioning quite well? We have 42 million people living in poverty in this country the richest country on the planet. Check out our literacy rates, infant mortality, teen pregnancy etc,
Economics, education and social problems are not going to be fixed by universal healthcare coverage. Yes, these are problems but they have very little to do with our healthcare system. Medically, we ARE functioning quite well. Yes, it is sad that it can cost people a lot of money an put them into the poor house. But that's a matter of priorities, isn't it? One could prioritize the family farm over their cancerr treatment. One doesn't NEED to attend to their broken arm or their child's fever. most will though because most sane people find their life and health to be their highest priority. But it's still a matter of sacrificing one thing for another according to one's priorities.

our health care is expensive and ineffective because it's privatized system.
Our healthcare is quite good in this country. It could be better and more affordable without the government and insurance companies involved, of course. Most outfits have no problem charging phenomenal fees to large corporations and the government. If they weren't involved, the costs would better reflect the economics of the community like they used to do. We might even see 2-for-1 coupons in the Sunday paper like we see for LensCrafters and hearing-aid outfits in order to gain customers.

Your analogy between a car and human being is a false equivalency and a rather callous one at that.
I concur that it is callous. That is because we place a high priority (the highest?)on the human body. But the economics of it are the same. purchasing a service and product.

Your Canadian point in false equivalency and a straw man argument.
if you want to compare country to country, you have to compare more than just one isolated aspect of those countries.

So by your logic:

Why should I be taxed to pay for your child's school teacher's salary? Why should I be taxed to pay for your child's school?
Because an uneducated population is damaging to a community. An educated population benefits the community. They may even become doctors whose services you may purchase to save your life.

Why should I be taxed to provide police protection to your house?
Because police do far more than protect individuals. They protect communities. They arrest psychotic murderers, arsonists, speeders and litterbugs. of course, lately they serve more to generate revenue through traffic infractions and drug seizures, but they still serve the community as well.

Why should I be taxed to provide street lights or a paved road in front of your house?
because roads and lights enable cohesion in a community. they enable commerce to generate, emergencies to be attended, communications between the citizens and their government and unite the nation as a whole

Why should I be taxed so you could use the library?
Again, because an uneducated population is damaging to a community. An educated population benefits the community.

Why should I be taxed so a fireman could put out a fire at your house?
Because fire spreads. Fire spreads uncontrollably when left to its own devices. It threatens communities as history has shown us- communities like Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco.

Why should I be taxed to provide a bridge across a river next to your house? because bridges, like roads are part of a nation's infrastructure that enable cohesion, commerce, emergency attention, etc.

Why should I be taxed to provide a safe & clean park for you and your family?
Because parks provide more than just a place to play. They are a hub of a community that provides a communal place of cohesion, protest, politics, entertainment, etc. They act as bastions of conservation and environmental protection for the water we drink.

No man is an island, but just as it's man's privilege to destroy his own health, it's mans responsibility to maintain, repair and improve his own health as well.

Once it becomes the responsibility of the State, there's nothing to stop it from becoming the privilege of the state as well.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

I also want to say that this is a no-win argument for either side. I recognize that. I also recognize that socialized medicine WILL happen in this country and will likely be a single-payer system eventually. You won't hear me crying about that anymore than I whine about a strained Medicare or Social Security.

One thing's for sure, i'd feel a whole lot better about it if we would just grab our nutsack and cut the military budget by 60%.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] JohnQ1127 12 years ago

I'm not a big fan of the bold type copy and paste answer and response. I think people use that tactic in order to try and make their point seem more valid because it looks more important.

You refer to health-care as being a commercial product or service which is probably the problem from the get-go. You also describe health care as a "Want" which is just foolish. Our major problem with health care is that its been treated as a economic issue rather than a moral issue. Another major problem is that health care in this country is run by Drug Industries, Health Care companies, and Wall st. who's main intent is to make profits.

You refer at one point that "medically" we are fine??? What? The World Health Organization has consistently ranked our health care system around 37th in the world. Our life expectancy is routinely ranked about 24th in the world we routinely had 8 million children uninsured which is just disgraceful when you're the richest country in the world. We're usually ranked about the highest in terms of medical cost per GDP. We pay a ton of money and get terrible results, why? because were the only industrialized country that runs a privatized system for health care.

You talked about people "Prioritizing" the costs and selling the "family farm" to pay their health care?? WTF, People are supposed to go bankrupt to pay their hospital bills?. Sorry, that seems completely callous.

How is our health care quite good in this country?? Maybe if you're rich. Again our health care system is usually ranked about 37th in the world.

You're second part is completely contradictory to the first part and your original argument completely falls apart. You come across like a hypocrite and a very selfish person motivated solely by self interest.

You have no problem with me being taxed to pay for your child's school yet have a you severe problem with paying into a National Healthcare system. So when it benefits you personally then suddenly there's not a problem of our "founder's liberties" or whatever kind of BS you were talking about.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

I'm not a big fan of the bold type copy and paste answer and response. I think people use that tactic in order to try and make their point seem more valid because it looks more important.

I use this tactic so there's a point of reference regarding my responses. I prefer the bold-type because italics are hard on the eyes and typing a "B" in brackets is a lot more efficient than typing "quote" in brackets.

You refer to health-care as being a commercial product or service which is probably the problem from the get-go.

