Nationalized Healthcare? Not In My Back Yard!

[JohnRM]

You also claimed that this would get even worse on a nationalized health care. Something the existing national health care countries don't seem to experience.
the smoking, for example has already been adressed. Most health care costs of smoking are paid directly via taxes on cigarettes. fruthermore, smokers die earlier so, while drawing more health cost, they draw less pensions
What's more, even in private health care you're still paying for other peoples' bad choices. Just not all other people, but people that fit your profile. Or do you think a representative of your insurance follows you every step to determine how healthy you live?

What about fatties and druggies? Explanation? Tax on crack? Did they raise taxes on Big Macs?

that may well be, but FWIW, the choices aren't simply fully nationalized health care vs. private health care. there are plenty of steps in between. we have a nationalized system of sorts here too, and I can influence how much I'm gonna pay.

Fair enough, but I still don't want to pay more for something that I don't need.

nope, not FACT, it's a PREDICTION

Prediction my arse! It is absolutely fact. There is no possible way that they will implement nationalized healthcare and I will not find myself paying more than 50 bucks a year in higher taxes. You cannot honestly say that.

of course you didn't, but you posted several things that meant exactly that, even in this post you said that "but if I remember correctly, we also receive more total healthcare". and you seem to cling to that claim without any proof

How does receiving more total healthcare make our system better? What makes one system better over another is the rate of survival for incoming patients and their conditions. The US apparently has a higher rate of survival for serious diseases, but as far as I know, Europe has better results when it comes to common things like flu and broken bones. Which is better? That cannot be reasonably determined, but I know which system I prefer.


Oh, BTW...My source is the book entitled, "The United States of Europe", by T. R. Reid, and if this guy isn't pro-European, I don't know who is, but even his own statements support everything that I've said.

See Chapter 6: The European Social Model (Starting, Pg. 144)

Specifically...

Looking at the long-term waiting lists at British hospitals for major operations and the long-term survival rates for cancer and other major diseases, I think I'd rather be in the United States than in Britian if somebody in my family contracted a serious disease. But for flu, colds, rashes, intestinal complaints, eye exams, and the occasional broken bone or sprain, the NHS doctors performed on par with any treatment we have had in the United States. And all for free.

Of course, with that last sentence, he neglects to offer the fact that he pays for it in taxes.

 

[IglooDame]

Libertarians celebrate selfishness. They would happily buy a fast food franchise, pump commercials that target children into being life-long customers, and then laugh and mock their fat customers when they get sick and cannot afford health care.

Your trolling seriously detracts from your actual argument, such as it is.

Any sociologist will point out that the obesity epidemic in the US is not simply a result of individual behavior, but that there are larger social factors to be considered.

I don't think people choose to be fat, and certainly they do not choose to be poor.

The measure of a society is found in how they treat their weakest and most helpless citizens.

I waft my rolls of fat and multiple chins in the direction of the OP.

You measure society how you want, and I'll measure it how I want.

 

[Godwynn]

Libertarians celebrate selfishness. They would happily buy a fast food franchise, pump commercials that target children into being life-long customers, and then laugh and mock their fat customers when they get sick and cannot afford health care.

That is a pretty bad business model, killing your customers. Imagine Phillip Morris if hundreds of thousands, if not millions had died from smoking.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Cuban Healthcare system > American Healthcare system

That is all

Pictures tell a thousand words.

http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

For those a little squeamish, I would recommend not looking at it as there are some shots with blood and other medical disorders.

 

[JohnRM]

Pictures tell a thousand words.

http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

For those a little squeamish, I would recommend not looking at it as there are some shots with blood and other medical disorders.

Yea, that is not what we fought the Spanish-American War for.

 

[Grisu]

What about fatties and druggies? Explanation? Tax on crack? Did they raise taxes on Big Macs?

there are a thousand things that detract from your average health. Being overweight and doing drugs is just two of them.
Even with private insurance you're gonna pay for other people's health risks. What about genetic diseases, etc? The only way you can really only pay what services you need is if you don't have a insurance at all, and I doubt that you'd want that.

