Universal Groceries?

To those who believe healthcare should be a right in America do you apply that thinking also to food? If so should we have government provided universal groceries for all Americans? How would this happen?

 

A civilization is a composite of many things, not just tall buildings and advanced technology.

One of the factors used in judging how great a civilization was is how well it treats it's poor and downtrodden.

It endangers the health of the society itself when either sickness or hunger is left to chance, therefore it must be managed. To see that everyone has enough to eat and is in good health, is to ensure a strong society.

To create a system of have's and have not's is to ensure many weak links in the chain that binds it all together.

The government has had several food programs over the years with Food Stamps being one of the latest.

 

Government creates most of the problems to begin with. They create economic turmoil through deliberate manipulation of the economy, which then forces people to turn to their government abusers for support. It's typical problem-reaction-solution. The fact is, the people who run this government want a socialistic system in which people are dependent on it for their survival. They hate independent wealth (other than their own). So what they want to do is redistribute the wealth from those who are independently wealthy (instead of the corporations) and in turn use it to fund those who are in economic turmoil because of a situation they (government) has deliberately helped to create in the first place.

The idea of state health care is merely the pre-planned "solution" to the problem which was deliberately created where the average person cannot afford managed health care. The current health care system is set up to benefit the drug companies and HMOs -- not the people. A state health care system is actually being pushed by the major pharmaceutical companies because they know it will put more money into their pockets. At the same time, the quality of care will drastically fall while any alternative treatments and preventative supplements (vitamins, herbs, etc.) are done away with altogether under codex alimentarius. Under a state health care system, the people will have no say whatsoever in their care as this will be a mandatory system where you MUST go to the doctor regularly and you MUST follow whatever treatments are prescribed. This also likely ties into the plan put forward by Bush under the Orwellian title of the "New Freedom Initiative," where US citizens are mandated to undergo yearly psychological examinations.

Is health care a right? I don't know, but when you look around and see that so many middle and working class people cannot afford health care because their workplace won't pay for it, you know there is something amiss, and why should the people be to blame for this? There are many hard working people that don't have health care. At the same time, this doesn't mean one should accept the false solution of a mandatory state health care system, either, which is only designed to benefit the pharmaceutical cartels.

It's important that people actually understand what's going on, instead of being reactionaries and taking one side or the other.

 

Holy hell, under a mandatory health plan - what happens to someone like me? I disdain, don't trust, and have a real fear of doctors. I NEVER go, unless on 'deaths doorstep' (as when I had Fifths Disease in '05 and was down for 6 weeks and didn't know how to fix it myself).

If it ever gets to that, they're going to have to sedate me for every visit and exam - HEAVILY. Because *I will freak on them*.

 

As far as this I think it's better for government aid to be geared for short term relief. We need to be careful having gov't do more than it can do well. Many of those universal healthcare systems in other countries are basically over burdened with the task of being the sole provider of healthcare in their countries. Anyway, the long term approach for helping the poor is to put in place economic policies that help to create the jobs the poor need to move up.

 

Not everyone who cannot afford health care is "poor," though. It's just not affordable for most people who don't have coverage through their workplace. Fewer and fewer employers have health care benefits for their employees. Try addressing the reasons why health care is so unaffordable instead of trying to place all the blame on the people who can't afford it. I would not consider myself to be poor, though I have went through periods without coverage because my job didn't offer it and I could not afford the exorbitant costs for out-of-pocket coverage. And that certainly doesn't mean I support universal health care as the solution, either.

 

I've been working 35-40 hours a week at my job for more than a year now, and I am still not considered full time (it's about to get rectified, hopefully) the benefits for part time workers are utter shit, and due to that, I haven't seen a doctor, at all, in over a year.

Universal coverage for healthcare is essential because supply and demand doesn't work with healthcare. well, it might, but the system is more than happy to take advantage of the most serious circumstances to turn an even greater profit.

 

Why is a country like Canada considering more private care then? They've had the gov't run system for years and are now experiancing enough problems with it to seriously consider more privatization.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe.../cma_president_080824/20080824?hub=TopStories

 

Rat

Bla bla bla - government bad - bla bla bla – socialist’s bad - bla bla bla – redistribution of wealth bad - bla bla bla - it’s a conspiracy - bla bla bla….

Yes Rat, we know Rat, I think we’ve clocked your agenda’s bullet points already Rat.

But what are your solutions?