Why wouldn't it be? It's a product and a service that an individual desires for their own individual benefit. I fail to see what qualities would render it an entitlement. Is it a moral issue? I suppose one could see it as such. One could also make a moral argument for socialized plumbing, electricity, cell phones, auto repair and house cleaning. What is important to the individual is not necessarily the concern of the community.

You refer at one point that "medically" we are fine???

And we are. You cite we're 37th in the world. That puts the USA in the top 20%. That sounds "fine" to me. Not excellent. Not the top dog. But certainly more than adequate.

You talked about people "Prioritizing" the costs and selling the "family farm" to pay their health care?? WTF, People are supposed to go bankrupt to pay their hospital bills?. Sorry, that seems completely callous.

People go bankrupt for a lot of reasons. Medical costs can be one of them. It's not cold or callous. It's a simple fact that sometimes people just don't have enough money to pay for what is important. Some people can't afford electricity or a phone. Some people can't afford to have their ailments attended to, have their teeth straightened, cavities filled or eyeglasses.
Not having enough money is a fact of life for many of us. Hell, just last week I had to dig in the couch cushions for change just to help get enough gas to take my kids to school. If i didn't come up with enough spare change, I would have done without and started walking.
Not having enough money for what's important to us individually does not make it the responsibility of us, collectively.

You're second part is completely contradictory to the first part and your original argument completely falls apart. You come across like a hypocrite and a very selfish person motivated solely by self interest.

I often come across as "contradictory" because I am open to many aspects of an issue. What I believe can be completely different from what I can accept - and that can be different from what I consider practical.

For instance, I believe all narcotics should be legally attainable from marijuana to PCP and heroin. I concede this will never happen and will accept legalized marijuana while addictive and hallucinatory narcotics remain illegal.

So while I believe nationalized healthcare is wrong in every way, I recognize that our system as a whole is broken and that a nationalized healthcare system may be a practical alternative. In which case, I see a single-payer system as the only acceptable way of implementing it.

You have no problem with me being taxed to pay for your child's school yet have a you severe problem with paying into a National Healthcare system.

I have no problem paying for anything that establishes or improves the infrastructure and/or community as a whole. Even before my children were born, I recognized that an educated population benefits the community with less crime, a better workforce, a better government, improved technology and even proper change being counted back at the local convenience store. An educated population begets an educated population perpetually. I am willing to pay for education way out in Kentucky or Vermont because it benefits the nation to have educated people.

How does specifically repairing Joe the Plumber's broken arm improve the community or maintain its infrastructure? How does it promote the nation's general welfare when Joe gets his cast removed?
An individual benefits. And that's where I see the discrepancy- an individual's responsibility to themselves and a government's responsibility to the community it serves.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] JohnQ1127 12 years ago

Most of you comments are rather glib fairly callous and not really well thought out. Seriously, you attempted to equate the moral argument on National Health Care to some sort of universal cell phone or house cleaning plan?????

You refer that we are "medically fine" and you're somehow proud that our health care system is ranked 37th in the world when were the richest country in the world and we have the most expensive health care system as well???? Ridiculous. You're either being glib or you don't care or you're incredible ignorant on the topic. For God's sake, Cyprus, Columbia, Morocco, Chile, Dominica and Costa Rica ranked higher then the U.S. healthcare system.

As far as your "prioritizing medical costs" you come off as a completely glib, callous, and selfish.

Again, most of your arguments are completely contradictory and illogical.

Your arguments for the benefits of your children's education towards the community as a whole can be directly applied verbatim to a national healthcare system.

You don't seem to mind that people without children are forced to pay for your child's education?

Again, you come off as a complete hypocrite in that you embrace government systems that directly benefit you. Suddenly the questions of liberty and the free market seem to disappear. There's no cry for injustice that public school teachers are not allowed to compete in a for profit system.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

You say my arguments are illogical, yet the entire premise of your position is illogical. Where is the logic in thinking the human being has a RIGHT to good health? We have the right to pursue it, but in the end, the human body is bombarded from all sides by ailments and injuries that defy its health. The state of the human being is one of being in constant jeopardy.
Where is the logic that I must work X-number of hours to pay for someone else's cancer treatments? Where is the logic that a person gets $100K worth of surgeries that they don't earn or deserve? It's an emotional argument "because he NEEEEEDS it". It's state-enforced "charity", yet, there is nothing charitable about it. It's cold, callous theft. Plain and simple.

What is wrong with other countries having better healthcare than we do? Is that a logical argument? No, it's an emotional one: "we're the richest nation so we should have the best".

Glib, callous and selfish... What's more selfish- wanting people to take care of their own health or to take money from other people to pay for other people's healthcare? I can see how it comes off as callous. You really care and I don't care about the same things you do. I don't care enough to steal from other people's lives to pay for what you want.
Yeah, I can see how that's being callous. "you don't love me, you don't care about me. You never buy me what I want!"

I just spent two years attending to, caring for and wiping the ass of my wife's mother who passed away in July. In all that time in her dying years, she only had one visit from her neighbor. No one from her church came by. Her son dropped in one Christmas for an hour out of the two weeks he stayed here. Her other children never even sent a card.
When she died, they all came out of the woodwork to see what they could take away from their dead mother's estate.
No one cared to help. No one cared to give me and my wife a break. No one offered to help with expenses.
No one cared.

