Bront's Forums

I did not watch the speach so I have no comment.

I'm halfway in between.

Despite the many shortcomings of the British system, I believe it offers a bare-bones floor to everyone. It should be implemented in this country. There are other parallels that come to mind like Social Security.

That said, if individuals or groups wish to supplement that minimum care with their own add-on system, they should be encouraged to do so if they are willing to pay for it, just as individuals may supplement Social Security with their own savings and investments.

Once this is done, I believe all of the contentious arguments: illegals, pre-existing conditions, tort-reform, defensive testing, fraud, etc. will resolve themselves.

The National Health Service in the U.K. has been around for over 60 years. Everyone gets a minimum of free healthcare. Waits for most routine services are comparable to emergency rooms here. The facilities often are old and crowded. Hospitals have wards with sometimes lots of people in them. Forget about private rooms. Routine care itself is excellent, if the environment isn't.

That said, rationing is a way of life for Brits without supplemental options. A person I knew needed a heart operation. He was told the wait was going to be many months. He died before the operation could be scheduled.

Now that could easily happen here too. Or the individual could know someone and get it done and paid for by others. I've heard that even inmates in prison can sometimes get care that the poor outside cannot. Now is that wrong or what!?

A strict form of rationing is fairer than our system where it's feast or famine. Or if one has the money, one can always purchase state of the art technology and pharmacology.

Part of the problem of communism (in which everyone is equal), is that it requires someone to administer it, which creates inequality inherently.

I need to read up more on what was proposed.  That said, generally, government does things fairly, private business does things efficiently (and yes, I use both terms loosely).  The biggest question remains, do we, as a people, want health care to be fair, or efficient?

Currently, health care is fairly efficient.  People who have access to it generally can get what they need done to survive done in a timely manner and to some level of effectiveness.  People who don't have access to it, don't.

A fair health care system would in theory provide everyone with what they need done to survive done, though not always in timely manor or to the greatest of effectiveness.

Ideally, you want both, and on some level, a federal solution to minimum health care would do that, making basic health care accessible to all, and more advanced or better health care available to those who can supplement their care.

Canada has managed to do things fairly well, but they are admittedly more socialist than the US is.  However, socialism is a dirty word since Communism, and simply being a socialist policy does not make it bad.

Why do you think the government (our government) will not collapse under the weight?  I haven't seen any sign it is capable of responsible decisions concerning entitlements and what they cost or provide.  To me it seems like just another excuse to expand the public sector, and they seem to be willing to say anything to do it.  Including obviously incorrect information like the government isn't spending a dime and then the price tag being $900B over 10 years.

I think if the people knew the specifics they would not be for this 'change'.  I'm worried by the rate that the president pushes things though and the lack of real discussion.  I am worried by the example set with the automotive companies.   

Wow, I didn't realize we thought so much a like.  The only thing I would add is the emergence of a communist or socialist regime that fixes the problem by making everything public property.