How does receiving more total healthcare make our system better? What makes one system better over another is the rate of survival for incoming patients and their conditions. The US apparently has a higher rate of survival for serious diseases, but as far as I know, Europe has better results when it comes to common things like flu and broken bones. Which is better? That cannot be reasonably determined, but I know which system I prefer.

I don't contest that getting more total healthcare is better, I'm questioning whether the US acutally does get more total healthcare. So far I haven't seen any indicators of that.
As for the waiting lists. I can't speak for britain, but where I live waiting lists are basically unknown except for organs. I had a non-critical small operation last year and I had it done a week after I decided to have it.
As for the serious diseases, what exactly falls under seriouis disease?

 

[EdwardTking]

That is a pretty bad business model, killing your customers.

They have.

Imagine Phillip Morris if hundreds of thousands, if not millions had died from smoking.

As long as they can recruit new customers (e.g. in China and India) in greater numbers than those who die, then sales boom, profits proliferate
and up go the executive bonuses.

 

[Godwynn]

As long as they can recruit new customers (e.g. in China and India) in greater numbers than those who die, then sales boom, profits proliferate
and up go the executive bonuses.

It is sad, and I fail to realize why people even start or want to.

 

[JohnRM]

there are a thousand things that detract from your average health. Being overweight and doing drugs is just two of them.
Even with private insurance you're gonna pay for other people's health risks. What about genetic diseases, etc? The only way you can really only pay what services you need is if you don't have a insurance at all, and I doubt that you'd want that.

I don't have insurance. I do pay for whatever medical care that I need, on my own. I have absolutely no problem with that. If I get seriously injured and cannot afford the best care, because I didn't save the money for it or didn't earn enough, then that is my problem. I don't expect the government to steal from other people to save me.

I don't contest that getting more total healthcare is better, I'm questioning whether the US acutally does get more total healthcare. So far I haven't seen any indicators of that.
As for the waiting lists. I can't speak for britain, but where I live waiting lists are basically unknown except for organs. I had a non-critical small operation last year and I had it done a week after I decided to have it.
As for the serious diseases, what exactly falls under seriouis disease?

Cancers, to start.

 

[The Yankee]

I didn't have a question. I made a statement that a significant portion of the American public does not take care of itself and those of us who do are going to end up paying for that when it comes time for these people to face the result of their lifestyles.

A solution would be that, while making notes in the checkups of some person, that such choices are noted and advice is given.....then if they wind up killing themselves because of those poor choices, then they'd have to take on the burden of healing themselves.

Sounds rather radical...maybe it is. And you'll get lots of people protesting it. The biggest problems would be who gets to determine that some ailment was caused by smoking or living off chocolate and how such a system would be in place.

We'd have to figure out such things, given the prevalence of such choices in the US. Perhaps finding a way to give better education on these things may be a worthwhile investment.

 

[JohnRM]

A solution would be that, while making notes in the checkups of some person, that such choices are noted and advice is given.....then if they wind up killing themselves because of those poor choices, then they'd have to take on the burden of healing themselves.

Sounds rather radical...maybe it is. And you'll get lots of people protesting it. The biggest problems would be who gets to determine that some ailment was caused by smoking or living off chocolate and how such a system would be in place.

We'd have to figure out such things, given the prevalence of such choices in the US. Perhaps finding a way to give better education on these things may be a worthwhile investment.

I'll pass on the whole thing.

 

[Masquerouge]

Cancers, to start.

/me whistles...

http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2004/10may04/10health.html

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Despite spending more for health care, Americans do not have the best medical care in the world, according to researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and other institutions. The study is the first to use a universal set of standards to compare the quality of health care in the five countries surveyed. The researchers found that no country scored the best or worst overall and that each country was the best and worst in at least one area. The study is published in the May/June issue of the journal Health Affairs.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Peter S. Hussey, lead author of the study and a doctoral candidate in the Department of Health Policy and Management, said, "It is well-known that the United States spends much more on health care per capita than other countries, and it is commonly assumed that we have the best health care system in the world. However, the results of our study show that the United States performs better than other countries in only a few areas, while performing worse in others. This raises the question of what Americans receive for all of the money devoted to health care."