So don't think I'm approaching this from some sort of 'pedestal of righteousness'. I have firsthand experience as to how much family, friends, neighbors and the church ALL care about the sick and their healthcare.
If it were TRULY a concern of the American people, It would not be a concern because we would already have it handled.

reply

[–] JohnQ1127 12 years ago

Again, I don't think you think these things out completely. The argument is not based on people having a fundamental right to "good health." The argument is that people have a fundamental right for "Health Care". You can't give people a fundamental right towards good health anymore than you can give people a fundamental right to be smart. But we do have a fundamental right to be "Educated" from the ages of k-12.

Your point equating cancer treatments with theft is bizarre.

Your point that National Healthcare systems somehow routinely give out unnecessary $100K treatments is just ridiculous.

As far as your "X-number" of hours scenario....Where is the logic then to follow it up where a childless couple should pay taxes to educate and provide facilities for your children? If anything you would pay into a national healthcare system and would receive care for yourself and your family.

The problem with countries having a better health-care system than ours is that many of those countries have far less wealth than we do and spend far less than we do. We spend more and get far worse results.

You speak of healthcare like it's some kind of frivolous expense like buying a boat or something.

Again you feel it's somehow fundamentally wrong to pay into a national health care system yet you don't feel it's fundamentally wrong for childless couples to pay taxes to pay for your children's education.

I'm sorry about the situation with your mother-in-law but I don't see how your wife's family's indifference relates to this debate. Actually if we lived in National Health Care system, your mother-in-law would have been to be put into a care facility which would have alleviated your difficulties.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

But people don't have a fundamental right to an education. Society doesn't educate children for the sake of the child. My neighbor doesn't give two shakes of a lamb's tail as to whether my kids know their ABC's. We educate for the sake of society- so they don't spray graffiti on walls, rob stores and become a blight and burden on the community. Again, community benefits from an educated child. Community doesn't benefit from mending the child's broken arm.

I equate money with the time a person takes out of their limited lifespan to earn it.
So when I pay for little Suzy's eye surgery, that is theft of my life- taking part of my limited lifespan to pay for something that is not a part of my value system and has no impact on my life or my community. If it were truly impacting my life and my community, my community would rally around little Suzy and pay for her eye surgery because it is important to us. We don't need government to pull out their guns and threaten to take us to jail for not paying our part in Suzy's eye operation.

Apparently those other countries with better healthcare have made that a top priority. Ours hasn't. We pay more for what we get. We have other things.

healthcare CAN be a frivilous expense. It can also be life-saving. But that should be determined by the buyer as to whether the medical procedure is worth the trade.
You put healthcare on this pedestal that all men should bow down to. I see it as a product and service that either one can or can't afford.
So yes, I suppose I do see it as a luxury item.

Not just my wife's family, but her mother's community (neighbors, friends, church) demonstrated a lack of involvement. So why should they have money taken from them to pay for something they don't benefit from or obviously have no concern about? We handled it because it was important to us and wanted our children to benefit from the experience. It was worth the trade. To us.

Doing it for the old lady next door? No. Not my concern. I see no benefit in us providing for her care, whatsoever. It would be a drain on my family.

Do you see where I apply the line of government involvement?

I understand you see healthcare as a paramount concern and that all people should have access to save their lives, ease their suffering, repair the damage. But I see those as an individual's responsibility to purchase those things from those who offer them as a product/service.
If you want to help others, no one is stopping you from doing so. But I don't see forcing you to do so as being a good thing. Or the right thing.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] JohnQ1127 12 years ago

Of course you have a right to public education? It's not a right found in the federal constitution but every state has a provision in it's own state constitution that guarantees some form of public education. I would venture to say that in most states in 2012 have a K-12 right but you might still have states like Mississippi or Alabama that only guarantee K-8 or K-10. It also seems rather cynical that the "only" reason any of your neighbors seem to agree to public education is to guard against vandalism. If that's true then that's a sad testament to what we value in our country. It's also odd that you can see an inherit benefit from a child getting an education from a communal standpoint yet you see now obvious benefit from that same child having his broken arm treated.

Again your worldview seems very self centered and you seem to be only motivated in self-interest.

It's odd that you view a national health care as "theft" in your "little Suzy" scenario yet you don't view Horizon or Amerihealth as theft in your viewpoint. You & your employer pay premiums into various health care plans. So if little Suzy has Horizon and needs eye surgery, your essentially paying for that surgery through the premiums you pay into your health care network. What would happen if a may paid premiums all his life and never got sick or went to the doctor? By your logic you would view that as a form of theft because the man essentially had to pay for other peoples' treatments all of his life yet was never reimbursed for not needing any treatment himself.

And the big problem which I keep going back to is that Horizon or Amerihealth are "For-Profit" institutions. Other countries with national health don't face the economic problems we face because they essentially have non-profit groups regulate and operate health care. It's the same thing as my public school analogy or my public police or fire analogy.

How is healthcare ever a "frivolous" expense or a "luxury" item?? That's bizarre thinking?

Well it seems like you could give a crap whether the lady next door lives or dies which is really sad.

Again this goes back to original point that we are "backwards" in this country in that we haven't evolved to a point were every other industrialized nation in this world see's this as extremely important.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

It really is a difference of perspective between our views and I don't see how we could ever see eye-to-eye on this issue.

You see it as a right to the product, the knowledge and skills of another human being.

