Is It Time The USA Had A National Health Service?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready There is only one nation that places individual rights at its core of both law and justice, and is governed by the people, ...

I can't think of any nation that fits that description in practice, or ever did.

Regards
S.

[jascowhiz0]

Quote by: sdbest No to an American NHS. It's important that U.S. citizens and resident aliens who are the poor or working poor be deprived of a service that all other developed and many under-developed countries provide as a fundamental right. Also, as long as the U.S. does not have a universal single-payer health care system, like all of its economic competitors, it will be easier for countries like mine (Canada) to take jobs away from Americans and give them to Canadians. We must make sure American US-based businesses remain saddled with huge health care costs while their overseas and continental competitors are not. It's really important that the richest country in the world set an example of how to punish people who can't afford health care. It's good to see people who can barely get by, destroyed by hospital bills, or even better die because they can't get treatment. And let's not forget how important it is to really grind their children down too. And what the Hell, any American who can't afford treatment can always go to Cuba where they will be treated for free. If they travel by way of Canada, the American government will never know. Don't you just love that all-American "crap on the poor, working poor, and middle class" Spirit. That's what made America great-screwing the little guy. Regards S.

Or instead of draining billions of dollars into a system that takes months to treat cancer we could just rewrite the tax law from FDR's administration to turn health care into something like automobile insurance. Cheap and based on the individual, not a company. By doing that we keep competition which drives innovation and many more people will have health care.

[Kamehameha34]

A freely elected government does, though. Again, it seems to me that this term "property" is mighty arbitrary.

No.

Like I said, that's the same as a community voting away your rights to your house.

Your viewpoint fails, because in America we have due process. Rights can only be removed once you disrespect the rights of others. The severity of the infraction is determined by a jury of your peers.

Is it now? And what "collective ideals" are those? And what evidence is there that it's "growing away" from them (whatever they are).

One who neglects to read and have a firm knowledge of the constitution has no place in a debate about American domestic policy.

Violations of the constitution include seatbelt laws, unequally distributed taxes, drug laws (barring methamphetamine), and the patriot act.

[Nono]

Quote by: Kam In America we have due process.

If you can afford a slick lawyer, that is.

In other countries, health care is a right, a right that can be upheld by a court if necesssary.

In the US, if you can't afford it, well go die.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 One who neglects to read and have a firm knowledge of the constitution has no place in a debate about American domestic policy. Violations of the constitution include seatbelt laws, unequally distributed taxes, drug laws (barring methamphetamine), and the patriot act.

What the constitution means--its interpretation--is decided not by you but rather the independent judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. That's an integral part of the Constitution.

If you believe in the Constitution (as you claim), you also have to accept all its provisions including the role of the judiciary. If the judiciary misinterprets the Constitution, in your view, by "upholding seatbelt laws, unequally distributed taxes, drug laws (barring methamphetamine), and the patriot act" then--to be consistent--you have to accept those restrictions on your Liberty as constitutionally justifiable.

You can't just cherry pick the pieces of the Constitution that serve your self interests and ignore the rest.

However, if you have problems with the Constitution, you can always begin a peaceful political movement to change it--or I suppose you could "take up arms" depending on your view of the Second Amendment.

Meanwhile, if you believe in the Constitution, as you say you do, then you have to accept the validity, morality, and constitutionality of "unequally distributed taxes." If you don't, it means you don't respect the Constitution of the United States.

In my view, the Constitution of the United States is a flawed document and is not revealed wisdom and deserves to be criticized and questioned just like the Bible. But obviously, that's not your view about the Constitution.

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Nono In other countries..

Other countries are irrelevant. Refer to the title of the thread.

[Kamehameha34]

What the constitution means--its interpretation--is decided not by you but rather the independent judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. That's an integral part of the Constitution.

I have my position on the subject. My position is that it is constitutional - and as with all positions this one is debateable.

