That's right my Republican friends. Lots of countries that have single payer, universal health care still have millionaires. In countries like Canada, Great Britain, France, and Germany a person can still start a business and grow it as big as his imagination, ambition and ability to succeed will allow. People in those countries are also free to speak their minds, freely elect the government of their choice, and come and go as they please. But American opponents of the same kind of health care systems these countries have enjoyed for decades say that it means becoming a socialist/communist country.
Ok, lets look at health care in countries that actually are socialist/communist like Cuba and North Korea. Of the 28 countries that have some form of universal health care, 20 rank higher than the United States which ranks number 37. The five communist countries rank as follows. 39 - Republic of Cuba, only 2 behind the U.S. That has to make you scratch your head. 144 - People's Republic of China, 160 - Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 165 - Lao People's Democratic Republic (Laos), and 167 - Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). Funny how communist countries always call themselves Democratic or People's Republics. The bottom line though is that equating universal health care to socialism or communism in the real world just doesn't stack up.
Of course you have to consider that the terms "socialism" and "communism" are defined in pretty loose ways by opponents of universal health care. The words socialism and communism have always been like grenades the Right lobs at any ideas they oppose but can't form coherent arguments against. And universal health care is one of those ideas. And calling it socialist or communist is of course code for "liberal" or "Democratic." And historically the Right has always been able to rally it's base by crying "we must stop the Democrats."
So here we are in the year 2009 and still the United States is the only wealthy country on the planet without universal health care. And this is not a political issue. This is an issue of compassion and economic common sense for Pete's sake. Not only has out of control health care costs been instrumental in the crippling and paralyzing of our economy, but it has left of us with a health care system that barely out does Cuba. The shame of it is astonishing.
Converting our health care system to a single payer, universal one will NOT transform the United States into a socialist or communist country. It will however force some Americans to face the fact that like it or not, they are part of a community that must either support one another or eventually perish.
*************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin's column, "Left Of The Right" published weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin's columns at LEFT OF THE RIGHT
You can keep up with Devin's postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: Devin Barber and then select the orange "Connect" button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 56 ( 17 removed by Devin Barber )
To support HR676 for a single payer healthcare system go to WWW.SICKOCURE.ORG you can also contact your congresspeople and get more information.
Your point about rich people living in the nations with varying degrees of socialism is a good one. Yes they do exist and unlike the US tend to be those of stable generational wealth(forms of untaxable assets for instance). Unlike the US, there is far less social mobility and few of them concentrate their wealth in their own nations but scatter it. Also, note many of those countries tax their profits far less than the US (we're number 2 in corporate taxation). National rates of growth are far lower than ours too. Sheer wealth in those nations is lower than ours as is the opportunities to create businesses. If Europe for instance or Canada were so great a place to grow or even start a business, the per capita start up rates would exceed ours.
Anyway, a good point to debate on the wealthy living in Europe. I don't think it's a strong one but worth looking at.
Worth reading
Thanks, Devin. Seems like one should not have to point out the obvious, but apparently one does, and you do a good job of it.
Probably, a twin, pertinent question is whether citizens have a responsibility to care for their own health, through healthy diet, exercise and avoidance of unhealthy practices (smoking, excessive drinking and eating, drugs, sun tanning, etc.). I think unhealthy practices should be taxed heavily, while tax breaks should be available for individuals demonstrating good health.
How refreshing to have someone express an alternative view so intelligently with valid points. And while I acknowledge the validity of your argument. I think it's also valid to suggest that things like social mobility and growth rates in the U.S. have been allowed to reach levels of excess that are unsustainable.
On point I beg to differ. While it's true that the U.S. has the 2nd highest corporate tax "rate". We also have the most loop holes resulting in U.S. Corporations paying less in actual taxes than most industrialized countries.
Write on Devin.
One of Devin's comments got me thinking that economic stability is probably not an American societal goal. The imbalances in our economy are part of what makes it so dynamic; as in one person can rise in stellar fashion, while others fall mercilessly.
