The problem is just the lobbying. The corporations want to keep their profits, the richer don't want to pay the treatment of the poorer and that guy over there doesn't want to pay his annoying neighbour's. Although it could save 60% of the money used on the privatised system, if done well.
-
In anticipation of the possible announcement of Civilization 7, we have decided to already create the Civ7 forum. For more info please check the forum here .
Why is America seemingly so opposed to a Universal Health Service?
- Thread starter Joe Harker
- Start date
Mise
isle of lucy
Healthcare is 4 times more expensive in the USA than the UK. So if the USA were to introduce a Nationalised Health Service, it would cut 75% off the healthcare expenditure of everyone in the country. Every single person in the country would save money by nationalising the health service.
It's hard to argue with that.
It's hard to argue with that.
Agent Cooper
Lynch's Creation
Compared to the approx. $150 I pay to be covered by universal healthcare per year, that is very expensive. Our 2 year old son is included without extra fee. Dental is also included although it is common you pay an amount of your own pocket. A dental checkup will cost you roughly $30-40. I also get new glasses partly covered by universal healthcare.
skadistic
Caomhanach
I like the idea of the hard working not paying for others they don't want to. It's going to take a lot for any one to get me to think that taking money from my pocket and using it to pay for others is a good idea. Its just another form of welfare and wealth redistribution. The rich and hard working will be paying for the lazy. I don't work hard to support every one else. I don't want to pay for all the people who have unhealthy life habits be they fat slobs, smokers or motocross racers. In fact the only way I would support a system like that is if a) I can opt out b) the feds take control of those who use it and dictate their eating habits make them exercise make them stop smoking and other wise force them to live the healthiest lives possible with a lot of preventative health care to reduce costs.
skadistic
Caomhanach
No its not. What are the wait times in the UK? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7233169.stm
How long to see a specialist?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/mar/03/health.politics
I'd rather pay more and actually get care. Its true when they say you get what you pay for.
Agent Cooper
Lynch's Creation
You are missing the point - you are already paying for government health expenditures via taxes. There's just no universal healthcare system. So what is gained?
Add to that - what about the people who wants to pay for insurance but are denied the option because of past medical history or something else?
I don't buy the 'people who don't pay, don't because they are lazy' version you are suggesting.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
If you're going to decrease the size of the federal government and reduce its services, you're only going to see more competition between states, which might start off a race to the bottom effect, because companies will just go to the state with the lowest taxes, and states will try to attract them.
Chazumi
Trained& Motivated Killer
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,254
skadistic
Caomhanach
I suggested nothing. Don't read into what I typed just read it. People don't pay for all kinds of reasons. No one in America is denied medical care ( fluke instances excluded). If you don't have insurance the hospital will do the surgery or other care needed. You can even set up payment plans. Or like the illegals you don't have to pay at all and let the states pay for it.You are missing the point - you are already paying for government health expenditures via taxes. There's just no universal healthcare system. So what is gained?I'm not missing any point. Do you honestly think that I don't already know and oppose the forced garnishment of my pay? You really want to know what is to gain? Look up fruad for what already exists. That ain't gonna go down when every one is forced to pay more. Thats right more not less then they already do in taxes.
Add to that - what about the people who wants to pay for insurance but are denied the option because of past medical history or something else?What about them? Do you understand why they can't get it/ Because it would cost more to treat them then they would pay in shifting the burden of cost on to others raising every ones rates.
I don't buy the 'people who don't pay, don't because they are lazy' version you are suggesting.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Not really, when its not true. I wouldnt save a penny....and in fact my taxes would go way up because of it.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Elsewhere in the world, where they have universal healthcare, it's not only more affordable to the people who need it, but also cheaper to the tax payers than the American system. Why would it be different in the US?
Wouldn't you be happier to pay (less) taxes, which would go to provide fair healthcare for the people, than paying (more) taxes for corporations for modest healthcare services?