Well once again you haven’t a clue in fact the only reason you seem to have made a comment here is to try and push your political agenda.

Which seems to be anything that would actually assist wealth in becoming stronger and more powerful?

Once more you talk about wanting to help the middle and working class but all you seem interested in is the independently wealth.

In other words the rich that don’t want government regulation or taxes or socialist ideas like a National Health Service and the redistribution of wealth.

 

Motion

The thing I want to ask you is will you stay to actually discuss this and will you address the criticisms levelled at your position?

You see the problem is that we’ve been here before and while it is obvious you’re a fanboy for neo-liberal economic ideas, I’m still not sure why, since you don’t seem able to defend them.

Population Changes & Social Welfare?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=189526&f=36

Europe's Welfare Future
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=225200&page=2

**

The thing is that a health care system is not ‘free’ it is paid for through something like the UK’s National Insurance, basically through a general tax.

Traditionally such schemes are disliked by the young and the well off.

The young because they have to pay into something they usually don’t use very much.

And by the well off because they have to pay for it although they often prefer to ‘go private’ (where in the UK they are often treated by a state educated, National Health Service doctor that they pay more to see).

But let me give an example –

I knew some people that were great fans of Margret Thatcher and the neo-liberal approach and we used to argue about the NHS (among other things), they thought it was a socialist throwback that should be abolished in favour of a privatised system. They thought they shouldn’t have to pay tax to fund something they were not using since they were young and had well paid jobs so if they ever had to have treatment they’d be able to pay for it out of their savings.

Twenty five years later and due to circumstance I won’t go into they were complaining at the state of the NHS and how it needed more funding, because they then needed it and they realised there savings were not large enough to go private.

*

The thing is that circumstances change, the very rich may well always be able to weather any financial problems but others will not and although in most circumstances young people will not need much medical care they will grow older and accidents can happen.

The thing is that many people don’t think ahead or see further than their nose, or live on a hope.

**

As to your link it seems to be about Dr Robert Ouellet, who’s pushing for the use of more private clinics in the Canadian healthcare system, is this the same Dr Robert Ouellet, who I believe just happens to be the co-owner of five private radiology clinics? If so, do you think that there may be the possibility of a conflict of interest?

 

Sure, lets start up another massively abused program!

 

because they have stephen harper.

I've been working class my whole life to this point (i.e. between middle class and really poor) I support programs which help people who cannot afford to help themselves. people who don't support these programs usually don't know what it means to not be able to help yourself, or have completely divorced from reality to support a political agenda wherein they want to be screwed as part of the package deal.

 

I'am for neo-liberal reforms that are properly implemented.

That means market reforms combined with democratic reforms,privatization done through oversites(Estonia's example) and market reforms supported by laws such as the rule of law and the enforcement of property rights. Countries that have these things in common have benefited the most from capitalism.

I support market economics because it's been shown to be the best way to run and manage an economy and because it gives the most reliable info about economic activity which allows it's partcipants to make better economic decisions in comparison to systems where market activity is not taken into account or is not an influence on economic decisions.

But he's more than likely right about Canada needing more privatized healthcare services to help relieve Canada's waiting list problems. Those waiting lists may have several things causing them but it can easily be assumed that having the Canadian gov't being the sole provider of healthcare is one of the main reasons for Canada's waiting list problems.

Anyway,wouldn't pushing for more private clinics in Canada like in radiology just create more competition for Dr. Ouellet? So pushing for more healthcare privatization isn't necessarily a big win for him.

 

Motion
I'am for neo-liberal reforms that are properly implemented.

The problem is that most places were neo-liberal ideas have been talked up and put into practice the results have been a strengthening in the power and influence of wealth along with a widening wealth gap.
Try reading ‘A brief history of Neoliberalism’ a short book by David Harvey.

**

I support market economics because it's been shown to be the best way to run and manage an economy

This is your opinion but in practise often it seems only ‘the best way’ until things go wrong and it needs protection from the free market’s predictable collapses.

**
and because it gives the most reliable info about economic activity which allows it's partcipants to make better economic decisions in comparison to systems where market activity is not taken into account or is not an influence on economic decisions.

I know one of the principles of the free market idea is that a ‘free market’ gives people the information on which they will make rational judgements. But I think you have been on this forum long enough to know that even when some people are given clear information they can still come to irrational conclusions.

Also most people don’t have the time or inclination to make detailed inquiries into every corporation or company their pension fund or bank is investing in even if that information is covered by commercial confidentiality or is being purposefully hidden (as with Enron’s accounts and the subprime repackaging).

