ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:
ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:
ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:
Which still defeats your point.
You have no basis for your healthcare arguement.
I'm not claiming anything outside the fact that you may be wrong because you aren't actually basing your belief on anything.
|
Healthy people are more productive.
|
Only when all other things are equal. Which would be untrue in a situation in which socalized healthcare took over vs non socialized healthcare.
Afterall, when you have socialzed healthcare, and are "bankrolled" by the government... you don't really need your job as much.
The hardest working and most productive person I know doesn't have healthcare... and often times isn't healthy.
Yet they came in just last week... and worked 60 hours because they needed their money and their job, and they were more productive then just about everyone else in their workplace who had other people to depend on should they lose their jobs.
|
Are you suggesting that fear of death or the fear of the death of a loved one from illness is a viable path that society can take to make the workforce more productive? The same argument could be made for the high productivity of concentration camps and gulags.
|
Not at all. I'm saying when you need money... you are more productive. When you think "Well if i don't have my job i'll have to move in with someone" is more of a motivating factor then "Well if I don't have my job, the government will give me a place to live."
It's not like people in the US just die if they don't have a job. People do get healthcare and they do get money from the government. The difference is, it's only enough to get people back on their feet. It's not seen as a right.
Besides concentration camps and golougs are very inefficent. Outside of a cost ratio analysis anyway i'm sure.
Fun ending to that story, everyone except for the few hardworking people there lost their jobs at the end of last week.
While she was promoted and became a supervisor.
|
I' m not advocating that the governent give everybody a place to live, pay their electric bill, and keep their fridge full. I'm saying that healthcare should be provided by the government. Reasons being that: Preventative medicine is cheaper than waiting for an illness to worsen and then be treated, healthy workers are more productive than unhealthy workers, and a personal belief that people should have a right to live regardless of their economic situation.
|
I wouldn't argue with that. But i'd argue you'd have to do it in a smart way... and a fair way.
There are two problems with the way other countries do it is that they place no emphasis on the individual.
1) There is less motivation to take care of yoruself. Copays for healthcare should be increased if you take part in unhealthy activites like smoking and the like.
2) It's easier to reconcile company's discrimitory actions then governments.
Government run healthcare means that the government either runs itself knee deep in debt or it makes a decision when to stop trying to save someones life. If a surgery will let an old lady live 6 more months... often times the government will not do it because it will cost too much money. As health costs rise, benefits shrink when you get sick matters.
It's easy to reconcile this as a buisness. Buisnesses are supposed to make money. When the government is doing stuff like like people in the UK and France... it's hard to reconcile.
Furthermore since these councils do things on a district by district basis... it turns into a postcard lottery system, to where if your sick in London... your much more likely to be treated then you are in Scotland... etc.
Furthermore, quality of care vastly changes... etc.
Someone in New York is going to get more and better treatment then someone in Kentucky who makes the same amount of money... or even more money. It becomes... arbitrary who gets better treatments and who gets what treatments... etc.
