Nationalized Health Care is an Absolute Conflict of Interest.
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
June 12, 2009 11:44pm CST
The FDA is an agency of the US Federal government tasked with playing watchdog over the food and medical supplies in the United States of America. They put the onus on the industries to prove their claims.
So what happens if the Federal Government becomes the distributor? You have a conflict of interest.
The FDA is a dismall failure as it is, what makes anyone think it would run better once the checks for the watchdogs and the distributors are all signed by the same people?
1 person likes this
1 response
@katran (585)
• United States
13 Jun 09
I've said it before and I'll say it again: when people talk about nationalized health care, they mean nationalized insurance. All the sensationalism about the government making decisions and screwing things up is driving me absolutely nuts. People act like the UK and Canada are the only other countries in the world that have health care! There are lots of other countries and lots of other health care systems on this planet that get completely ignored. There are INFINITE possibilities for a health care system that gives EVERYONE health care and yet will provide LESS of a tax burden on our people. Right now, our health care system causes an average of around 6000 dollars per person. It's hard to get worse than that.
People hear the words "health care for everyone" and it's like their brains shut down and all they can do is run around screaming like idiots. Nationalized health care does not mean that the government is running the show. I will be the first one to agree with you that government agencies are inefficient wastes of time, money, and manpower. I am a conservative who is all for cutting the government down to size.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Jun 09
Well, it's hard to separate the insurance from the health care when the government is making mandates to physcians, clinics and hospitals in order to get paid. The irony is, a huge part of our expense in healthcare is the clinics and hospitals trying to keep up with the pure BS forced on them by the government.
If the nationalized health care programs are so great, why do those who can afford it (and are allowed by their governments) choosing to pay out of pocket for BETTER care?
How can anyone say that it's not a conflict of interest for the government to be the distributor and the regulator?
@katran (585)
• United States
14 Jun 09
Have you ever paid for any medical care out of pocket? If you have, you must be a millionaire, because that would be the only way you could possibly afford it. Staying in the hospital for a couple of days costs more money than a lot of people make in a whole year, and that is not even including the actual procedure that gets done on you.
Having nationalized insurance will not lower the standard of care, and it will also give you more freedom to choose your own doctors and medical procedures. When everyone has insurance, the companies will not be able to jerk you around, avoid paying, and tell you when and where you can go to the doctor. Also, you can still choose what insurance you want. In Japan, people are able to get insurance through work just like here, and only are provided with national insurance if they cannot get it elsewhere. The insurance companies - not the government - get together and put a cap on prices so that they don't get out of control. Also, the vast majority of the hospitals are privately owned and operated and people have complete control over the doctors they want to see. Basically, the only differences between their system and ours are 1. It costs less to see a doctor/stay in a hospital, 2. Everyone must have insurance, and if you can't afford it or get it from work the government pays for it, and 3. They spend about $4000 less per person on health care than we do.
Sure, it's not without problems, but what in life IS without problems? They certainly have less problems when we do.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Jun 09
So the rich should have to pay for everyone's healthcare. That's awful nice of you, being so generous with money that was never yours to begin with.