Even those that actually make a living from such things very often don’t have such details (I’ve meet traders) and in a fast moving market it is often impossible for anyone to accumulate all the information necessary to make a rational judgement.

Add to this money which has a tendency to make people act irrationally anyway and what you get is people making cross fingered bets, and as any informed person might know blind gambling isn’t the most rational or stable basis for any economy.

So people have betted on tulips, silly dot.com ideas and that their house price would always rise to cover their debts and you gamble that your private pension will be there when you retire.

For example the Thatcher government in its neoliberal fever pushed the idea of non government pension schemes people would opt out of the then serps (State Earnings Related Pension Scheme) in favour of stock market based schemes the insurers seeming the possible money to be made pushed the schemes aggressively and painted the prospect of market pensions bringing in much greater amounts than the government scheme.

Well those dreams died long before even the present financial crisis and today the reputable consumer group ‘Which?’ estimates that as many as 4.5 million people are going to be worse off than if they had stayed in the government scheme.

Many at the time warned about the opt out, but many who did were bamboozled by advisors who worked on their greed and the belief in ‘Thatcher’s’ free market revolution.

**

But he's more than likely right about Canada needing more privatized healthcare services to help relieve Canada's waiting list problems. Those waiting lists may have several things causing them but it can easily be assumed that having the Canadian gov't being the sole provider of healthcare is one of the main reasons for Canada's waiting list problems.

That is the opinion of someone who believes in the free market model, which as I’ve pointed out has its critics. For example Dr Ouellet seems to point to the British model –

Have you heard of the Private Finance Initiative?

Here are the views of someone who has made an investigation of the subject especially in the area of health.

“This, the government insists, is a means of bringing private money into the public sector. In truth it is draining public money into the private sector. Across Britain, hospital improvement schemes are being rejected not because they are too expensive, but because they are too cheap.
Private companies don’t want to renovate existing buildings, as the potential profits are too small. But the government has made it clear to the health authorities that if the improvements they seek are not privately funded, they won’t be funded at all. So, instead of being renovated, perfectly sound hospitals in city centres are being torn down, and new ones built at great expense on inaccessible greenfield sites. The companies boost their profits still further by selling the city centre land.” http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/12/21/the-nhs-is-being-privatised/

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/03/10/private-affluence-public-rip-off/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jun/18/publicservices.politicalcolumnists

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jun/28/publicservices.economy

Try reading his ‘Captive State: The corporate takeover of Britain’
**

Anyway, wouldn't pushing for more private clinics in Canada like in radiology just create more competition for Dr. Ouellet? So pushing for more healthcare privatization isn't necessarily a big win for him.

Dr Ouellet is the head of what basically is a trade guild (the Canadian Medical Association) that is in a position to take advantage of a deregulation. Not so much through the setting up of businesses but in the possibility of increased income.

The comment about competition would seem to indicate you don’t know a lot about the realities of business. The good doctor is very likely sincere in his belief that privatisation will help but deregulation is also a good business model. He is co owner of five clinic, the first of there kind in Canada, that means he and his co owning doctors and investors are ahead of the game but if they wish to expand, deregulation would seem like the way to go and it has made others very rich by tapping into public money all around the world (and I notice he seems to want regulations to keep out the big corporations).

 

In countries like those what laws were changed or added to help those reforms? Were property rights enforced(capitalism needs this)? Is corruption being dealt with in those countries(African countries)? How was their privatization done(Estonia's example)? Do they still have too many badly run state owned enterprises(PEMEX in Mexico)? Is there an efffort to diverisfy their economies to create more jobs? Are taxes still too high(Brazil)? Is education being reformed where needed etc? These things not being reformed can affect how well a country benefits from market reforms.

As far as regulations. I have no problem with a country having regulations to prevent abuses,it's a matter of avoiding over regulation because the wrong kinds of regulations can be counter productive(price controls for example). Look at Argentina's energy problems.

 

It's not like Canada is considering getting rid of universal healthcare...or maybe Harper wants to... but they're talking about allowing doctors to open private clinics, while keeping the current system. There is some private healthcare now, but even the most well-off people I know aren't paying for it. The belief that everyone is entitled to quality healthcare is a basic Canadian value. Even most conservatives support it. A 2-tier system wouldn't make waiting lists shorter...it would simply lower the quality of our medicare system. And if Canadians want to pay for private healthcare, it's really not very hard to cross the border and get it there.
Of course I oppose all private healthcare in Canada, but the status quo is more than adequate... When I switch on the TV and hear the Democrats promising universal healthcare, and I find it absolutely shocking that it's even an issue...I mean, Canadians have had it longer than black people in America have been allowed to sit at the front of the bus. I can't even comprehend a single rational argument against it.