Stable economies require gentle changes and steady flow; which means opportunities to become suddenly rich are minimized, as are chances for suddenly becoming poor.
America's health care industries are massive, and a shift to a government-only single-payer health care system means that the private sector would shrink while the government sector would grow. For low, mid and management level employees surviving this shake up would mean successfully segueing from a private employer to a government employer, which will probably be quite easy; while the CEOs, share holders and boards of directors will be mostly out of luck. This means that a change to government based health care will cut-off the revenue streams of the rich; and they don't like that idea one bit.
Now, the people with the money do not care, they want to weaken Americans just as they have undercut and destroyed any other country's native population, because they are people who demand rights, and a share of the wealth their stolen land produces.
Make no mistake this country has been taken over by those who have taken over the other country and are turning back on ourselves to devour what is left.
The changes are we seeing and hearing about are not at this point getting rid of these people either. That takes people demanding their rights - of course, that's socialism too.
They also buy their prescription meds at home because they're cheaper there -- even if the med in question was made here. Makes ya think, don't it?
Much like the vision of Pancho Villa, a desired for agrarian reform where each family received 5 acres of land. Each family then payed their share of property taxes to pay for road maintenance, schools, hospitals ect.
A perfect society is non-debt based, non-usury and no single individual owns anything because everyone owns it. The government is the people, unlike the rouge element that now control everything from banking to religion.
However, there is a underlining purpose for the rouges that most people can not conceive of, nor can the remainder of these reckon with, as the truth is often more difficult to believe than the many lies that are being spread;
Ancient Wisdom, is a link a place to begin exploring the endless possibilities.
Because there are no email warning regarding replies to comments made within this software, I will not see any further comments to this post. Therefore, if any have comments regarding mine, please use the “send private message” in order to share your comment. Thank you ^_^
A study in 2006, and forgive me I don't remember who did it, but It is now easier and more likely to start from nothing in Europe/Ireland/Great Britian than in the U.S.
Fact.
But, Charles believes the conservative line.
But back to health care, The U. S. A. Conservatives/Republicans INSIST that the European/Ireland/Gr. Britian / Canadian Health Care System is bankrupting those nations, and that the citizens hate their level of care, and that thousands of Canadians come to the U. S. A. for health care.
Where are they, all these CAnadians crashing into our health system where we kill more people from medical mistakes in hospitals than die from their conditions.
And then we have the poor people who vote REpublican, They say they don't want to lose "choice"
This one is very odd indeed. If you have no health care, you have no choice.
Then there is the Insured in our Nation.
One can only see Dr. on the Insurance company "list"
One an only get treatment at a hospital that is on the Insurance company "list"
One is only covered if the condition is approved and deemed not pre-existing.
Choice?
Of course this does not matter if one is a multi-millionaire with Rolls-Royce coverage.
Nor does it matter to corporate executives who's compensation plans include paying the difference, between coverage and billed amount.
Charles thinks it is much better for 1/3 of the U.S. citizens to have no medical care.
For the care level for all citizens to be lowest of advanced economic nations.
For the system now in effect to be causing a financial burden that is greater per person
than universal care will be.
Look it up Charles,
U. S. health care spending is higher per person than Canada/Europe/Ireland/Gr. Britian
But Charles is a good Capitalist and the for profit hospitals and for profit Insurance carriers MUST by law be able to engage in this business and MAKE A PROFIT.
It is patriotic to have rotten health care.
So Jeff, can you ---document---the huge numbers of Canadians coming to the U. S. for hospital care?
The official Conservative/Republican/Libertarian line is.
If you are poor it is your fault
If you are unhealthy it is your falt
If you do not have health care it is your fault
WE good Conservative/Libertarian/Republicans are NOT going to have a "community" supported health system.
If you are ill and your family has no money for your care you must die, and as quickly as possible. We will not tolerate any burdens on our right to wealth accumulation.
