11 ms·

> Interestingly enough, a socialized (single payer/universal, etc.) system of basic health care with privatized add on's and extras is basically the way every c

> Interestingly enough, a socialized (single payer/universal, etc.) system of basic health care with privatized add on's and extras is basically the way every civilized society on the planet operates except the USA. I simply don't trust our (the USA's) federal government to handle a socialized system with any amount of efficacy or competency. We would need a fundamental cultural change and a massive restructuring of current spending. Like that will happen any time soon. Plus, I don't think such a system should even be possible with our form of government because of the powers enumerated by the Constitution. If there were to be a socialized system, it should happen at the state level and perhaps the federal government could help regulate / control interstate issues. Or, I suppose, we could try to pass an amendment.

run4yourlives 13y ago
I simply don't trust our (the USA's) federal government to handle a socialized system with any amount of efficacy or competency. You would have to be astoundingly incompetent to make a socialized system more expensive for the USA. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6220/economics/global-health-care-costs/ http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6220/economics/global-heal... Plus, I don't think such a system should even be possible with our form of government because of the powers enumerated by the Constitution. Pretty sure your federal government can recognize human rights, and ensure they are respected. Health care is the one section of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the US has not ratified. I share your pessimism though in any meaningful change taking place. The USA has a rather bizarre view of the role of health care in society as compared to other nations.
- thatswrong0 13y ago
  > You would have to be astoundingly incompetent to make a socialized system more expensive for the USA. Well we do spend more per capita on education than any other nation (and not have results to show for it) and education is dominated by the government. Our government is astoundingly incompetent. And I see no reason why the government would magically make healthcare cheaper just because it would get EVEN MORE involved. > Pretty sure your federal government can recognize human rights, and ensure they are respected. If this is what you're referring to (in Article 25 (1)): > Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Constitutionally, no. Most of this should be (but of course isn't, given that we have Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, TANF, etc.) left to the states. All powers not explicitly described by the Constitution are left to the states per the 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights. And personally, I would be fine with this. I would rather not have the monolithic and inscrutable federal government we have today. I would prefer to leave it to the states whether or not they want to recognize the U.N. Universal Declaration.

run4yourlives 13y ago

I simply don't trust our (the USA's) federal government to handle a socialized system with any amount of efficacy or competency. You would have to be astoundingly incompetent to make a socialized system more expensive for the USA. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6220/economics/global-health-care-costs/ http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6220/economics/global-heal... Plus, I don't think such a system should even be possible with our form of government because of the powers enumerated by the Constitution. Pretty sure your federal government can recognize human rights, and ensure they are respected. Health care is the one section of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the US has not ratified. I share your pessimism though in any meaningful change taking place. The USA has a rather bizarre view of the role of health care in society as compared to other nations.

thatswrong0 13y ago
> You would have to be astoundingly incompetent to make a socialized system more expensive for the USA. Well we do spend more per capita on education than any other nation (and not have results to show for it) and education is dominated by the government. Our government is astoundingly incompetent. And I see no reason why the government would magically make healthcare cheaper just because it would get EVEN MORE involved. > Pretty sure your federal government can recognize human rights, and ensure they are respected. If this is what you're referring to (in Article 25 (1)): > Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Constitutionally, no. Most of this should be (but of course isn't, given that we have Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, TANF, etc.) left to the states. All powers not explicitly described by the Constitution are left to the states per the 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights. And personally, I would be fine with this. I would rather not have the monolithic and inscrutable federal government we have today. I would prefer to leave it to the states whether or not they want to recognize the U.N. Universal Declaration.