As far as universal groceries, that's pretty basic too. Would that be better than giving people adequate welfare, so they can have the dignity to buy food on their own? We really need full democratic socialism...capitalism will never work.

 

Balbus: If you are going to tout goverment pension systems then you must also have respect for the solvency that fiscal restraint provides.

The folks most anxious for privatized social security are those who note that fiscal restraint does not even have a place in todays political discourse. That ever increasing taxation is the proposed way to pay for multiplication of goverment aid programs.

The Social Security is given no priority when politicians are throwing money at the next big series of entitlement.

I just laugh when our Green Party is unhappy that our state goverment is so broke that we are unable to purchase open space. The Greens cacused with the big spenders who pissed away our reserves and broke our budget. They did not fight for the priority of thier program.

Fight for the priority of public pensions by calling out bullshit to more spending!

 

You don't think it would be a huge burden on the U.S gov't to be the primary provider of healthcare to 300 million Americans?

I think in America we need to be focused on affordable healthcare for Americans rather than universal government provided healthcare. Let's identify what's causing American healthcare to be so expensive and work on reducing it. One proposal I like from Mccain is being able to shop across state lines for cheaper private healthcare. I also see health savings accounts becoming more prevelant once it's problems are ironed out.

 

Motion

You are still not addressing the criticisms levelled against you.

The only reply you give to me is exactly the same as those of dogmatic communists – if only this was right and this was in place and if only that were fixed and if only that were so - well then communism would work perfectly.

The only difference here seems to be that you’re bias is to neo-liberalism not communism.

Well, yeah maybe in a perfect world nothing would go wrong – but that doesn’t address the concerns I’ve raised.

 

You don't think it would be a huge burden on the U.S gov't to be the primary provider of healthcare to 300 million Americans?

Oh come on Motion, again you seem to think its ‘free’ when it isn’t, its paid for through tax, just as the war in Iraq is going to be paid for by tax.

The US spends more on the military than any other country and according to wiki “The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined” and they claim that the total military related budget for 2007 was around “$626.1 billion”.

The thing is people join the military because not only do they pay for people’s college fees and give training but they also have excellent health and dental cover.

**

I think in America we need to be focused on affordable healthcare for Americans rather than universal government provided healthcare.

Again the bias – why can’t the two be synonymous? It’s like you are claiming that it is one or the other, affordable ‘private’ healthcare or an expensive national health service.

Or is this your ‘affordable’ a euphemism for sub-standard cover.

**

Let's identify what's causing American healthcare to be so expensive and work on reducing it. One proposal I like from Mccain is being able to shop across state lines for cheaper private healthcare. I also see health savings accounts becoming more prevelant once it's problems are ironed out.

So you want people in need of medical treatment to go traipsing around the US (a pretty big country they tell me) looking for the best deal?

But if there was a National Health Service would people have to do that?

As to Health Savings Accounts they do seem to have critics -
“Some consumer organizations, such as Consumers Union, and many medical organizations, such as the American Public Health Association, have rejected HSAs because, in their opinion, they benefit only healthy, younger people and make the health care system more expensive for everyone else. According to Stanford economist Victor Fuchs, "The main effect of putting more of it on the consumer is to reduce the social redistributive element of insurance."[15]
Another criticism of the HSA model is that it disproportionately benefits wealthier individuals who can use the HSA account as a tax shelter, and can afford to pay the high-deductible using other savings. Critics contend that low-income people who are more likely to be uninsured, do not earn enough to benefit from the tax-breaks offered by HSAs. These tax breaks are too modest—when compared to the actual cost of insurance—to persuade significant numbers to buy this coverage.[16] There is also concern that the lower premiums of HSA-qualified high-deductible health plans might attract lower-income individuals who cannot afford to fund an HSA account, and may therefore forego necessary health care services under the high-deductible.
In testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Health in 2006, Commonwealth Fund Assistant Vice President Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., said that all evidence to date shows that health savings accounts and high-deductible health plans worsen, rather than improve, the U.S. health system's problems.[17] “
Wiki

**