Happier Abroad Forum Community

So why does the USA not have any national healthcare coverage like in other industrialized nations?

My dad said it's because healthcare in America is controlled by the free enterprise system which seeks to make a profit out of everything, rather than the government. Is that true?

If so, then Discoprojoe couldn't be more wrong about getting government out of healthcare, just as he was wrong about 9/11. He is weird. Why does he trust greedy corporations?

How does Taiwan manage to have low income taxes while providing national healthcare coverage at the same time?

Is America the leader in health care innovation for the world to follow? Otherwise, what's the value of competition in healthcare?

Winston wrote:So why does the USA not have any national healthcare coverage like in other industrialized nations?

My dad said it's because healthcare in America is controlled by the free enterprise system which seeks to make a profit out of everything, rather than the government. Is that true?

If so, then Discoprojoe couldn't be more wrong about getting government out of healthcare, just as he was wrong about 9/11. He is weird. Why does he trust greedy corporations?

How does Taiwan manage to have low income taxes while providing national healthcare coverage at the same time?

Is America the leader in health care innovation for the world to follow? Otherwise, what's the value of competition in healthcare?

A lot of the funds for the Affordable Care Act are going to come from the 2.3% excise tax on gross SALES (i.e. you have to pay even if you made no profit) of all U.S. medical device companies. I work in the medical device field and a lot of people in our industry were pissed because of this. The silver lining is that in a few years, there should be greater demand for medical devices since every citizen will have health coverage and be able to go to the hospital. Right now though, a lot of hospitals are also cutting back due to the recession and the new law.

Isn't the reason why the US has no national healthcare like other industrialized nations, because the US system is geared toward the interests of the power elite? Since the US government prefers to spend tax dollars dropping bombs on other nations rather than providing national healthcare, which is totally nonsensical, this is the only logical explanation.

.

The US in its present configuration is too big, too diverse, and too politically divided against itself to provide affordable health care. We have too many illegal aliens (Mexicans) here, and the country doesn't have the will or the balls to do anything about it, except give them free health care and other benefits.

Smaller communities -- where the citizenry are less diverse, share more in common with each other, and are more united -- provide more efficient services for its citizens than big, diverse ones. Only after the US breaks up into smaller, autonomous regions will you begin to see real health care reform.

The Civil War is a rift that was never settled. Country's still divided on those lines.

The solution to these rifts and to multiculturalism is a more fascist, dictatorial model. Less freedom, not more. Freedom can only come after order. Otherwise it is not freedom, but the chaos we see today.

.

abcdavid01 wrote:The solution to these rifts and to multiculturalism is a more fascist, dictatorial model. Less freedom, not more. Freedom can only come after order. Otherwise it is not freedom, but the chaos we see today.

The solution to the rifts is dictatorship? You're out to lunch. The solution has to involve FREEDOM.

IMO communities whose citizens are united and share a common set of values have a much better chance of providing effective health services than communities whose citizens are politically, racially, and culturally divided amongst themselves. It's because we are multicultural (i.e., multi-racial) that America has become dictatorial. We have to eventually move away from the multicultural model, NOT towards the dictatorship model.

Solutions come down to personal choices. Dictatorship is your choice, not mine. If you want to sell others on your dictatorship solution, be my guest. IMO solutions that involve freedom will get far more followers and supporters.

There's a difference between freedom and anarchy. Freedom is more likely to arise from a dictatorial model than a democratic one.

http://therightstuff.biz/2013/01/23/fas ... ter-world/

The Libertarian Godfathers, Mises and Hayek, they were both sympathizers for dictatorship. To them, Fascism was certainly a better model than Communism. Murray Rothbard just perverted things.

It's obviously untrue that ideas about freedom will ever gain more popular support. Who holds the power in democracy? The people do. Why would people support relinquishing their own power? Libertarianism is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Aside from generating enormous returns for the parasitical elite, a bloated medical system is necessary to keep the American economy going, in the absence of much genuinely useful economic activity. Without the medical insurance industry, insurance screening industry, predatory medical billing industry etc. millions more people would be unemployed and the entire economy would collapse. Hence there is no real debate about health care reform.

