American Socialism

[Beirut]

So accidents are covered for immediate treatment.

That's good, but it's the long term health problems that are the concern. Many Americans (hundreds of thousands or more each year), even many with insurance, face bankruptcy because of medical costs. So immediate treatment may be available, but when the person needs further care and has no insurance or is cut off, as often happens, they may then lose their possesions, even their homes, as well as their health. Think of the further economic damage that does to the economy.

That's one huge advantage to socialized medicine, that sort of thing does not happen, and if it does, it is very, very rare.

Again the government does not have the responsiblity to insure I take care of myself - it is my responsibility to take care of myself. It has a responsiblity to insure the welfare of the people, providing emerancy treatment for those injuried does the exact same thing as the police and fire department does in your examble. In fact this emergency treatment is already law. So in this examble the United States is fulfilling your basic requirement as presented here.

The government should certainly not be cleaning the bottoms sides of the lazy, but caring for the welfare of the people, in my view, includes health care.

My basic requirement for health care is far more than immediate treatment; it's all treatment required.

So while you believe it applies to socialized medicine - I don't necessarily disagree - just that the government has a responsibility to have a workable plan before it attempts to change the current system. If you think Iraq is a mess - let the government attempt to change the medicial system without a thought out plan....

The plans already exist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US the only G8 country without socialized medicine? One can hardly view the likes of the G8 members and say their economies lie in waste because of socialized health care. Use a pre-existing plan and shape it to better suit the needs of the US.

I trust them just as far as I trust the government to insure my personal wellbeing...which is not at all. I am the only person or enity that can insure my own well being.

Well said. But there are times when all of us, even you, dear sir, require a helping hand. I would rather that hand belong to my democraticaly elected government answerable to me than a corporation answerable to no one.

Now the young student working at Mcdee's would better suit your arguement. He can not often afford to have insurance while working that job, but he often does not see the need for it either.

Then consider the example used. As for his not needing health insurance... we won't know until it's too late, and that's simply not good enough.

Taking care of 300 million people where at least 40% are unfit will be a difficult mission for any government to assume with a viable plan, completely doomed to failure without one.

I absolutely, without a hint of doubt, know that the US can do it if it has the will to do it.

levels upon levels of buerarcy. Not much different then the insurance companies.

Completely different. All the levels are either elected representatives or are managed directly by elected representatives.

Had a good look at the American governments debt lately? Getting closer and closer to that possiblity. Well we could always nationalize our debt.

Your debt has a large part to do with an unjustifiable war. Your leadership has already spent over a trillion-dollars screwing the pooch in Iraq. Imagine what could have been accomplished had that money been put towards the well being of the American public.

I just assume they are all crooks - and that I can make the best decisions concerning my personal wellbeing.

I'm right there with you.

Talking to a man with a rapid cycle bi-polar wife, a bi-polar sociopathic step-son - things often get beyond an individuals ability to cope - that is what family and community are for to support you in times of trouble. Why should I demand that the government assist or take care of personal issues? What benefit does the whole get out of fixing the individual? Making demands of the government to fix all your problems does not fix your problem. You have a personal and social responsiblity to take care of them yourself. Government handouts should always be the last resort to any personal problem. Again the system alreadly has laws and functions to insure that everyone gets the necessary treatment to protect life and limb regardless of the ability to pay. So the system already provides for the general welfare of the people. To insure I get my shots and take care of myself -is still a personal responsibility not a government responsibility

The line between personal responsibility and needing outside help is real and has to be respected when crossed. If you are smart/lucky enough to be able to deal with your problems, excellent. But not everyone is. And the role of government is to help those who cannot help themselves and to assist its citizens when required.

They have been told - to bad they don't know how to listen.

Damint man, you're an American! Make them listen.

Nope our local frenchman who wants to be a Texan

We all want to be Texans.

To present yourself with honesty and intergity toward your fellow citizen. To provide what charity is needed to insure those in your community have the ability to achieve success if they chose to. To provide for the general welfare of the community by insure you keep the peace.

In other words Beriut I would give the shirt off my back to help a guy out that desires to better himself. But I have little to support those who wish to be support by the government.

I agree 100%. My only difference, I guess, would be my commie views on health care. I feel it is my duty, because it is within my power, to help the guy next to me have full access to health care without reservation. It's good for him, good for me, and good for the country if we're all, you know... feeling good.