Universal health care would be a good thing

[Autodidact]

A plan for universal health care in the U.S., similar to any one of several European plans, would be a good thing for the country and its people. It would save money, increase longetivity and health, increase our competitiveness in the world economy, and generally be a good thing.

 

[Reverend Rick]

A plan for universal health care in the U.S., similar to any one of several European plans, would be a good thing for the country and its people. It would save money, increase longetivity and health, increase our competitiveness in the world economy, and generally be a good thing.

Increase our competitiveness? How so? What would be the incentive to look for the least expensive provider or encourage drug companies to find a cure or a new drug?

If we had universal health care, who would we be competing with and how would this competition help us?

 

[Autodidact]

Right now American companies have to compete against companies from other countries who don't have to bear the labor cost of providing health care for their workers, which puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

European countries contain medical costs primarily because the government is in a strong negotiating position with the providers, and negotiate lower cost health care. That's the incentive for the least expensive provider.

I don't see how drug companies incentives would change?

Did you know that every country that provides universal health care does so at a much lower cost per capita than us? That is, everyone is covered, and they're spending less per person--not per covered person--than we are.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I could see where we could get too focused on cost and people who meant well could say we should make smoking illegal or high risk behaviors as well, like riding a motorcycle or certain sexual lifestyles could be frowned upon in the name of reducing costs, which I would personally be against. I may have quit smoking, but it was my decision. I would hate to have had to quit because I was required to.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The Problems with Socialized Health Care

 

[Autodidact]

I could see where we could get too focused on cost and people who meant well could say we should make smoking illegal or high risk behaviors as well, like riding a motorcycle or certain sexual lifestyles could be frowned upon in the name of reducing costs, which I would personally be against. I may have quit smoking, but it was my decision. I would hate to have had to quit because I was required to.

So the problem is that it wouldn't be cost effective, but it would be too cost effective?

Does any country with universal health care do this now?

 

[Autodidact]

The Problems with Socialized Health Care

O.K., a link alone is not helpful. Is there a specific problem that you want to claim actually exists? Something that you think would be made worse by universal health care?

 

[Storm]

World Health System Rankings

We're 37. Saudi Arabia beat us, for crying out loud!

 

[Reverend Rick]

World Health System Rankings

We're 37. Saudi Arabia beat us, for crying out loud!

They should beat us, they have more money. The quality of healthcare and money spent does seem to matter.

HMO's save money and everyone who participates in them think they suck.

 

[Reverend Rick]

O.K., a link alone is not helpful. Is there a specific problem that you want to claim actually exists? Something that you think would be made worse by universal health care?

Besides having less freedoms and liberty by being controlled by the government, I believe the quality and availability would be an issue.

One simple question, do you really believe the government will run the health care industry better than the private sector and quality and service will improve?

 

[Reverend Rick]

O.K., a link alone is not helpful.

Here is another unhelpful link.

Americans are too creative & innovative for universal health care « No Compromise When it Comes to Being Right!

 

[Reverend Rick]

So the problem is that it wouldn't be cost effective, but it would be too cost effective?

Like any other government run program, it would be full of abuse, waste, and unproductive practices. We would be controlled by cost, I doubt we would enjoy any benefits of cheap medicine which is an oxymoron.

 

[Storm]

Besides having less freedoms and liberty by being controlled by the government, I believe the quality and availability would be an issue.

One simple question, do you really believe the government will run the health care industry better than the private sector and quality and service will improve?

No, I think it'll remain about the same, but everyone will have access.

Why do you think the quality and service would decline?

 

[trinity2359]

Because who puts in their best effort when they are purchased at the lowest bidder?

have you ever been a member of an HMO? My friend who served 17 years in the NYC police department is retired on disability and has to wait THREE MONTHS for an operation to be scheduled after waiting TWO YEARS for a proper diagnosis. In the meantime she can barely walk and is dopped up on pain meds. Where is the quality in that?

 

[tomspug]

Now that Hillary is out of the running, a universal health care plan doesn't seem very likely. Apparently, Barack supported it too. We'll see if he brings it up in the debates.

 

[Halcyon]

Like any other government run program, it would be full of abuse, waste, and unproductive practices. We would be controlled by cost, I doubt we would enjoy any benefits of cheap medicine which is an oxymoron.

I don't think you understand how it works. The NHS here is funded by a tax called the National Insurance which comes directly out of my wages each month and represents a small percentage of my total earnings.
I get to walk into any hospital or register with any doctor and receive free healthcare - this means if I'm wheeled into A&E with a broken hip, I get a free operation to fix me - same with a broken arm, measles etc etc. It also reduces the cost of the dentist and other related services.

We pay a certain amount toward pharmaceutical medicines prescribed by a GP, but not the total amount.

Plus, if you want, you can opt for private healthcare and pay for medical treatment out of your own pocket just like you do in the US - this generally means you will be seen faster and at times more convenient to you, but otherwise there aren't that many benefits over the NHS.

 

[Autodidact]

Rather than rely on ideology and speculation, I think it's helpful to look at what actually happens when countries adopt universal health care, do you agree? And in doing that, I would look not at a few anecdotes or isolated incidents, but try to get a picture of the overall systems and how they're working. So what I will do is look at:
1. Cost per person.
2. Mortality statistics.
3. Data on satisfaction, from the people receiving care.

As we go along, we might come across some other useful measure, but I think these ones would be a start--do you agree?

I have looked at this only a bit in the past, since you raised it with me, but not extensively. Let's pick a couple of countries that have universal care, and a couple that don't, and see what we find out about how the systems are working for the people there. I haven't done the research yet, so let's agree in advance on some representative countries. I want to include the U.S. as a country w/o universal health care, since that's what we're comparing to. I nominate Canada, since they resemble us in many ways. What other countries should we use? Netherlands? Spain? Israel? France? New Zealand? Japan would be a good one, I think, since it is populous, industrialized and wealthy, like us. And let's have one other country that doesn't have universal health care, such as Mexico, Egypt or Pakistan. Unfortunately, there are not many wealthy, modernized countries that don't have it. All sound logical to you, Rick?

 

[Alceste]

As a Canadian I think Americans who don't support socialised medicine are clinically insane. I mean, really, certifiable. You pay twice as much per capita for health care as countries with socialised medicine, and the service you receive for this exorbitant sum is worse by any measure you could consider. (High infant mortality, low life expectancy, etc). On top of that HALF of all bankruptcies in the USA are the direct result of inability to pay medical bills. HALF.

But, not only are you insane, you're also dangerous to the rest of us, because our own governments are (regrettably) full of fanboys who want to privatise medicine because they have been exposed to too much of your propaganda claiming that private business is more efficient, innovative and cost-effective at everything, including public services.

But I don't pay my effing taxes so that the gov't can contract public services out to private businesses who always crank up prices while reducing the quality of service, no matter what they get their hands on. I pay my taxes to the government so that a democratically accountable organisation that I personally have a stake in can provide vital public services in a fair and open manner.

Anyway, the point of all this is that if Americans would just rally around the cause of socialised medicine, we'd all breathe a lot easier in Canada and the UK. Our own health care systems are being eroded because your crap system is very, very profitable. All that extra money from your paying double for worse service is going into somebody's pocket, which is "good for the economy", which is like cocaine to governments in Canada and the UK.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

India lost to Iraq...

 

[Autodidact]

You do raise an interesting point, Alceste, that we can do a rough poll right here. RFer's:
1. What country do you live in?
2. Does that country have any form of universal health care?
3. How satisfied are you and the people around you with their health care system?
4. Would you want your government to change from a universal to non-universal system, or vice versa, as the case may be?