I'm more concerned about getting everyone covered by something than doing what's ideal. The chances that the US gets an NHS-like system aren't good. A hybrid system on the other hand....
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. 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
I'm more concerned about getting everyone covered by something than doing what's ideal. The chances that the US gets an NHS-like system aren't good. A hybrid system on the other hand....
So you don't want to scrap a bad system, leading to little change in your own earnings (if you'd be one of the few losers) or great savings, but trust the government on military issues, although they waste billions to look tough without purpose?
Blowing stuff up and building billion-dollar prototypes looks cooler than an MRI.
Exactly. Cooler...
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
For what? Operations, emergency room, simple check-ups, broken bones or what?
Whichever times we give for the US for a certain procedure, someone will point out one country that has a comparable (or better) time. If I point out a problem with France's healthcare, then people will say "oh, but Finland is better in that statistic", then when I point out something that the US is better than Finland in, then they will say "oh, but Germany is better in that statistic" and it becomes a scheme where the US has to be #1 in every single category in order to justify not having nationalized healthcare, but the other countries are not held to that standard to justify their nationalized healthcare.
Edit: Not to mention there can be a huge difference between rural and urban hospitals, and even comparing two urban hospitals there can be a big difference. Differences in wait times between hospitals isn't unique to America, either.
Mise said:
BS. You can however, claim that the average person would save money.
downtown said:
The people using Medicare and Medicaid still need to be treated, what makes you think those costs would just evaporate? The benefits offered by those problems are excessive and should be reduced, but good luck convincing those people of accepting a reduction in benefits.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Read the link that I posted before making comments like this. Period.
http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/no-bargain-medicare-drug.pdf
You're right in one way. The US Government spends a higher percentage of its revenue on healthcare than the Canadian government and ours covers everyone. There is something fundamentally flawed with how the US Government operates on some issues. Any healthcare reform would also have to come with a backbone.
I would judge on over-all results. If the US isn't #1 despite spending the most money, something isn't working right.
The US government is by far more wasteful than private companies. The problem is just that private companies think 90% for their owners alone.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Yeah, but the old adage "you get what you pay for' still holds true.
Wasnt there some Canadian politician in the last year who needed some type of operation and elected to get it done in the USA instead of Canada?
The premise being Canadian medicine is ok for the low class wankers who will mindlessly stand in a long line like a bunch of lemmings for their healthcare while the elite will go South to the USA to get it done right.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Lemmings, being lemmings, have a method of taking care of themselves....
Bamspeedy,
I think this is a good point, but misses some of what the nationalized healthcare supporters are trying to say. For example, defenders of the U.S. system often use as their argument for it the idea that universal healthcare involves long wait times. I, as a supporter of national healthcare, frequently point out that Germany is estimated (if I recall correctly, wait times are difficult to establish in the U.S. since there isn't a body charged with recording all the healthcare data) to have shorter wait times in a universal healthcare system. But the point is only to show that it is possible to create a universal healthcare system that doesn't involve long wait times, suggesting that the U.S. system's supporter's argument is based on an assumption that isn't true. Of course, in the real world, each system is different and has different strengths and weaknesses, and any change in the U.S. system has to carefully balance all of those factors -- but it doesn't do anyone any good to maintain false generalizations like, "universal healthcare always involves long wait times." (Actually, that's not true -- there are probably some people out there who are done a lot of good from maintaining that false generalization.)
Cleo
I think this is a good point, but misses some of what the nationalized healthcare supporters are trying to say. For example, defenders of the U.S. system often use as their argument for it the idea that universal healthcare involves long wait times. I, as a supporter of national healthcare, frequently point out that Germany is estimated (if I recall correctly, wait times are difficult to establish in the U.S. since there isn't a body charged with recording all the healthcare data) to have shorter wait times in a universal healthcare system. But the point is only to show that it is possible to create a universal healthcare system that doesn't involve long wait times, suggesting that the U.S. system's supporter's argument is based on an assumption that isn't true. Of course, in the real world, each system is different and has different strengths and weaknesses, and any change in the U.S. system has to carefully balance all of those factors -- but it doesn't do anyone any good to maintain false generalizations like, "universal healthcare always involves long wait times." (Actually, that's not true -- there are probably some people out there who are done a lot of good from maintaining that false generalization.)
Cleo
How can pensioners afford to pay for medical insurance? Do they pay it? Or do they get medical treatment free?