I say that human being has a right to market their product, knowledge and skills for profit like any other skilled profession and I have no right to it. I also don't see justification for government involvement as I don't see healthcare as integral to the infrastructure of the community or nation.

As far as i can tell, you are calling for government involvement because people can't afford the product/service that is sold for profit, and that you see medical attention as a human right. Though I'm not sure how it can be.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 3 years ago

One of the reasons I prefer Britain to America- the NHS.

reply

[–] betnj 12 years ago

Thank you JohnQ1127. I couldn't have said it better myself.

reply

[–] betnj 12 years ago

I also believe that health care should not be a "for profit" business. Too many people involved in the creation of laws are also heavily invested financially in the health insurance, hospitals, clinics and pharmaceutical businesses to be interested in providing affordable health care for all Americans.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

Given the option, I would much rather see single-payer electricity, food or water- y'know, the things that are necessary to SUSTAIN the life we have a right to, rather than repairing the damage we do to it.

I still don't see a valid reason why healthcare should be exempt from profit. I hear plenty of emotional arguments against it, but "because it's not fair that people will die" is not a reasonable argument for making doctors and nurses the property of the State.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] JohnQ1127 12 years ago

You seem to have this very odd notion that the main reason people need health care is to remedy some malady someone has incurred from living a rather unhealthy or dangerous lifestyle. I guess that's why from a philosophical standpoint, you feel that healthcare is a personal responsibility. I'm not sure how old you are but that seems like a very immature stance to take. Millions of people lead rather healthy and sedate lifestyles and need access to healthcare for various reasons. Actually people can exacerbate rather minor maladies because they were unable to seek medical treatment. Millions of people need access to healthcare simply because they're over 40. Children need access to health care.

Public schools, fire departments and police departments are run without a profit motive. Imagine if police departments were run with a profit margin? If you couldn't afford "police insurance" what would you do if your wife was getting raped? Would you be forced to pay an out of pocket fee? You would call the police department for help and they would send you a bill depending on the infraction they were called upon? A rape call might cost $5000 a burglary $3000 etc.

The main problem/criticism is that our system is run by a for-profit group that includes insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and wall street investment firms.

As far as doctors and nurses being "property of the state", LOL!! are Police officers, teachers and firemen "property of the state?" Are school secretaries or school custodians "property of the state?" How about librarians, DPW workers and judges? property of the state as well?

You act as if doctors and nurses in countries with national health care systems are essentially forced slaves making minimum wage living in government controlled housings. Go see how doctors live in Europe. They live in nice houses, drive Mercedes Benz, some have vacation homes etc.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

I recognize the thousand of reasons people want healthcare but that still does not entitle them to it off the backs of others. We live in an unsafe, unhealthy world where anything can attack the human body at any time. My stance of it being a personal responsibility stems from it being a personal issue. You don't want pain? You don't want to be ill? You don't want to die yet? That's a personal choice. Choose your priority. Would you trade your house for a second chance at life?

When I had a kidney stone, I handled it myself because it was something that would pass and I didn't feel like spending that kind of money on it. When my wife had one a week later (weird coincidence!) she sought medical attention. Never, in either case did we think it was our neighbor's responsibility or obligation to take care of it. The neighborhood didn't suffer because of it. The neighbors weren't forced to pay for it. It was a personal health issue and no one else's friggin' business.

Since I see police, fire departments and education as community issues, your point abut privatizing them is moot. Although I fully support people augmenting these community services on their own. People hire private security because the police can never be 100%. People buy smoke alarms and fire extinguishers because the fire department can't always get to places fast enough. People send their kids to private schools because it's indicated that the kids will get a better education from them.
Rapists are a threat to the community. My kidney stone is not. I fully support government programs to prevent and inhibit infectious diseases for the safety of the community but that's as far as I see the reach of government extending. Attending to personal health issues is not the role of our government.

What we're seeing now is doctors and nurses being "property" of the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and wall street investment firms, aren't we?
They are not free to provide the best care possible- only "approved" care. Do you think in government hands this will be any different? Government will end up having to "prioritize" and approve as well. It might be better. It might be worse. Only in practice will we find out. What I do know is the more people use "free" healthcare for crap like the sniffles, a weird bump, and small lacerations, the less the system can handle the more serious issues. And when something is "free" the American people will grab all they can get their hands on whether they need it or not.

I'm not saying that there will be Sarah Palin's "death panels", but bureaucracy is bureaucracy no matter who's doing it. And believe me, government will be trying to profit from it as well.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] LesterFester 12 years ago

by betnj (Sun Sep 30 2012 13:58:08) ... I also believe that health care should not be a "for profit" business

I think you're absolutely right! But what I think this country has to do is consider all human needs. Categorize what is most important in your life and list them according to the most important to least important. Surely above health insurance you would consider food, shelter and clothing. So if these are more important I think this these businesses should not be run with the profit motive in mind. They should be run as a nonprofit business giving the consumer the most value for his dollar. The owner of rental property should not expect one dollar above the cost to maintain and operate the facility. same can be said for farmers in the garment industry.
Why aren't doctors willing to accept $150,000 as an annual salary… You say if doctors are not free to earn a living in the field they choose they will go elsewhere. Well I say , limit the salary they can earn in those fields too.