Regarding the method of funding, this is the best way I have heard the Obama-care compulsory insurance method explained: The problem with voluntary insurance is that healthy people can just get the bare minimum of insurance or pay out of pocket, so insurance for unhealthy people will become too expensive for many of them to afford. In most countries the solution to this is to fund the system through progressive taxation, so the rich subsidize the poor and unhealthy. The Obama-care mandate is designed to avoid this by forcing healthy people to pay for insurance that they don't need. Therefore, relative to the norm, what you have is the poor and healthy subsidizing the rich and unhealthy.

Cornfed wrote:Aside from generating enormous returns for the parasitical elite, a bloated medical system is necessary to keep the American economy going, in the absence of much genuinely useful economic activity. Without the medical insurance industry, insurance screening industry, predatory medical billing industry etc. millions more people would be unemployed and the entire economy would collapse. Hence there is no real debate about health care reform.

Very interesting point. The only job growth you see in the U.S. anymore is in "health care." A few years ago there were a lot of service people -- waiters, bartenders and such -- being hired, but the venues that employ them are going out of business one by one. Now that housing and consumer spending have gone bust, "health care" truly is the heart of what's left of the American economy. And it is completely dysfunctional, resulting usually in unhealthy outcomes.

Yes, great analysis Cornfed.

abcdavid01 wrote:There's a difference between freedom and anarchy. Freedom is more likely to arise from a dictatorial model than a democratic one.

http://therightstuff.biz/2013/01/23/fas ... ter-world/

The Libertarian Godfathers, Mises and Hayek, they were both sympathizers for dictatorship. To them, Fascism was certainly a better model than Communism. Murray Rothbard just perverted things.

It's obviously untrue that ideas about freedom will ever gain more popular support. Who holds the power in democracy? The people do. Why would people support relinquishing their own power? Libertarianism is fundamentally anti-democratic.

'Obviously untrue'? How do you know this? I think it depends which groups of people you're trying to reach. Perhaps a lot of women, for example, will flock to your views, since they generally value security over freedom. And maybe a lot of non-whites, many of whom favor government intervention to solve socioeconomic and political issues.

Look, I understand where you're coming from. You're a half-breed, right? A product of multi-racialism. So naturally, you have an interest in maintaining this multi-cultural cesspool we're in now. Which is why you're in favor of dictatorship: it's the only way to hold this mess together and still call it a 'nation.'

I take a fundamentally different view. I don't accept the model that spawned you. That's why my solution is totally different. I have not read these libertarian godfathers of yours, but then I don't think it's necessary to do so.

BTW My own view is that libertarianism is too individualistic, and too lacking in core principles. A free, non-democratic society need not embrace libertarianism (or any other '-ism' for that matter). That is one of the core flaws of your argument.

How do we move away from the multicultural model? We have a multicultural society. That's just reality. What are the solutions? Liberia? Carving out certain states for blacks only? That or force things to work through dictatorship. I don't think multiculturalism is ideal. I just recognize less freedom is the only way to make it work. Nation of immigrants.

It's not about security. It's about patriarchy.

ILoveBlackAmericanWomen wrote:America has the most top notch "professional medical equipment" and medicine YET we are the sickest in the world. North American medical system is a shame. We are being pumped with drugs that are made to slowly kill us. They don't want to cure us because if we are cured they don't make money. Prescription drugs CAUSE disease. If you have an illness a medical drug will not cure but mask the symptom and give you side effects. Then you keep getting different meds. The answer is natural herbs.

*Richard Dawson ERHHHT! ringer f/x*

Not! Cuba has the best medical technology and the best doctors in the world from what I have heard. Hugo Chavez was smart enough to be flown to Cuba when his health was going south just recently. He had just returned to VZ the other day in stable conscious health.