If there are public schools, why can't there be public health care?

Isn't this the same logic? If there are public schools competing against private schools, then why can't there be public health care competing against private.

Yale isn't going anywhere just because there are state universities.

The difference is public schools are free to everyone. The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care.

Uhh, you need an education! Duh. :PxTheExploited

The difference is public schools are free to everyone. The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care.

Pirate700

Because like public schools, it would suck and be chaotic.

The difference is public schools are free to everyone. The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

The difference is public schools are free to everyone. The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care.

Locke562

Because like public schools, it would suck and be chaotic.

Crimtmp

Most schools in England are public, most people still get good grades..

[QUOTE="Locke562"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

The difference is public schools are free to everyone. The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="xTheExploited"]Uhh, you need an education! Duh. :PRJay123

[QUOTE="Crimtmp"]

Because like public schools, it would suck and be chaotic.

CBR600-RR

Most schools in England are public, most people still get good grades..

Ok well I was only talking about over here, guess I needed to clear that up.

Considering the state of American public schools as opposed to private schools, I think comparing education to healthcare serves as an argument for the other side.fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Considering the state of American public schools as opposed to private schools, I think comparing education to healthcare serves as an argument for the other side.Locke562

IDK, were 37th in health though, most of the peeps above us have( you guessed it) socialized medical care

[QUOTE="Locke562"][QUOTE="fidosim"]Considering the state of American public schools as opposed to private schools, I think comparing education to healthcare serves as an argument for the other side.fidosim

all the doctors at my office are worried about public health care because their pay will be cut from it lol.

all the doctors at my office are worried about public health care because their pay will be cut from it lol.

Crimtmp

If our health care was our public school system, Half the population would have died a long time ago. ferrari2001

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Locke562"] Our Public schools aren't nearly as bad as our healthcare "system." We're ranked, what, 16th or 17th in the world? The ranks are based on Science Education as well, which is lacking in parts of the country.Locke562

Yes but see, education deals with people's lives and livelihood; you can't survive without it, not like healthcare. /lol

[QUOTE="Locke562"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] I think you're referring to the World Health Organization's rankings, which I believe factor in how available public healthcare is as part of its score.fidosim

over 40 million don't. and several million more either have huge loans from paying for it and have other financial problems, or suffer without it to avoid teh bills. first rate? not quite. again 37th on the WHO rateing, and the countries above us( with socialized healthcare) have better stats and such, like higher life expectancy.

[QUOTE="Locke562"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] I think you're referring to the World Health Organization's rankings, which I believe factor in how available public healthcare is as part of its score.fidosim

Because public schools are capitalism, and public medicine is socialism. Duh.

over 40 million don't. and several million more either have huge loans from paying for it and have other financial problems, or suffer without it to avoid teh bills. first rate? not quite. again 37th on the WHO rateing, and the countries above us( with socialized healthcare) have better stats and such, like higher life expectancy.SamusFreak

I think this cartoon sums it up pretty well:

And yes, U.S. health care is first rate quality. Technology, quality of doctors, staffing, medical equipment, etc.

And life expectancy is pretty similar in most western countries.

[QUOTE="Locke562"][QUOTE="fidosim"]Considering the state of American public schools as opposed to private schools, I think comparing education to healthcare serves as an argument for the other side.fidosim

Also, a bit of a side note; "public health care" is a bit a misnomer considering how in most countries besides - say - the UK, health care is set up much like the U.S. in the sense that you have public hospitals, you have private non-profit hospitals and you have private for-profit hospitals; the only difference is that the insurance is in some cases partially or entirely publicly financed.

[QUOTE="Locke562"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] I think you're referring to the World Health Organization's rankings, which I believe factor in how available public healthcare is as part of its score.fidosim

Public education is managed on a state level. It is most likely infeasible to have healthcare on a state level, and it would be unconstitutional if the federal government started universal health care. As it should be. Keep the federal government out of as many things as possible.

Public education is managed on a state level. It is most likely infeasible to have healthcare on a state level, and it would be unconstitutional if the federal government started universal health care. As it should be. Keep the federal government out of as many things as possible.

OnTheBayou

[QUOTE="Locke562"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] How Public or accessible the care is is a standard. It's a standard because every other first world country has some sort of public health care system.

fidosim

Public education is managed on a state level. It is most likely infeasible to have healthcare on a state level, and it would be unconstitutional if the federal government started universal health care. As it should be. Keep the federal government out of as many things as possible.

OnTheBayou

[QUOTE="OnTheBayou"]

Public education is managed on a state level. It is most likely infeasible to have healthcare on a state level, and it would be unconstitutional if the federal government started universal health care. As it should be. Keep the federal government out of as many things as possible.

-Sun_Tzu-

Public education is managed on a state level. It is most likely infeasible to have healthcare on a state level, and it would be unconstitutional if the federal government started universal health care. As it should be. Keep the federal government out of as many things as possible.