Levon Helm... The Best There Ever Was, The Best There'll Ever Be

reply

[–] jalbright-3 11 years ago

Business needs profits for the following:
1. to grow.
2. to purchase items necessary to conduct business (e.g. an automobile, a desk, an x-ray machine). These are assets and not therefore the purchase of same is turning cash into physical plant. This cash is the profit from previous operations.
3. to induce individuals and other entities to purchase stock. Dividends from such come from profits.
4. to raise capital through borrowing. No profit, who's going to loan a business money if they are not making a profit?

Those that do not understand the need for profits have never owned a business.

Show me a business that is not making a profit, and I will show you a business that is doomed to failure. Businesses provide the nearly all the goods and services we've come to expect in our lives.

reply

[–] plusbabs-1 12 years ago

Well said!

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

Shall we also limit the amount of malpractice insurance they have to buy to cover multi0-million dollar lawsuits? I'm betting no doctors in Sweden have to worry about that issue and I'm betting their courts don't just award $20 million dollars to the patient who had the wrong finger amputated.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] jackal215 11 years ago

I've been following, with fascination, the debate between yourself and JohnQ. From your standpoint, I fear it has been an exercise in futility. You're never going to convince someone who chooses to remain a child, a person who feels that he shouldn't or won't take responsibility for his own life, that he should grow up and take responsibility for his own life and actions. To paraphrase an old saying, he believes that you should give a man a fish, day after day.

One thing that never came up in the debate was that many from those countries mentioned, Great Britain and Canada, come to America for medical treatment. If National Health is so great, why do they need to come here? If JohnQ had done any research, he'd have seen that GB is pulling away from National Health. In Canada, if you need an MRI for, say a knee injury, if it isn't life threatening, the wait time can be up to one year. If that is what you get with National Health, I'll take what we have here.

Referencing the arguments that healthcare providers shouldn't work "for profit", I have to wonder if that sentiment, used in their professions, would as well received.

reply

[–] JohnQ1127 12 years ago

As far as "the founding principles" of this country, it literally says right in the first paragraph of the Constitution that one of the responsibilities of this nation is, "To Promote the General Welfare". I can't think of anything more important to the general welfare of this country other than the health of its citizens.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

promoting the general welfare does not mean providing for it. It also doesn't mean oppressing people from smoking marijuana, drinking beer or smoking cigarettes. Certainly our government could promote the general welfare by encouraging healthy diets and lifestyles- which it does (hence the government position of Surgeon General).

Understand that I am not vehemently opposed to a single-payer healthcare system. i'm not out therre in front of the capital with a misspelled sign and chanting about 'death panels".
In lieu of the free market system, it's the only way I WOULD approve of it (as opposed to the system in the pipeline right now).
I'm simply acknowledging that it is NOT "backwards" to NOT have it in place, and it really is not the role of the U.S. Government to provide it.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] Milkdoesabodygood 12 years ago

Medicaid sucks for the poor like in Arizona, u can't get half the medical care that U can get here in ct & NY.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

I hear AZ sucks for food stamps as well. I think everything sucks for the poor. I suppose that's why being poor sucks and people don't like it.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] ivan-521-829025 11 years ago

It is sad but typical of your nation to read your comments and thought process. The mere fact that you think schools being a social service is justified because it helps the communities and society to function well but wellness of a nation is not a benefit show how little that education you received has taught you.
You are so entangled in your thoughts of "my benefit" that you don't even realize the concept of the "government of the people by the people for the people" should not mean the concept of "health insurance" as an acceptable good and moral base.
Insurance companies make profits by NOT giving health care to people. The more they deny it the better are the shareholders' profits. Preventive medicine is lowly practiced in US and it is a major factor in the cost of health care. US has the best health care in the world as it is the richest nation, IF you can afford it.
Why should you pay for your neighbor's broken arm as you think it does not benefit you? Because he pays for your child's school! And he can support himself better as a healthy man than a sick one so your society does better. The same reason that a farmer pays for your roads while they are not directly benefiting him.
Keep waving your flag of individualism and money above all and see how great your nation will be when the resources run out.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

Wellness of a nation IS important to the infrastructure which is why I fully support State-funded immunization and disease control. But fixing my toothache doesn't impact the infrastructure. My cancer is not going to stop the wheels of the nation from turning. It is not going to stop traffic, tear down phone lines or stop the mail from being delivered.

It's not about what benefits "me". It's about government's role in our nation and its duties to the people it serves. The U.S. Government's duty is not to care for the individual, but to "establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty" for this and future generations.

Yes, it would be nice to pay for my neighbor's broken arm. That would be charitable. Our government's job is not to be charitable- especially on the backs of others.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1558) 3 years ago

But covid did.

reply

[–] willjohn 11 years ago

What has "liberty"got to do with it? With a decent health system there is less time lost through preventable illness. You have been conned by rich people who are allergic to paying their fair share of tax.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

The liberty to choose to purchase goods and services rather than being forced to do so- even for one's self.

The liberty to not be responsible for the maintenance and repair of individuals whose life choices are, more often than not, to blame.

I have yet to hear a rational explanation as to why it is one individual's responsibility to repair and maintain another human being's body.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] BugisStreetAnnie 11 years ago

I actually came here after seeing Lulu perform 'To Sir, With Love' on PBS last night.

gabby - I'm curious what you think about taxpayer money going to pursue fugitives? I say this because last night on '48 Hours' they did a report on a man who has been on the run for four decades. He was convicted and later escaped. He was involved with a robbery/murder of a gas station owner (he didn't kill the owner, the other man he was with did), but law inforcement have pursued him over 4 decades and 3 continents.