Colin, now stay on track.
Conservatives say our air is NOT polluted no one is going to get sick breathing.
Profit provides the best health care
As for a work force; There is not only Mexico, Central & South America, there is all of Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh. . . . billions of people for cheap labor, and those people are never going to demand "health care"
Is she serious? 25% graduation rates in democrat controlled cities? less then 50% on most democrat controlled big cities? Put the pot pipe down! You are a poster child as to why pot is still illegal!
We have quite a few military bases ourselves (the UK) - including Falklands, Cyprus, Germany and other outposts.
And yes, the British are involved in 2 wars - although we managed to estricate ourselves from Iraq yesterday, all the troops have been told they will be required to do service in Afghanistan.
Another poster (can't remember who) made point that British wealth is, in many cases, not earned but inherited. That may be true,but HUGE death duties are levied on any inherited wealth - and if the next generation doesn't ensure they make more - there would soon be nothing to pass down.
This article is spot on and well written--why some readers cannot read and respond to the talent of the writer and share a point or two without purging and yelling their personal feelings is beyond me. I joined Gather as a writer’s venue not a debate forum.
Well done Devin!
But my official mandate here at Gather is to "spark conversation." At first the personal attacks were a bit hard to take. But after 2 plus years I view them as evidence that I'm pushing the right buttons. And I wear the drive by 1 ratings as a badge of honor.
o people who may have already read this.
I get so tired of people claiming that they will lose this or that
with single payer health care.. Here are a few of my personal
experiences with insurance based health care...
When I was running a small bussiness, thanks George for destroying
that opportunity, my health care costs typically increased by 25% -
50% per year. I would have to fish around for a new insurance company
when things got to expensive. Virtually every year I had to change
insurance companies.
We have had to change doctors because... The insurance company would
not pay them or the doctor would not accept our insurance.
Last time I needed an appointment, dermatology, I had to wait 6 months
for that appointment. Sure I could change doctors but one of the fake
talking points is that if we had single payer you would have to switch
doctors. Not so much.
Several insurance companies have refused to pay for medicines
perscribed by the doctor. One of these was for my daughter who gets
migraines. Out of pocket cost $450+/month.
Some time ago I had a traumatic head injury with multiple sub-dural
hematomas. As a result the neurosurgeon needed to take out a chunk of
my skull. This area had to remain skull free for about a year. When it
came time to replace it the insurance company did not want to pay for
it. The insurance company did not have a problem with me walking
around with a 2"x2" hole in my skull. Huh?
Same insurance company would not pay for reconstructive surgery so I
could breath through my nose. It was considered cosmetic surgery. Huh?
When I had this accident I needed to get air lifted from the trauma
center to the surgery center. The insurance would not pay for the transport
between hospitals because I was never admitted to the trauma center
hospital. The night of the accident the island was fog bound so Life
Line could not transport. Praise the lord that I was airlifted by the
USCG and it cost me nothing. If I was transported by Life Line
probably would have been $30K+ which the insurance company would not
have paid for.
I understand that now the government tax for medical is about 300 dollars x month, not sure if it is family or individual. So you will all pay for it and since of all insured only 25% of the people at any given time are responsible for 100% of the cost we should be able to handle it ok. and possibly reduce the cost.
It is fine to insure everyone but at the same time prevention should be the key for the program.
People should be educated beginning as children on a good diet, the importance of certain foods and cleanliness, and the truth should come out that meat is not that great for your diet everyday. Soda and the sugar content is causing diabetes.I have seen no warning ads, has anyone?
Prevention alone will save millions, education and the importance of keeping your weight down to normal is a major element. We have been talking about overweight for 10 years now and the trend is increasing. Too much weight places an incredible stress on your organs and the imbalance produces a host of related diseases.
I think a food tax on certain items may help.
Besides, the plan that I saw when Obama was in transition scared me to death. It focuses on giving healthcare to younger people and leaves anyone out who is old or disabled.