Merkinball
Deity
Let's be honest, you people have no faith in running your own lives. Nor do you have faith in others running their own lives. And I'm concerned that you have no desire to even see them run their own lives.
The system doesn't neglect anybody. ER's can't turn away people. There's a correct health insurance program out there for everyone if people would just look for it. Skadistic pointed out his. People can afford healthcare insurance, they just CHOOSE not to get it. Because they know that the tab will be taken up by others. For those who are in need, we have programs such as medicair and medicaid. For those who make up to fifty grand a year, eighty grand in some cases, we have programs such as SCHIP. We have a massive prescription drug care program in this country. The only way, that anybody in this country should be without healthcare, is because they either don't want it, or they are too lazy to fill out some forms and do some paperwork.
The system doesn't fail anybody. People fail themselves. Take a look at the raw numbers on people who are ininsured in this country. Take out the illegals. Take out people who make more than $50,000, take out the 20 somethings that don't think anything will ever happen to them, and your number of 47,000,000 shirks dramatically.
The Frost Family was a perfect example as to why our system isn't broken, but the will of our people is.
Since when is healthcare a right? And since when is it someone elses job, to take care of your family? You are reinforcing negative behavior when you institute a system like this. Particularly when you talk about American's. You give American's a reason to be lazy and sit on their collective a--es, and thirty million democrats will sit on their a--es, and vote for the next Democrat, cuz he's gonna give'em a little bit more to sit on their a--.
I don't hate my countrymen. I just want them to work hard. I want them to strive to achieve great things in school and college. I want them to be self-sufficient. And I want a system in place which fosters self sufficiency. Dependency is the worst thing that can happen to a man, or happen to society. Dependency on the government is an even greater unimaginable horror. We should be educating and encouraging our citizens to be self-reliant. They should have the tools to provide for themselves. We should not be erecting giant social hammocks for them to relax in. It becomes a circular burden on the rest of society. It creates social distrust, disharmony, and angst. It creates a nanny state.
The less government you have in any system, the better it will be. Because in the end, the people are taking care of themselves. They are not relying on big brother for every little thing they do in their life.
No, they don't. But it's more profitable for them to go to India. They make less nominal money, but due to cost of living, they come out on top. Many doctors are relocating to India as it is. India is building hospitals specifically for westerners. In many cases it is already cheaper to buy plane tickets to go to India for care, than it is to get care here. Many elites in Europe also go to India. I'm sorry you're so unaware of that...
People will go where they can make money. That's why Canada has no oncologists or cardiologists. That's why all kinds of healthcare clinics are popping up in Buffalo. To take care of Toronto's massively overburdened healthcare system.
How is it a fallacy? The government doesn't do anything efficiently. The government does not operate like a business. The government has no motive to streamline services. It has no motive to keep costs low. It has no motive to keep the wages that it pays its employees in line with the free market. People seek government jobs because they are extremely cushy, and pay good benefits. All at the expense of the tax payer. The government doesn't do anything right. There's nothing that the can effectively manage. They lose billions in Iraq, they spend billions on useless mass transit systems that never get used, the dump billions into their own pet projects. If the government was a business in the free market, it would go under in a heartbeat. Why do you want politicians governing your health? Why do you want lawyers running the healthcare industry? I want healthcare industry experts running healthcare, not congressmen. The government doesn't do anything efficient. So why does anybody expect them to be able to run A WHOLE FREAKIN INDUSTRY! An industry that consumes 1/7th of our nations economy.
YOU HAVE GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!
Oh, that is too much... You should have a gig on Comedy Channel.
I'm gonna leave on that zinger.
Merkinball
Deity
Just so everybody knows. 47% of the American healthcare system is subsidized by the government.
Ironically, if you map costs with government involvement, the mirror each other remarkably closely.
Ironically, if you map costs with government involvement, the mirror each other remarkably closely.
Masquerouge
Deity
That made me laugh. And yet it's so true.
From the numerous healthcare threads I've seen around here, the most vocal opponents don't care if private healthcare costs much more to the US, as long as they do not have to, and I quote, "subsidize lazy unemployed illegal people".
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
It typically depends on the type of pension they have and how much that pension pays.
However.
Old people who cant really afford insurance are the ones generally covered by medicare/medicaid.
Masquerouge
Deity
And your sources for that are...
Similar threads
- Locked