I have read some of Ayn Rand which you seem to be espousing, so I'm curious what you think. If it were my father, I, of course, would want him brought to justice, but realistically how does this comtribute to humanity or the community by having him caught and sent to prison by spending all of these tax funds? My belief is it probably doesn't.

I agree with JohnQ: that I'm one of those midde-aged people who never had children but pay for public schools, etc. And the tax-exempt religious institutions and schools, (which is another issue). You do seem to pick and choose as to what is good and what is bad/evil for tax money to be supporting.

"You Are a Testimony to Witlessness!"...Madalyn Murray O'Hair

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

Law enforcement is certainly part of the infrastructure that keeps an maintains the body of a community. It serves public interest, it can keep a community safer, and it embodies a sense of justice that is important to the overall "morality" -and the "faith" of the citizens that justice will be served.

Now certainly, I don't feel threatened by a fugitive who is on the lam after killing his wife's rapist. I mean, I really don't think that fugitive is coming after me next. It's an isolated incident that has little chance of replaying for someone else. is it right to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars pursuing this person for killing his wife's rapist? Probably not. But it is still important to the ideal of justice and in essence, control to some degree.

I would not be asking your tax dollars to pay for the capture of the man who stole my TV inasmuch as I want the person apprehended to exact justice as well as to stop him from doing it to other families on my block, putting their lives at risk, bringing down property values and making the community less safe.

So when I am ordered to pay for my neighbor's broken arm or even cancer treatment, I have to ask what does that do to benefit the community? How is the quality in the lives of my neighbors improved or maintained by filling in my wife's cavities?

I can definitely see the benefit to the community with regards to immunizations and the eradication of contagious diseases/viruses. I fully support such programs that are to the benefit of the public health and safety. But reattaching a finger or paying for a vasectomy doesn't really have a direct impact on the community as a whole.

And that is where I can't see a reason for government involvement- especially with what is simply a marketable product and service. In my opinion, our government has a larger obligation to provide electricity and water treatment.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] solex10 11 years ago

Gabby, please, you don't give a frack about law and order any more than the most psychopathic child would-if you did, you'd be calling for the crooks that destroyed the American economy and precipitated the current worldwide economic crisis to be arrested, tried, and sent to prison like they should be. The only criminals you care about are the ones that the mainstream media and society have brainwashed you to care about-mainly those ones of color caught up in the lame drug war that your government has been fighting for (what seems like) eons. You're also the type to support said cops when they do wrong things in the upholding of the law, I'll bet.

As for education? If you truly cared, you'd be glad to pay more taxes to provide more than just obedient worker drones who just work, exist, and consume until they die, and nothing more than that. As it is now, your national and state school systems are no better than what Betty Mamoody observed while in Iran as mentioned in her book Not Without My Daughter, and most likely getting worse. Do you support sex ed? Learning different languages? Women's studies? Afro-American history? Latin American history? GLBT studies so that kids understand what it's like to be gay and lesbian and don't end up picking on people who are GLBT? Music appreciation, so that kids don't listen only to the rap music that you and other whites like you hate so much? I'll bet that you don't, and that all you support is crap like No Child Left Behind and Channel One in classrooms, as well as the standard ROTC training and little else than that.

The reason I said what I said above is because it's based on your dismissive attitude towards the idea of even having anything like what I have here as a Canadian citizen in Canada in terms of health care, or what they have in Britain and the European continent. If you don't care about that, what makes you think that you'll care about having services or any kind provided through government services except the fire department and the police department? What would you feel about any community programs provided by the city and state? Judging by your low regard for health care, possibly no feelings at all.

Unfortunately for you, health care is important, and not everybody can be super diligent as you in getting it-that's why many countries have it as a societal responsibility, and America should have it. I would expect the same to be done for you if you get sick, and no, it isn't a burden to be endured, but a part of life. It's that which makes the difference between the United States and the rest of the planet-and not having it is making the USA look primitive to the rest of the planet.

Eventually somebody belonging to some progressive party will come along as president with the strength of conviction enough to push for said American version of NHS, and then, if you're still around, what will you do? Will you try to move to another country? Tough luck on that one-most other countries have national health care (except maybe for some parts of South and Central America-and I don't think that you'd want to go to those places as an American!)

To sum it up, I think that you're pathetic as a human being in your care and concern for others, and I hope that the passing years see changes in the USA similar to what the OP wants that will see people like you pushed to the margins politically and socially.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

So in the first paragraph, you call me an enabler of white-collar criminals, compare me to a psychopathic child, you call me a racist, a supporter of police corruption, a proponent of the war on drugs and a person brainwashed by the mainstream media. I would be interested as to what I wrote that supports this delusion.
Or do you have it in your mind that since I objected to one aspect shared by the right wingers that I too must be one of their minions?

let's take this one by one: I would hate for you to not get the proper ammunition for your war on... whatever it is you seem to want to fight.

you don't give a frack about law and order any more than the most psychopathic child would-if you did, you'd be calling for the crooks that destroyed the American economy If individuals' actions were criminal or even criminally negligent, then of course I would like to see them punished and restitution made. I would also like to see the legislators who enable these things to continue to be punished as well.
The only criminals you care about are ...mainly those ones of color No, race/color doesn't mean a damn thing to me. You rob a bank, you go to jail. And color best not play into how long one is sentenced. Equality under the law & equal representation by our government. That is what I believe in.
caught up in the lame drug war... I agree. The War on drugs was ill-conceived, horribly executed and ultimately useless. It is an issue of supply and demand. Kill the demand and the supply becomes a non-issue.
You're also the type to support..cops when they do wrong things... Never. I hold them to a higher standard and expect them to uphold the law.

