Health System preference

[farting bob]

I vote for a third option. free healthcare (well, is funded by taxes, but you dont need to pay anything up front when your ill and dying) for all, but a choice of own doctor, all presciptions available.
AKA: the fair way of doing healthcare that doesnt leave people to die just because its not financially right.

 

[Perfection]

The tax increases necessary to pay for "C" would also be spare change for the rich, but could mean the difference between life and death for the poor.

half a trillion dollars every year is not "spare change". Adn that's just current federal (the state and consumer pay a whole lot too) spending.

 

[Hotpoint]

I voted B

A private healthcare system undoubtedly works better than a governmental system. Governments survival doesn't require them be competitive. Private does.

I already posted refuting this over in the Would you rather live in a left wing or right wing society? thread.

WHO Healthcare Rankings

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

Please note that the countries with "socialized healthcare" do better than the United States (which also ranks only 48th on Life Expectancy and does very badly on Infant Mortality too)

And despite ranking so poorly by comparison the American Healthcare System still costs the most!

Healthcare Funding per capita (world rankings)

1 United States $4,631.00 per capita
2 Switzerland $3,222.00 per capita
3 Germany $2,748.00 per capita
4 Iceland $2,608.00 per capita
5 Canada $2,535.00 per capita
6 Denmark $2,420.00 per capita
7 France $2,349.00 per capita
8 Belgium $2,268.00 per capita
9 Norway $2,268.00 per capita
10 Netherlands $2,246.00 per capita
11 Australia $2,211.00 per capita
12 Austria $2,162.00 per capita
13 Italy $2,032.00 per capita
14 Japan $2,011.00 per capita
15 Ireland $1,953.00 per capita
16 United Kingdom $1,764.00 per capita
17 Finland $1,664.00 per capita
18 New Zealand $1,623.00 per capita
19 Spain $1,556.00 per capita
20 Portugal $1,439.00 per capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...un_tot_per_cap

"Socialized Healthcare" is more effective and cheaper.

 

[El_Machinae]

Investment by the rich leads to feedback mechanisms that increase wealth for everybody. If you tax the rich too much, you lose investment.

A rich person can buy a $2 million dollar party, and employ all those people, who will spend it on essential needs and services. If you took away that $2 million, then the party wouldn't happen, but doctors would be employed. It's a wash because every dollar will support poor people.

If the rich person spends $2 million developing a new type of bandaid, and it's a good band aid, then the rich person will make more money. Meanwhile, every single person who gets scratched will benefit from the improved medical services.

If you tax the rich too much, then no inventions will really happen. This means that we'll all get equal medical services, but they will never improve.

What {|}$~\ is advocating regarding how a rich person is allowed to spend their money; it's okay to invest, but not okay to enjoy the products of their labour. That will discourage anybody from trying to become rich.

 

[{|}$~\]

Investment by the rich leads to feedback mechanisms that increase wealth for everybody. If you tax the rich too much, you lose investment.

A rich person can buy a $2 million dollar[sic] party, and employ all those people, who will spend it on essential needs and services. If you took away that $2 million, then the party wouldn't happen, but doctors would be employed. It's a wash because every dollar will support poor people.

If the rich person spends $2 million developing a new type of bandaid[sic], and it's a good band aid[sic], then the rich person will make more money. Meanwhile, every single person who gets scratched will benefit from the improved medical services.

If you tax the rich too much, then no inventions will really happen. This means that we'll all get equal medical services, but they will never improve.

What {|}$~\ is advocating regarding how a rich person is allowed to spend their money[sic]; it's okay to invest, but not okay to enjoy the products of their labour. That will discourage anybody from trying to become rich.

I'm not saying they shoudn't enjoy the products of their labor, I'm saying that for rich people to indulge in that kind of excess while poor people are dying due to inability to afford the most basic necessities is a crime against humanity.

 

[DaveShack]

I already posted refuting this over in the Would you rather live in a left wing or right wing society? thread.

I would suggest that it depends on what factors are used to generate the WHO healthcare rankings. If the number of people who (often voluntarily) don't have insurance coverage is a strong negative weighting in that ranking, then the US might drop that far down the list even though it might come out first if that factor was overshadowed by the positive weighting to good quality care.

Also, it is very interesting to note that the dollars spent list is quantified, but the ranking list is not quantified. What if the top 40 on the ranking list are only separated by 0.002% each? Then they are all equal, but WHO has an axe to grind, and making the US look bad is the objective.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

These options are depressing.