I realy don't know if we can say that for sure. We would also be eliminating two of the three larget entitlement progrms, which eat hee--uuuge amounts of our budget (Medicare and Medicade)
So if you oppose it... what do you think of having a nationalised army? Shouldn't we just pay some private corporations to protect us? We wouldn't have to pay taxes to fund it...
Merkinball
Deity
I'm quite amazed at this thread.
Corporations...make money off of government healthcare programs...and...the solution is to...make it all government?
Perfy said it best: What does the American Government do right? Much of anything?
So many people talk about the failure's of this hodge podge system. Corporations wait in the wings for contracts. Lobbying is a huge issue. This that and the other.
Did any of you ever stop to think that the solution to this is simply to get the government out of healthcare? Holy crap! What a larf!
Suddenly, you have no more lobbying. Suddenly, you have no more corporations waiting in the wings to get fat bloated contracts. Suddenly, infinite demand in healthcare dissappears. Suddenly, all that paperwork to see a psychiatrist (BECAUSE OF GOVERNMNET REGULATIONS!) goes away.
If you educate people, they will be able to take care of themselves better than the government can. The American freakin' government. This is a group of people funding a bridge to nowhere. This is a group of people subsidizing the living hell out of farmers when crops are at record high prices.
It's amazing, because the same people who say, "Microsoft ZOMG! MONOPOLY!" Their first instinct is to...monopolize healthcare...
European brats are out there proclaiming how cheap their healthcare is. Guess where Canadian politicians go for treatment? Ever heard of doctor drain? Skadistic posted some nice links there too. America has the best everything. The best heart hospitals, the best neurosurgeons, the best cancer institutes, the best pediatric hospitals. When your people are really, really sick, they come here. Our system allows the best people to come here. Doctors in the UK make about half of what doctors and specialists. French doctors make even less that that. The same principals that lead to doctor drain in Malawi have lead to the best specialists leaving socialist countries.
How about research and development? Guess where all that takes place? Yeah, not in your European socialist namby-pamby dreamlands. It's happening here. In America. Because drug companies aren't hampered by regulations that render them unprofitable in Europe. It's American pharmaceutical corporations that are producing the most significant breakthroughs, and the most significant improvement in drugs and medicine.
And if we institute a socialized medical system here...odds are, I'd be willing to bet on it, that the next stop for all these companies and doctors...will be India.
It's amazing how afraid people are of running their own lives.
Corporations...make money off of government healthcare programs...and...the solution is to...make it all government?
Perfy said it best: What does the American Government do right? Much of anything?
So many people talk about the failure's of this hodge podge system. Corporations wait in the wings for contracts. Lobbying is a huge issue. This that and the other.
Did any of you ever stop to think that the solution to this is simply to get the government out of healthcare? Holy crap! What a larf!
Suddenly, you have no more lobbying. Suddenly, you have no more corporations waiting in the wings to get fat bloated contracts. Suddenly, infinite demand in healthcare dissappears. Suddenly, all that paperwork to see a psychiatrist (BECAUSE OF GOVERNMNET REGULATIONS!) goes away.
If you educate people, they will be able to take care of themselves better than the government can. The American freakin' government. This is a group of people funding a bridge to nowhere. This is a group of people subsidizing the living hell out of farmers when crops are at record high prices.
It's amazing, because the same people who say, "Microsoft ZOMG! MONOPOLY!" Their first instinct is to...monopolize healthcare...
European brats are out there proclaiming how cheap their healthcare is. Guess where Canadian politicians go for treatment? Ever heard of doctor drain? Skadistic posted some nice links there too. America has the best everything. The best heart hospitals, the best neurosurgeons, the best cancer institutes, the best pediatric hospitals. When your people are really, really sick, they come here. Our system allows the best people to come here. Doctors in the UK make about half of what doctors and specialists. French doctors make even less that that. The same principals that lead to doctor drain in Malawi have lead to the best specialists leaving socialist countries.