As for education? If you truly cared, you'd be glad to pay more taxes.. I would be glad to pay more taxes for education if I felt the lack of funds was the problem. I don't believe it is. I believe our school system here is too convoluted and polluted. Most importantly, I believe there is minimal to non-existent parental involvement in their kids' education and lives. This, above all, is the major barrier we need to overcome.
more than just obedient worker drones who just work, exist, and consume until they die, and nothing more than that Wouldn't rising above that be more the job of the parent(s) than the school? They could assist, but ultimately, motivation, ambition and goal-setting is more a parent's job than a teacher's.
Do you support sex ed? I support the teaching of the biological aspects of reproduction- its causes and its prevention. I would leave the morality of it to the parents.
Learning different languages?Only after achieving a certain mastery of the nation's dominant language (English, in the U.S.)
Women's studies? As part of an overall look at history/sociology
Afro-American history? As part of an overall look at history/sociology
Latin American history? As part of an overall look at history/sociology (same goes for "white male studies") The whole damn world is intertwined and it's comprehensively lacking to look at these aspects separately.
all you support is crap like No Child Left Behind and Channel One in classrooms No. i support education, facts, analytical & critical thinking in classrooms with a certain amount of creativity infused in order to make it an educational experience rather than rote recitation.

it's based on your dismissive attitude...in terms of health care, I don't dismiss healthcare. I simply dismiss that one's health is anyone else's business.
If you don't care about... services or any kind provided through government...except the fire and police department(s)? Because there is more to a community and a country's infrastructure than just fire and police. That is what I see as the U.S. Government's job- the infrastructure of the nation. Keeping it active, keeping it moving, keeping it safe from harm. Keeping it free. I don't see government-funded healthcare as part of the infrastructure.
What would you feel about any community programs provided by the city and state? I don't believe that falls into the purview of their respective governments either.
possibly no feelings at all. I feel if it is that important to the people, they will make it happen without involving the government. People donate blood all the time- no government involvement. people DO care. Do they care enough to make it happen without being FORCED into making it happen? If not, then it's obviously not that important to them.

health care is important it's also a product and service- not a right. I have no right to the labor and product of another person. And since my heart attack has no bearing on the community's infrastructure, I don't expect the community to pay for it.
not everybody can be super diligent as you in getting it I don't. I might someday, but I don't go into a hospital for the sniffles. I didn't even go in for my kidney stones which I took care of myself- because I didn't want to pay someone else for it.
that's why many countries have it as a societal responsibility, and America should have it. I don't see why. I see electricity and clean water as more important than a doctor's services but no one feels compelled to have the government pay for that. To me- keeping a family warm in winter, clean and hydrated is a bigger societal responsibility than paying for my neighbor who broke his arm while rock climbing.
I would expect the same to be done for you if you get sick, and no, it isn't a burden to be endured, but a part of life But it IS a burden. If I wouldn't pay for my own cancer treatment so I can make my house payment why should I then forego my house payment for someone else's cancer treatment? Is that fair? Is that right that my family loses their home so some other guy can get his chemotherapy? It would be kind. It would be charitable- but only if it were done by choice rather than by mandate. There's nothing wonderful about losing one's home over unjust taxes.
It's that which makes the difference between the United States and the rest of the planet-and not having it is making the USA look primitive to the rest of the planet Oh, don't worry about little ol' us. Even WITH a nationalized healthcare system, we have plenty down here to keep us looking primitive. We have our gun violence, our unhealthy diets, our heavy reliance of fossil fuels, Justin Bieber...
Frankly, I really don't give a rat's patootie about how other countries view the U.S. I care about how U.S. citizens view the U.S. and what they are willing to do in order to preserve freedom and liberty for all. And it ain't paying for some kid's skateboarding accident.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] BugisStreetAnnie 11 years ago

I will respond to you regarding gabby's post since I don't want to 'indulge' him.

But he says: (your quote) "I would expect the same to be done for you if you get sick, and no, it isn't a burden to be endured, but a part of life."

Then he says: "But it IS a burden. If I wouldn't pay for my own cancer treatment so I can make my house payment why should I then forego my house payment for someone else's cancer treatment? Is that fair? Is that right that my family loses their home so some other guy can get his chemotherapy? It would be kind. It would be charitable- but only if it were done by choice rather than by mandate. There's nothing wonderful about losing one's home over unjust taxes."

However, here in the States (at least where I live..and I assume this is true everywhere), we are FORCED to pay for auto insurance, or we will lose our car license and not be able to drive. I've never had an car accident, but I've paid for car insurance, monthly, for DECADES. How is this really any different than paying for health care coverage?

Also, reading 'gabby's' posted history regarding Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged) it is REALLY hard for me to believe he has a wife or a family. I used to read Ayn Rand back in the day, and so did many of my gay friends...but largely heterosexuals have never even heard of her. She - Ayn Rand- did, and does, have her faithful cult of young queer followers, LOL! Gabby is almost quoting her word for word.

