This is illustrated in a poll of White racialists currently in progress on Stormfront. In response to the question "In an ideal White nation, do you support having universal healthcare?", 61.45 percent say Yes and 38.55 percent say No as of this post. The poll was first launched on April 28th, 2013, so it reflects current thinking. One caveat to bear in mind is that because White racialists worldwide can register and post on Stormfront, the Yes vote could be swelled somewhat by racialists in countries with single-payer national health insurance, but there are still a lot of Americans who are receptive to the idea. Although the poll question does not specifically define "universal health care", the most common form of universal health care in civilized nations is single-payer national health insurance.
I'm one of those who is now receptive to the idea of single-payer national health insurance. What pushed me over the edge was the revelation earlier this month of gross disparities in the costs of similar medical procedures at different hospitals. Here's what I wrote on Alaska Pride:
On May 8th, 2013, The Week published an article entitled "Why a joint replacement costs $30,000 in one hospital and $160,000 in another", which has spawned a robust discussion on the F2 Anonboard. The Washington Post has also published a similar article. The Week points out that if you need a lower joint replacement, Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington D.C. will charge you or your insurance provider an average of $30,000, while across town at George Washington University, the same procedure will cost $69,000. Out of town? The Las Colinas Medical Center near Dallas will charge you $160,832. [Ed. Note: Similar cost disparities are observed in Alaska.]
That would be like the McDonald's at Northern Lights and Arctic Blvd. charging $3.50 for a Big Mac while the McDonald's at the nearby Midtown Walmart charges $7.50 for the same Big Mac, or the McDonald's on Geist Road in Fairbanks charging $19. Irrational and unsustainable; it does not cost five times more to make a Big Mac in Fairbanks than it does in Anchorage. This is why the price of a Big Mac is similar regardless of which McDonald's you visit anywhere on the Alaska road system.
Universal health care is also a national socialist principle; point #14 of the NSM's 25 Points of National Socialism states "We demand the treasonable system of health care be completely revolutionized. We demand an end to the status quo in which people die or rot away from lack of proper treatment due to the failure of their medical coverage, Health Maintenance Organization, or insurance policy. We further demand the extensive development of insurance for old age and that prescription drugs be made both affordable and accessible". However, to deter abuse, national health insurance should not be free; everyone must have some "skin in the game". National health insurance only needs to be affordable, like Canada's system. Here are some suggested attributes:
-- A basic "Chevy" package offering subsidized therapeutic, or medically-necessary care. No co-pay required. This package would be available only to American citizens; green card holders would have their home countries' insurance billed. People could purchase additional "Cadillac" plug-ins either through the public sector or private sector for elective care regimes.
-- No one would pay more than five percent (this figure is negotiable) of their annual income for the "Chevy" package. This means that if someone becomes unemployed and earns no income, they pay five percent of zero, or zero payment. They can still get therapeutic health care even if unemployed.
-- Implement limited asset means-testing; vital assets such as one's primary residence, motor vehicle, and retirement and rainy-day accounts would be shielded. Bank accounts outside the United States would not qualify to be shielded.
-- No coverage for illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants could get emergency care for free if they cannot pay, but must be promptly deported to their home countries once stabilized.
-- Reduce unnecessary regulation of hospitals and medical providers. In a comment to the Alaska Dispatch, Rachel Neumann notes that a lot of the expense is because of the red tape and regulations the government itself has posed on hospitals, even down to the lighting requirements.
-- Tort reform to make it harder to file nuisance lawsuits; loser pays all costs. This would reduce liability and malpractice insurance premiums levied upon medical providers.
Before proceeding, we should take a hard look at those countries where national health insurance is currently in force, and adopt their strengths while rejecting their weaknesses. Here is some valuable input from the Stormfront thread (after the jump):
-- From Elcamino: "The USA has the best healthcare in the world. The problem arises when corrupt government gets involved. When I was a kid folks would go to the doctor or hospital and pay cash because it was not that expensive. In 1965 when Medicare was established is when medical inflation took off. Here is the problem. Now there is the Obamacare. It again causes a rise in prices. The government is doing nothing to contain costs. They are just concentrating on the insurance. So to fix this the clock needs to ge turned back. Our family doctor made house calls. We were middle class. He a bit more. Also in tandem with medical inflation is tuition inflation. This effects the cost of the medical since physicians go to school. The clock also needs to be turned back on tuition costs across the board."
-- From White Dude: "Of course, obviously in the current state of the U.S. universal healthcare would not be feasible. There are too many non-Whites and illegals in this country for such a system to work. But that is why I said 'in an ideal White nation' in the opening".
-- From SaskPride: "Actually, we enjoy health care up here, but it is not without its down side...Wait times for surgery, to see a specialist etc are long. It is so abused here. People are no longer taking responsibility for their health and also taking up time everywhere in the system. Petty things like cutting fingers etc. There also is no incentive for staff to put in any work. Thank the unions for that......."
-- From Blusher: "Trying to compare the cost and style of healthcare in the U.S. with the healthcare in other countries is problematic for one main reason: none of those other countries afford patients as many rights as the U.S. does. I'm not defending that as a good thing, I'm just stating it as a fact. As a result of all of these "rights" and protections though, liability for healthcare providers is quite high and those costs need to be recouped somewhere. If we put severe limits on the lawsuits, even in cases of malpractice where the lawsuit is justified, then the cost of healthcare could be greatly reduced. Of course, having the system allow exorbitant and often frivolous lawsuits is exactly how the lawyers and insurance companies would like it to remain, but it's an absolute cancer on the system. It goes right along with all of the other victimhood and entitlement mentalities that are rampant here though, and is a big reason why our country is rotting".
-- From byron74: "Australian medicare sucks. I get robbed every year. Pay it never get anything for it".
-- Britannic Nationalist wrote: "We've had 'socialised medicine' in the UK for quite a while now, hasn't done us much harm. Not for Scandinavia either. There are some things which are just too important to people - to the nation - to leave up to 'free market' and 'supply and demand' forces. The health of the nation is one of the very most important things - it should be controlled and administered by a government which has the best interests of the people as its number one priority, not companies who have financial profit as their number one priority".
-- Racial Consciousness wrote: "Anyone who believes that universal healthcare and/or education would bankrupt our nation needs to consider a different way of looking at this subject. National Socialism is a form of socialism, but is also a form of nationalism. So that means that while it is a system which strives to put its people's needs first and raise those people up in physical health and practical education, it is also a system which places its primary focus on the homeland: this means ceasing all frivolous spending of foreign aid to countries that are nothing but veritable black holes of consuming without producing in return.
With all of the money being saved by not handing out foreign aid to countries like Israel (which consumes over 5-BILLION dollars per year), our nation would easily be able to afford to establish a universal healthcare and education system.
Also, a National Socialist system wouldn't just leave things the way they are and just print the money for the people to have access to the system - no... National Socialism would restructure the entire system from the ground up and make it as realistic and efficient as possible. Yes, the first generation of people would probably cost the system a substantial amount of money - seeing how utterly sick our people are at the moment - but future generations would require less and less of the system in terms of healthcare, because they'd all be significantly healthier than the current generations".