With the track record of Obama's administration and THIS Congress, it also scares me that they will come up with a huge plan and no one will read it and then, poof!, we'll have a horrible answer to a serious problem.
Meanwhile, how about we teach young people that the very first things they should pay for are shelter, utilities, food, insurance and health care. Only after they can pay for those things should they ever think of buying new cars and big screen TVs.
If people did that, we'd all pay less for healthcare. Right now, we all pay for those who don't.
The other problem I have with this kind of plan is that we have so many people now who don't pay any taxes at all or, worse yet, get refunds 2 & 3 times what they put in. If we're going to have universal healthcare, they need to come up with a way that EVERYONE pays, not just the few people at the top.
Well stated! People fail to recognize that no one is calling for an American nationalizing of the health care industry. It is the health insurance industry, which has so poorly served this nation in recent years, that most are looking to cut out of the picture. No one is proposing that the doctors are employed by the government and that nurses, hospitals and all other health care. Simply a single payer system.
I agree with some of your concerns. When it comes to teaching young people the things to best spend their money on I agree with your statements. I also recognize that young folks starting out probably cannot pay for insurance at the cost it is today and they will take a chance on not being sick as the likelihood is greatly reduced for young people.
That leaves the old, infirm, disabled and handicapped that must have insurance. So our medical establishments are being primarily used and supported by the elderly, etc. I recall that i did have insurance for the birth of my first two kids and it covered most all the bill. By the time the next one was born I could no longer afford to pay the insurance so I went most of my child raising years with no coverage to protect me. I had no choice. And I certainly was not out collecting toys. If I could cover food, shelter, clothing and transportation, I was quite happy. This was early sixties. And I was very lucky as we never had medical needs go unmet for our children.
In your listing I don't believe you meant "health care." You meant insurance. Any month they have not had to go to the doctor nor have their dependents, is a month in which they've paid for their health care - there was none! For a system to work, the young need to pay into it just the same as the elderly, handicapped, disabled and infirm. That would balance the system out tremendously.
The contributions to finance health care needs to be separate from taxes and if a person earns money he pays a percentage of it into the plan. With a more balanced alignment plan, the load will be on all classes of people instead of just on those old enough to be at high risk or on jobs offering good coverage.
I, like you, don't feel it is a good idea to have all medical services free. There needs to be some form of copay to help control usage. It can always be waived for a dirt poor person.
You've been getting information from unreliable sites based on your comments about Obama's plan. He has no intention of cutting older people out. Don't know where that zinger originated but it simply isn't true. Barack will attempt to serve his constituency which by and large, are ordinary people. These are who elected him.
On the efface of the government to succeed, they are not without their successes. Our military is second to none and shouldn't be, second to none. We spend more on it that several other nations combined. More relevant in this matter is the success of Medicare. It has been handled at a price the private insurers can compete and gives much more honest service to the client. Medicare don't have a vested interest in beating you out of a legitimate claim. That, to an insurance company, is a standard of doing business.
Last private insurance I had was Blue Shield of Idaho. The were nice to do business with but several times a year they would send an explanation of benefits and they would not be what their contract called for but instead much less. The errors were always in the favor of the insurance company. those persons who don't understand the contracts and billing procedures ultimately ignore the sub payment and pick it up themselves. In five years of Medicare, I've never had this occur!
There are funding problems in Medicare but that is for another thread.
The truth is that the government is not good at running business but damned good at running governments. Government's purpose in life is not to make a profit and that is good. The governmental priority is to provide the service deemed necessary. They just lack the guts to fund what they enact. And we've always had and always will have people who pay little or no taxes. you can do it also, if you are willing to accept their standard of living
Canadians and Americans share a common ennemy: the New world order.
The socialized health care of Canada works fairly well but it's not perfect. The problem comes from the very bad habit of Health Canada to walk right into the WHO's "directives" which equate to foreigners dictating Canadians and that's completely unacceptable.