"You Are a Testimony to Witlessness!"...Madalyn Murray O'Hair

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

I also don't believe in forced auto insurance. I find it reprehensible that people are forced to purchase products and services in order to enjoy their freedom and liberty- traits that are inherent to the species.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this ranting over sexual preferences. It seems to hold some sort of significance for you, though. Carry on.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] solex10 11 years ago

The same way that you were able to judge most teenagers, he can judge you. And, please stop believing all of this 'everything was better back in the old days' crap-it isn't true, and smacks of fantasy.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

I have no problem with people thinking I'm gay. But I would expect at least some sort of reasonable foundation to such an assessment. "Fags read Rand" is pretty much nonsense, in my opinion and from my perspective.

SOME things were better back in the old days. Some things were worse. I will celebrate those things that were better. Much of that might be subjective (music, for instance). But I certainly never implied, well alone stated, that "everything was better back in the old days". A statement like that is also utter nonsense. I may not be the most educated person, but I can at least claim a certain amount of historical perspective.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] liscarkat-2 11 years ago

I know several people who are citizens of the UK, and when they have a medical issue that needs prompt attention, they always have to 'go private' because the national system works so slowly and inefficiently.

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 10 years ago

Why is it "backwards" to be individually responsible for one's own health issues? I mean, if government screws up your health (i.e. war, Three-Mile Island, etc) or if it's a contagion that threatens society, I can see government's obligation to handle the medical issue. But I don't see treating my neighbor's throat cancer or broken arm as the role of government, as it really has nothing to do with a nation's functionality, safety or infrastructure.

That being said, I recognize that healthcare is out of reach for a majority of Americans and on a HUMAN level (I am a human being, after all), I can understand the desire for wanting universal healthcare. But from the perspective of this nation's founding principles, it just doesn't fit into the landscape of liberty.

I agree with every, single word of this post.

Except in the case of a natural disaster or terrorist attack, the national government should not be involved in the healthcare of its citizens.

Ribbons and detours meant nothing to me
Swaying our sympathies, pulling our strings...

reply

[–] aquarianbrass 10 years ago

Haha! You do realize that if enough citizens don't have health insurance and can't afford healthcare lOTS of people will be dying or become disabled. The latter will be a burden on somebody. If not the government then families who have to stop working to care for that individual. SO there, you have at least TWO people out of the workforce. Now, the reason we don't have such a severe national health issue right now is because of medicare and medicaid. Without those two GOVERNMENT bodies more and more people will become a burden and will be removed form the work force which WILL have drastic negative consequences for society as a whole. Just think through your ideas and let go of the ideology. Personal healthcare IS a matter of public welfare and infrastructure just like personal safety and personal education is a matter of public welfare and infrastructure. Society is made up of individuals.

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 10 years ago

Let state or local governments or private charities or private insurance take care of the sick and injured of the lower classes.

Otherwise...die.

It may sound cold but it is actually because medicine and-while I'm at it-food and shelter is so vital that the national government shouldn't be involved.

Ribbons and detours meant nothing to me
Swaying our sympathies, pulling our strings...

reply

[–] musicmaninmass 9 years ago

There's nothing in the founding documents that go against any kind of national health care system. Government pays for school for all citizens I don't hear any republicans teying to repeal public funding of education. The government pays for the military. Yes It's backwards for a countey not to have a national health care system.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 9 years ago

One thing i noticed is that when individuals no longer pay out of pocket for something (medical insurance, auto insurance, etc.) the costs tend to skyrocket as it is a lot more affordable for an insurance company to pay for a $300/night hospital bed than for an individual.

Thus, insurance which was designed to protect people has now become the biggest financial liability, not only for those without it, but also now for those who have it (who now have to pay exorbitant premiums to pay for those $300 beds).

It's not backwards for a country to eschew a national healthcare system. But it's not progressive either.

I don’t need you to tell me how good my coffee is.. 
.

reply

[–] musicmaninmass 9 years ago

Do you have kids that go to public school? If so does that make you a socialist?

reply

[–] caulkins69 9 years ago

Look at what a brilliant job the public school system has done of keeping costs down. $11,000 per pupil per year means they spend $220,000/year to educate a class of 20 students, $385,000/year for a class of 35. Do you expect government monopoly health care to do better at containing costs than government monopoly education has?

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hallogallo 7 years ago

It's wasn't National Health Insurance, it was a form to register for a National Insurance number which entitles a person over 16 to save towards and claim state benefits.

Everyone who earns over £x (don't know the exact figure as it stands) pays a small percentage of their wages over said amount as a tax which goes into a fund which is used to help cover the national welfare bill.

Who's driving this plane? Stan Butler?

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 6 years ago

He said, "You have to fill them (the forms) out. They're for National Health Insurance and so on."
Just saw that scene again....

reply

[–] samoanjoes (50984) 7 years ago

Man, if you knew what was in store for you five years later with Donald Trump as President.

reply

[–] MNRebecca (750) 2 months ago

Did you see the thread about stroppy (bad tempered, argumentative) kids? It mentions that teenagers seem fatter today. What’s missing from this thread is an acknowledgment of how poor the UK was after World War II. The autobiography of Jerry Lewis mentions how he learned from the Rolling Stones how little food there was for that generation growing up. National health insurance was vital to the country’s recovery. It is similar to how desperately United States needed the New Deal to recover from the poverty of the Great Depression.

reply