What do you think of a national healthcare system?

[eldragon]

Take it from someone who has medical insurance, we are are still going broke every month tryng to pay for my husbands prescriptions.

Co-payments on his mediication for high blood pressure, and gastrointestinal problems are costing us $150 per month in co-payments.


WE're already strapped - a family of four living on meager wages.


I know that there are programs out there to help with the medicine costs, but I haven't had time to check them out.

[r8rpwr]

It just doesn't work. Look at all the countries that have it. No one has any choice in their selection of medical providers, the government makes all the decisions, and it's a huge behemoth of a system. You have to wait months to see a doctor for the simplest problem. Who would do that, and why would a doctor worth his/her while choose to operate in such a system?

[Franklin]

Where to begin? The government has given us ample reason to distrust them. But for some reason we don't demand a refund, as we would with any other entity that performs so poorly. So there are practical reasons to avoid national health care.

But would it be ethical, moral, etc. if it was practical? The ethics are questionable because people would be taking on responsibility that belongs to others. Not exactly an isolated situation: Rich people - at least in theory - already pay more for national security, highways, etc. And if nationalized healthcare were more efficient - as it should be - then we would pay less, as an aggregate. There should be less paperwork as nobody would need to prove they have insurance.

The Constitution allows for the government to act on behalf of the "general welfare". Therefore, the Libertarian notion that government is meant only to protect our is not in line with the actual document. This provision is so vague that it allows us to argue that the government should provide for all or none of our needs - and we compromise along that spectrum. So national healthcare does fall within that range and is, therefore, a legitimate debate.
National heath care could improve our lot in certain ways: medicine is very expensive largely because of the research involved. If multiple pharmaceutical companies are trying to develop a cure for a certain disease, then there is a redunancy in the effort. Sometimes a disease/issue is not prevalent enough to make a potential cure profitable. But government is not meant to be profitable. There would be much less incentive to cheat on testing - such as a drug cures the common cold, but the company hides the fact that it causes liver disease.

There are many natural substances, such as herbs, that may cure or mitigate many illnesses. Given that so many patented medications are largely based on herbal and other "old wive's tale" cures, this is not just hippie woo-woo talk. But, in order for a company to sell an herbal formula as a cure, the FAD requires testing to demonstrate the herb's efficacy. This requires a lot of time and money. Then the company that does the testing cannot patent the product, so they have no protection from competitors. So it is not profitable to research these cures. But the government is not meant to be profitable - it is meant to look out for the general welfare. One way to do that is to provide services that are valuable but not profitable.

A big argument against socialized medicine is the lack of freedom because the government will make all the choices. Guess what - now the insurance companies make a lot of the choices. And they are not accountable at the polls. The companies dictate to doctors what treatments they are and are not allowed to use, with the threat of not allowing the doctor to collect insurance money. And we pay top dollar. And some people cannot get insurances, not just "poor" people, but anyone whom the insurance companies decide is too high a risk. I mean why should insurance companies have to take a risk? So many people can only afford insurance by working for a corporation. Ben Franklin had a vision of America being primarily populated by the self-employed. That's freedom as envisioned by someone who didn't cotton to co-dependency between employers and employees. One more freedom being eroded.

So if we're not co dependent with our employees/employers, should we be co dependent with our government? After all that really is a basic reason why we don't want government doing too much for us, or should I say taking on our responsibility? That is a dilemma and it's why I don't enthusiastically support national healthcare. But there are enough arguments on te other side to make it a tough decision.

Also, we do not have to follow the lead of any other country that currently have socialized medicine. There are many ways to do it, other than the British or Canadian way. We have the benefit of learning from their mistakes. For one thing, it should not be absolute. Don't allow people to run to the doctor every time they sneeze. There should be co-payments. Provide catastrophic insurance to protect people from destitution. That sort of thing.

The scariest part of national healthcare is that the government may feel more justified in playing parent. Since they are paying the bill - I know, they're not it's our taxes, but... - they could justify dictating to us how much we should weigh, whether we can smoke, eat meat, sugar, etc.. Oh wait, we're almost there already.

I can imagine a day when we are all required to take tests and answer questions which will allow the government or insurance companies - whoever is playing Daddy at any given time - to assess any number of risks and refuse treatment accordingly. "Your grandfather died from such-and-such? - no healthcare for you". We're not too far there, either. I think this paradigm is more like with private insurance where there is profit to protect.