I Don't Get It

[eumelia]

I don't get it.

Really, I don't.

I've been to the States and I didn't get it then. I've been reading up on the subject because the Interwebs are busting with the "health care" discussion.

My country has socialised medicine, we get the choice of four different HMO's, they compete with each other and have supervision and controlling rights over different hospitals.
There is a Health Basket that includes various kinds of medications that would have been unattainable for many people, but through prescription you can get your Insulin, your Xanax, your (practically) whatever you need for an affordable price.

We pay for this service along as well as for national security (so that in case we are unable to work we will still be able to afford health care) through our pay cheques or certificates if one is an independent.

Is it perfect? Hell, no. Most of the time, it is more aggravating than not.

However, this year due to an actual medical necessity I saw the health care system work and we actually got money back after the treatments my mother had to go through were done.

I understand that this sounds like luxury for some and it is. In Third World counties (not all) and in the United States.

That's really fucked up.

Also? Crazy Americans comparing Universal Healthcare to Nazi Policy, WHAT?!

Barney Frank says it better than me (via mizzpyx)

I mock.

That's what I have to say about this really, really redundant debate (it's a debate!!!).

Comments

[lishablog.livejournal.com]

I think that one of the things we need to look at as a society is what we consider acceptable pay for work. Supposedly that's all taken care of by the market, but that's a pretty lame excuse for paying some people less money that it takes to live a very basic life. If a job gives you so little money that you are still below the poverty line, why take it? Well, because you have no other choice, obviously.

I believe in a salary cap concept in which the top paid people in a company can only receive some multiplier of what the lowest paid people in the company receive. This, without any other government intervention or taxation or anything else, can put a highlight on inequities AND start fixing them. This concept works, too, in a number of companies large and small that have put the idea into practice.

Very, very few people choose to stay on welfare for any length of time if they feel that they have any other choice. The combination of job opportunities paying less than welfare and welfare taking away what little you have when you start to work put together make it pretty difficult to step onto the job track again. And then you need to make sure that the people who have been jobless for an extended time know *how* to find a decent job, how to market their existing skills and develop new ones. If those issues are addressed the "social security lifestyle" will clean up just fine.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

New Labour did talk for a little while when they first came into power about instigating a salary cap that would be a percentage of whatever the lowest paid worker in the company obtains.

And I agree, there is quite a lot of good evidence that companies that adopt this strategy do very well, because the employees feel very loyal towards that company. (Which with the way the job market is these days, company loyalty has practically vanished across the board I think.)

It would need really strong leadership from government to bring it in on a big scale though. But... you'd have thought with a labour government with such a big majority, we could have done this in the UK.