[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now the study is here:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/89#T1[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

In the United States, sparked by Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports focusing attention on gaps in the quality of medical care, interest in improving quality has expanded rapidly among policymakers, corporations, clinicians, the media, and the public.1 Despite this concern about the quality of care, U.S. policymakers and clinicians often recite the mantra, "Americans have the best medical care in the world."2 The empirical basis for this statement is unclear. The limited empirical international data on quality that exist—life expectancy and infant mortality statistics—place the United States in the bottom quartile of industrialized countries, although most observers do not attribute this poor performance primarily to the performance of the medical care system.3
This paper presents data collected for twenty-one quality indicators in five countries. Our intent is to draw attention to potential opportunities to improve medical care in the five countries; raise questions about why some countries do well on some measures and others do poorly; provoke debate within countries about health care priorities and policies; and stimulate efforts to examine, refine, improve, and collect additional data.

While the United States often performs relatively well for this set of indicators, it is difficult to conclude that it is getting good value for its medical care dollar from these data. The huge difference in the amount the United States spends on health care compared with the other countries could very well be justified if the extra money provided extra benefits. Population surveys have shown that the extra spending is probably not buying better experiences with the health care system, with the exception of shorter waits for nonurgent surgery.30 Earlier studies have shown the United States to be in the bottom quartile of population health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality.31 Our results also fail to reveal what the extra spending has bought, although there are many important places to look.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]let's take a look at exhibit 1:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]


So for cancer: the US is best only in breast cancer. Australia is the best in cervical and colorectal cancer.
And you don't want to get a kidney transplant or Hepatitis B in the States.

 

[The Yankee]

The US seems to do better than England on many categories. Yet England's system seems to be one of the many shining examples that people like to point to as something the US should follow.

 

[Masquerouge]

The US seems to do better than England on many categories. Yet England's system seems to be one of the many shining examples that people like to point to as something the US should follow.

Yes, the US outperforms the UK in 11 out of 19 categories. Now do we want to dig up the price comparison and the population coverage figures?

EDIT: and again, my points through this whole thread are:

- The current US healthcare system is the most expensive in the world (it's way too expensive for what people get)
- The current US healthcare system is not the best in the world (it's a good one, but not the best)
- Nationalized healthcare does not imply high cost and poor service (as demonstrated in multiple other countries)

 

[JohnRM]

There seems to be some nation that does better than us in each category, but we seem to beat most of them in every category. Nevertheless, I still prefer our system and I am one of those people without insurance. I do, nevertheless, receive medical care when I need it -- and pay for it myself without any complaints.

 

[JollyRoger]

There seems to be some nation that does better than us in each category, but we seem to be most of them in every category. Nevertheless, I still prefer our system and I am one of those people without insurance. I do, nevertheless, receive medical care when I need it -- and pay for it myself without any complaints.

Aren't you about to have your healthcare covered 100% by the U.S. taxpayer?

 

[Grisu]

I don't have insurance. I do pay for whatever medical care that I need, on my own. I have absolutely no problem with that. If I get seriously injured and cannot afford the best care, because I didn't save the money for it or didn't earn enough, then that is my problem. I don't expect the government to steal from other people to save me.

wow, that seems downright dangerous to me, but then it's your life. After all is said and done I'm much more willing to accept that government 'steals' from me to pay other peoples' medical bills than to steal from me to buy guns and tanks and whatnot

 

[Pokurcz]

There seems to be some nation that does better than us in each category, but we seem to be most of them in every category. Nevertheless, I still prefer our system and I am one of those people without insurance. I do, nevertheless, receive medical care when I need it -- and pay for it myself without any complaints.

So this means that if you wind up in a horrible accident that will cripple you to an extent that you will no longer be to work and support yourself so that you wouldn't be able to afford the medical help that you would need to continue living (iron lung); that you would consider it fine and dandy if your parents would have to pay for all that, in effect bankrupting them and forcing them to work at Wallmart until they are 76?

Why would it be wrong for your government/fellow citizens tax dollars to help you out in that situation?

 

[Whomp]

The problem is our tax dollars would give him free care through medicaid. IMO that the worst possible circumstance in this country.

 

[Pokurcz]

The problem is our tax dollars would give him free care through medicaid. IMO that the worst possible circumstance in this country.

Well then, and for a while I thought he was a real Man!