If you believe in the Constitution (as you claim), you also have to accept all its provisions including the role of the judiciary. If the judiciary misinterprets the Constitution, in your view, by "upholding seatbelt laws, unequally distributed taxes, drug laws (barring methamphetamine), and the patriot act" then--to be consistent--you have to accept those restrictions on your Liberty as constitutionally justifiable.

The judiciary decides which laws are to be struck down for uncompliance with the constitution. In these cases, they are wrong in their inaction.

The constitution never says "whatever the supreme court says is true", it says that the supreme court has the power of judicial review.

I am not disputing the fact that the law went through the proper process. I am saying that it is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Other countries are irrelevant. Refer to the title of the thread.

Read the first post, which raised the issue of a U.S. "NHS" because of what was happening in "other countries." Other countries are not irrelevant to this thread.

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

I suggest you retrace that conversation before you jump in. It was about due process.

[Nono]

Quote by: Kam Other countries are irrelevant. Refer to the title of the thread.

Wrong.* This is sort of related to what I was saying about living in isolation or living in a community. The US is part of a broader community of rich Western countries not that unlike it. And guess what? Those countries (more or less) ensure that all their citizens have affordable health care. And it works.

This reality (inconvenient for some ideologues and certainly for the Mighty Medical Lobby in the US) changes the entire discussion. People just across the border from you, who look and live and speak a lot like you, view medical care as a right, especially when they peer south. The many examples of functioning universal care systems are by no means irrelevant to the debate in the US.

* And even if it were right, your tangents about taxation ought to dissuade you from casting the first stone.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I am not disputing the fact that the law went through the proper process. I am saying that it is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

If the judiciary rules a law is constitutional, according to the Constitution, it is constitutional. It matters not what you think. If you don't accept the constitutionality of the law after the judiciary has ruled, then you don't accept the Constitution.

The corollary to this then is that the Constitution is not sacrosanct so invoking it as tactical debating technique to quell disagreement with your positions is hypocritical, and the principles expressed in the Constitution are all open to debate and disagreement.

The bottom line? The Constitution of the United States is not a sacred text and ought not be wielded as such, in my view.

Regards
S.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I suggest you retrace that conversation before you jump in. It was about due process.

Quoting Nono "In other countries, health care is a right, a right that can be upheld by a court if necesssary."

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Nono Wrong.* This is sort of related to what I was saying about living in isolation or living in a community. The US is part of a broader community of rich Western countries not that unlike it. And guess what? Those countries (more or less) ensure that all their citizens have affordable health care. And it works. This reality (inconvenient for some ideologues and certainly for the Mighty Medical Lobby in the US) changes the entire discussion. People just across the border from you, who look and live and speak a lot like you, view medical care as a right, especially when they peer south. The many examples of functioning universal care systems are by no means irrelevant to the debate in the US. * And even if it were right, your tangents about taxation ought to dissuade you from casting the first stone.

Those ideals which it contradicts include the document that constitutes the government system for the country. You may want to throw out the constitution, so let that be your first topic for debate. I'm just debating universal health care's place in America. Until the constitution is forsaken, it has no place.

Quote by: sdbest Quoting Nono "In other countries, health care is a right, a right that can be upheld by a court if necesssary." Regards S.

Countering my post, which was a citation of due process in America.

If the judiciary rules a law is constitutional, according to the Constitution, it is constitutional.

Wrong. If the judiciary rules a law is constitutional, then the law exists.

If they say that red is purple, that doesn't make it so.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Wrong. If the judiciary rules a law is constitutional, then the law exists.

... and is, be definition, constitutional. Under the Constitution, the individual citizen--like you--is not the arbitrator of what is constitutional or not. You're confusing the law and individual opinion. It's not about right or wrong, no matter how desirable that may be.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If they say that red is purple, that doesn't make it so.

If a law is passed in the U.S. that says that red is purple and the Supreme Court says the law is constitutional then it is, and under U.S. law red becomes purple. The facts, under the Constitution. may not matter.