OnTheBayou

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="OnTheBayou"]

Public education is managed on a state level. It is most likely infeasible to have healthcare on a state level, and it would be unconstitutional if the federal government started universal health care. As it should be. Keep the federal government out of as many things as possible.

OnTheBayou

Hence why the topic is being debated within the Houses of Congress amongst the State representatives; if the States decide by a two-thirds majority to make healthcare a federal issue, then so it will be, and it is perfectly legal under the Constitution.

[QUOTE="Locke562"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

The difference is public schools are free to everyone. The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care.

Pirate700

The US spends 16% of it's GDP on healthcare and leaves 25% of the populace without coverage. The UK spends 8.4% of its GDP on healthcare and leaves 0% of its populace without coverage.

Just because the taxes need to be paid doesn't mean it will be more expensive. Think of what you already have to pay your HMOs. That would go to the government instead if universal healthcare got instituted in this country. And the nice thing about government healthcare is that the government isn't going to try to cancel your coverage when you attempt to file for an organ transplant or dialysis.

Also, when it comes to our government, a lot of the things people cite as "proof" that our government is incompetent were either designed to be that way or they're unaware of the reasons why that system isn't functioning optimally. Our education system is bad because it's not centralized like every other industralized nation's education system. The federal government has a few very basic rules about education but other than that it's up to state governments to dictate what must be done, and even then most matters are decided upon at the county level. As a result the quality of education differs wildly depending on which school district you're in. If you're in a rich, well to do area then the education quality will be on par with the rest of the world. If you're in a poor area then the education is going to suck. This could be remedied by creating a federal department of education, but then all the states would start crying about state's rights so we can't do that.

Let's not forget that the government is extremely competent when it comes to things that our politicians actually want us to be good at. For example, look at our military. That's where the vast majority of our federal budget gets spent and it shows.

Something to consider is that at some point in time, the postal service, the fire department, and education were not publically run in the US. You actually had to pay for those services and if you didn't, well, tough luck. I think we can all agree that we like being able to call 911 and get a few fire trucks sent to a burning building without having to be signed up on a service plan first, yeah? So why not do the same thing with healthcare? Last I checked our government was pretty good about putting out fires.

[QUOTE="OnTheBayou"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I was not aware of the "No universal health care" clause in the Constitution. Theokhoth

Hence why the topic is being debated within the Houses of Congress amongst the State representatives; if the States decide by a two-thirds majority to make healthcare a federal issue, then so it will be, and it is perfectly legal under the Constitution.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="OnTheBayou"]Uh oh, looks like someone doesn't know their Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Establishing health care is not a power delegated to the United States, and is therefore a reserved power of the state governments.

OnTheBayou

Hence why the topic is being debated within the Houses of Congress amongst the State representatives; if the States decide by a two-thirds majority to make healthcare a federal issue, then so it will be, and it is perfectly legal under the Constitution.

Universal healthcare itself is not unconstitutional; if it were implemented without the votes of the Legislative Branch (and the approval of the other two branches, like that wouldn't happen), then it would be unconstitutional. But that's not what's happening at all.

Poor people don't deserve healthcare. If they cannot afford private healthcare, then they simply don't work hard enough. nchan

I heard the Uk was going broke with their health care.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="OnTheBayou"]Uh oh, looks like someone doesn't know their Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Establishing health care is not a power delegated to the United States, and is therefore a reserved power of the state governments.

OnTheBayou

Hence why the topic is being debated within the Houses of Congress amongst the State representatives; if the States decide by a two-thirds majority to make healthcare a federal issue, then so it will be, and it is perfectly legal under the Constitution.

Poor people don't deserve healthcare. If they cannot afford private healthcare, then they simply don't work hard enough. nchan

Of course, my mother, who is on disability due to her being lfted by the neck by an abusive person and thus cannot work and lives on welfare, and has no health insurance, must not deserve it by your criteria.

[QUOTE="OnTheBayou"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Hence why the topic is being debated within the Houses of Congress amongst the State representatives; if the States decide by a two-thirds majority to make healthcare a federal issue, then so it will be, and it is perfectly legal under the Constitution.

STAR_Admiral

I heard the Uk was going broke with their health care.

corwinn01

Poor people don't deserve health care at the expense of someone else paying it for them.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="OnTheBayou"]

Public education is managed on a state level. It is most likely infeasible to have healthcare on a state level, and it would be unconstitutional if the federal government started universal health care. As it should be. Keep the federal government out of as many things as possible.

OnTheBayou

Poor people don't deserve health care at the expense of someone else paying it for them.

corwinn01

Poor people don't deserve health care at the expense of someone else paying it for them.

corwinn01

Once again, my mother, who cannot work due to disabilities entirely beyond her control, must not deserve the healthcare she can't get because of this.