How about research and development? Guess where all that takes place? Yeah, not in your European socialist namby-pamby dreamlands. It's happening here. In America. Because drug companies aren't hampered by regulations that render them unprofitable in Europe. It's American pharmaceutical corporations that are producing the most significant breakthroughs, and the most significant improvement in drugs and medicine.
And if we institute a socialized medical system here...odds are, I'd be willing to bet on it, that the next stop for all these companies and doctors...will be India.
It's amazing how afraid people are of running their own lives.
Universal Health Care and Nationalized Health Care are different. Americans would probably oppose the latter and support the former (a system like Canada's with private doctors and public insurance) with some tweaks that still allowed private insurance.
Well Hospitals cannot turn people away if they enter the emergency room. So people without insurance often use hospitals for mundane things. If you come in with a broken bone, you'll go through quickly.
Well Hospitals cannot turn people away if they enter the emergency room. So people without insurance often use hospitals for mundane things. If you come in with a broken bone, you'll go through quickly.
To answer the OP: Americans aren't opposed to universal healthcare. The reason why we're moving towards it so slowly is because there are people making a lot of money in our current system, and people with lots of money can lobby Congress more effectively than the indigent uninsured.
Cleo
Cleo
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
It's really amazing how much nonsense one can write in one post.
This is a fallacy. I mean, it's not the government that's providing your public services -- government is basically the cabinet, and more broadly speaking the congress and senate. They're different but overlapping entities. It's not the rodeo-clown bush who's treating you, but rather public healthcare institutions, doctors and so forth.
Uh, this isn't about who has the best facilities and healthcare infrastructure, this is about the healthcare arrangement. Obviously the United States, or the heavily state-backed and subsidized healthcare companies in the US, have good facilities and can hire well paid doctors, but the people who matter -- the patients -- are often neglected. It's a bizarre health negligence system, the incentive is not to treat. Many in America can't afford to use this splendid healthcare because they can't afford it, and most Americans, unlike you, believe that healthcare is a right.
It's nice that you have sympathy for Canadians and Europeans, so much so in fact that you're willing to let millions of Americans suffer just to maintain the present bizarre and insane healthcare system that you've got in place. I never knew you had such deep hatred for your fellow countrymen.
The problems of the US healthcare system far exceed those of the European and Canadian systems, and it's painfully obvious from the WHO statistics.
Yeah, because those 800 million dirt-poor people need a face-lift and stress therapy.
Well, you see, Microsoft is a private totalitarian institution that is only, and only, created to maximize profits for its shareholders, whereas a nationalized healthcare system would be created to maximize the health and well-being of Americans.
Again, nonsense. I provided a link in one of my earlier posts, which refutes this corporate propaganda.
Actually from what I know, they make pretty good profits, althought not anything astronomical like the US. And doctors are not exactly impoverished either.
Actually, even Socialized Healthcare polls pretty well in the US.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
One, your statement is misleading in that such systems are only cheaper because there are fewer people to care for. Not so in the USA.
I would love to pay less tax and have better healthcare for everyone. But lets be real here. Thats not going to happen. We already spend a huge sum of money on healthcare in this nation and its routinely pointed out as being one of the most corrupt and fraudulent ridden programs in our history. Why do you assume the government would be able to run such a program efficiently and at low cost when you know perfectly damn well it wouldnt.
From the plans I have seen Medicare and Medicade are not eliminated at all. Course I would agree with you that they do need to be eliminated due to fraud, waste and abuse - but to simply replace them with another government program that likely will end up the same way, but even more expensive just makes no sense.
Bottom line, our government has no business in dealing with health care. Its simply not competent enough. Let it stick to the things it does do well and leave it at that.
So if you oppose it... what do you think of having a nationalised army? Shouldn't we just pay some private corporations to protect us? We wouldn't have to pay taxes to fund it...
Completely silly analogy and not really worth replying to as the answers are obvious.
Similar threads
- Locked