If you want to discuss right and wrong and justice, that's one thing. If you want to discuss was is constitutional and the application of the U.S. Constitution, that's another. Don't conflate the two in order to make debating points.

Regards
S.

[Nono]

Quote by: Kam If they say that red is purple, that doesn't make it so.

If the only means (prescribed by the consitution) that you have of determining colour is a court ruling, then the colour is whatever the court rules it is. Other opinions -- no matter how convincing to you personally -- are by definition arbitrary.

[Kamehameha34]

... and is, be definition, constitutional.

No. Existing is not equal to constitutional.

If the only means (prescribed by the consitution) that you have of determining colour is a court ruling, then the colour is whatever the court rules it is. Other opinions -- no matter how convincing to you personally -- are by definition arbitrary.

Immaterial.

The fact that my objective analysis won't affect a court ruling doesn't stop me from being right.


The constitution never says that the court is infallible - it says that it can overturn an unconstitutional law. It does not say that all laws not overturned are constitutional.



Neither of you has a firm grasp on this subject.

If a law is passed without conflict from the supreme court, then it does not default to constitutional. If it's in clear contradiction to the constitution, then it is unconstitutional - regardless of the judiciary. The opinions of nine justices can't change objective fact.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Not You Again I live in the UK, and many Americans will be aware of our NHS service. I would dearly love to immigrate to the US; however, one of the financial commitments is the cost of medical insurance. Here in the UK our health care is free at the point of delivery, regardless of your financial standing, I’m against this, I believe if you can afford to pay for health care, you should. We can pay for our own individual health care, but we must also pay our national insurance contributions i.e. health care, it’s not one or the other, therefore, I object to paying for both. Is it time the US had a “NHS” type of health care?

It is easy for you to say no to UHC when you have it. Take these 3 scenarios. Healthcare is a fundamental right and shouldn't ever be denied. America needs to get with the program! We are the only industrialize country that lacks UHC. That says something.

[GHook93]

Quote by: sdbest No to an American NHS. It's important that U.S. citizens and resident aliens who are the poor or working poor be deprived of a service that all other developed and many under-developed countries provide as a fundamental right. Also, as long as the U.S. does not have a universal single-payer health care system, like all of its economic competitors, it will be easier for countries like mine (Canada) to take jobs away from Americans and give them to Canadians. We must make sure American US-based businesses remain saddled with huge health care costs while their overseas and continental competitors are not. It's really important that the richest country in the world set an example of how to punish people who can't afford health care. It's good to see people who can barely get by, destroyed by hospital bills, or even better die because they can't get treatment. And let's not forget how important it is to really grind their children down too. And what the Hell, any American who can't afford treatment can always go to Cuba where they will be treated for free. If they travel by way of Canada, the American government will never know. Don't you just love that all-American "crap on the poor, working poor, and middle class" Spirit. That's what made America great-screwing the little guy. Regards S.

A little synical, but true!

[droque]

I agree, the United States’ health service is very costly and wasteful. I have experienced both Germany’s and the UK’s NHS and learned they are both better than ours, I live in Florida.

Some friends and I have been working on an optional “Keynesian Classical Macroeconomic- International Private Mutual Welfare Trust” (KCM-IPMWT or Trust) that covers universal comprehensive quality health services through its Health Institute and offers portable services to all its participants.

No welfare services are free, you pay for them privately yourself or through your government taxes. International health services on an economy of scale are cost effective in that long-run average costs fall as output rises; however any one that wishes to pay for their own private services should be allowed to do so.

Governments should be willing to give back their welfare taxes as an incentive to employees the invest 10% of their disposable income and employers that match their employees’ investments in this Trust, since they will be paying for their own welfare services.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest No to an American NHS. It's important that U.S. citizens and resident aliens who are the poor or working poor be deprived of a service that all other developed and many under-developed countries provide as a fundamental right.

Explain to me why you think "health care" (whatever you mean by that -- it's quite an open-ended term, IMO) is a "fundamental right" (ditto).

- Rob