 

[Whomp]

I already posted refuting this over in the Would you rather live in a left wing or right wing society? thread.

You can spin this any way you like.

As you see below Americans not only spend more privately (Mayo's expensive) we also rank #3 publicly and #5 from per capita government expenditure. What can I say we're unhealthy lot as you can see how often we visit the doctor. I guess we're just a bunch of stress balls.

Private per capita
Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)

• #1 United States $2,580.00 per capita

Health care funding > Public per capita

• #1 Iceland $2,202.00 per capita
• #2 Germany $2,063.00 per capita
• #3 United States $2,051.00 per capita

Per capita government expenditure on health in international dollars

• #1 Monaco 3,388
• #2 Norway 2,845
• #3 Luxembourg 2,620
• #4 San Marino 2,449
• #5 United States 2,368

Visits to the doctor

• #1 Japan 14.4 per person per year
• #2 United States 8.9 per person per year
• #3 Belgium 7.9 per person per year
• #4 France 6.9 per person per year
• #5 Austria 6.7 per person per year
• #6 Germany 6.5 per person per year
• #7 Australia 6.3 per person per year
• #8 Canada 6.3 per person per year
• #9 Denmark 6.1 per person per year
• #10 Italy 6.1 per person per year
• #11 Netherlands 5.9 per person per year
• #12 United Kingdom 4.9 per person per year
• #13 New Zealand 4.4 per person per year
• #14 Finland 4.3 per person per year
• #15 Sweden 2.8 per person per year
• Weighted average: 6.6 per person per year

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not saying they shoudn't enjoy the products of their labor, I'm saying that for rich people to indulge in that kind of excess while poor people are dying due to inability to afford the most basic necessities is a crime against humanity.

The percentage amount that a really rich person spends on luxuries is probably lower than the percentage amount that a non-really rich person does. They spend more of their time (if time=money) on taxes and investment than on luxuries. How is that unfair?

 

[Hotpoint]

I would suggest that it depends on what factors are used to generate the WHO healthcare rankings. If the number of people who (often voluntarily) don't have insurance coverage is a strong negative weighting in that ranking, then the US might drop that far down the list even though it might come out first if that factor was overshadowed by the positive weighting to good quality care.

Also, it is very interesting to note that the dollars spent list is quantified, but the ranking list is not quantified. What if the top 40 on the ranking list are only separated by 0.002% each? Then they are all equal, but WHO has an axe to grind, and making the US look bad is the objective.

If you want to read more on the WHO Report these links may help

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

You might find this PDF link worth a look too

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

 

[Hotpoint]

Per capita government expenditure on health in international dollars

• #1 Monaco 3,388
• #2 Norway 2,845
• #3 Luxembourg 2,620
• #4 San Marino 2,449
• #5 United States 2,368

The fact that the US can spend such a huge amount of government healthcare spending for just the extremely limited provisions offered by Medicare/Medicaid while we can run a universal and pretty much unlimited free healthcare system like the NHS on less certainty indicates a seriously defective use of available finance.

It's those damn inefficient private hospitals that do it you know

Healthcare is actually one of the very few sectors where state run or administered systems really do seem to do better than private enterprise in the real world, the usual benefits of competition seem to be outweighed by increased motivation of staff in the public sector and economies of scale (incidentally I've worked in both the private and public sides of the Healthcare Industry myself).

 

[zulu9812]

This thread is a joke. The options presented in the opening post deliberately skew things so that the right-wing option yields better results. People are always going to pick the option which yields better results. But there is no evident link between the the practises and results described. The original poster is trying to trick people into giving approval for right-wing economics, as most right-wing politicians try to trick people.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

System B. Choice is the key, and one does not utilize the system much anyway in order to justify a greater pay out. I concur on the greater efficiency and preferability of the private system.

 

[Whomp]

It's those damn inefficient private hospitals that do it you know

This is very true.

Healthcare is actually one of the very few sectors where state run or administered systems really do seem to do better than private enterprise in the real world, the usual benefits of competition seem to be outweighed by increased motivation of staff in the public sector and economies of scale
(incidentally I've worked in both the private and public sides of the Healthcare Industry myself).

I appreciate your views having worked in the industry. However, our government isn't particularly efficient in managing much of anything. I don't want them to get their hands around this. Lobby reform may be on the near horizon, after the most recent chain of events. If I felt our politicians weren't having their pockets lined by them then I might reconsider some aspects of our current system.