Universal Healthcare

[JacobEzra.]

What exactly is the problem with it?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Paying for it and ensuring a reasonable standard of care, along with the usual bureaucratic issues associated with government-run programs.

 

[Engyo]

I also get the sense that some people would miss being able to look down on others for being healthcare have-nots.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I also get the sense that some people would miss being able to look down on others for being healthcare have-nots.

Is that a problem?

 

[Engyo]

Is that a problem?

Not for me. I know some folks whose main enjoyment in life seems to be schadenfraude, though.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Which solution would you like us to implement? Socialised Medicine or Socialised Insurance? I prefer socializing the insurance aspect of medicine, creating a single payee system that eliminates all those blood sucking demons in human clothes who suck the life out of society. But I digress...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Which solution would you like us to implement? Socialised Medicine or Socialised Insurance? I prefer socializing the insurance aspect of medicine, creating a single payee system that eliminates all those blood sucking demons in human clothes who suck the life out of society. But I digress...

For any meaningful system of social health care to be implemented, I think the whole system would have to be overhauled. There should be plenty of healthcare for everyone in the US based on how much is spent in this country, but any attempt to paste something over our current system will not solve anything.

 

[Engyo]

What exactly is the problem with it?

The other problem is that as KT says, we would have to basically scrap the present system. Way too many folks have way too much vested interest (they're geting rich) to be willing to support such changes.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is strange but virtually every country in Europe has a different national health system.
Most work very well indeed. and control costs per head far below the combined American systems. The drug companies here have to compete against generic drugs, which saves literally Billions. If they do not compete, they sell nothing.

In the UK our national health hospitals compete, at least at the top level with Private hospitals. It is a no contest except for cosmetic and some elective procedures.
It then falls to the health service, to sort out the private hospital blunders.

I will grant you that at the highest level, and if you have unlimited funds, the American health care can be amongst the finest and most advanced in the world. Quite up to the standard of the money no object but free middle east Oil states. (who every one seems to ignore).

It is not in the least amusing ,that our new conservative government, is bringing in some American administrators and private units to compete against our established hospitals... but paying them with public money. sounds daft to me.

 

[Splarnst]

That we don't have it in the US.

 

[Mathematician]

It is strange but virtually every country in Europe has a different national health system.
Most work very well indeed. and control costs per head far below the combined American systems. The drug companies here have to compete against generic drugs, which saves literally Billions. If they do not compete, they sell nothing.

In the UK our national health hospitals compete, at least at the top level with Private hospitals. It is a no contest except for cosmetic and some elective procedures.
It then falls to the health service, to sort out the private hospital blunders.

I will grant you that at the highest level, and if you have unlimited funds, the American health care can be amongst the finest and most advanced in the world. Quite up to the standard of the money no object but free middle east Oil states. (who every one seems to ignore).

It is not in the least amusing ,that our new conservative government, is bringing in some American administrators and private units to compete against our established hospitals... but paying them with public money. sounds daft to me.

Even more "amusing" is the fact groundbreaking drugs that are patented for years are almost always partially funded by the taxpayer. The government should at the very least be partial shareholders in the profits (like the Singapore model).

 

[bigbadgirl]

Very good Splarnst. No waste of words there.

 

[Darkness]

What exactly is the problem with it?

It is very simple, my friend. When wall street executives gamble away people's 401(k)s it is perfectly fine, because it is private. Yet, when the government enacts a policy and it fails (e.g. Solyndra) it is reason to scrap government involvement in the entire sector/industry. The game is rigged because the private market is allowed to make mistakes, whereas the government is expected to be perfect, or else it is judge to be a failure. It is hypocrisy for the most part. If you take away my socialised Medicare you are killing seniors, but if you try to extend Medicare to all, you are killing grandma. Catch 22.

 

[Crystallas]

I don't support a government having a monopoly over it's people in any way. Especially when it comes to basic rights of life, such as what you do with your body, and seeking help from other consenting adults, regardless of certification or license.
I also don't feel that an insurance mandate = Universal Healthcare.

 

[Engyo]

I don't support a government having a monopoly over it's people in any way. Especially when it comes to basic rights of life, such as what you do with your body, and seeking help from other consenting adults, regardless of certification or license.
I also don't feel that an insurance mandate = Universal Healthcare.

OK, if we accept your arguments, then how would you deal with the problem?

 

[Splarnst]

The OP assumes there's something wrong with it sufficient to oppose its implementation. I don't believe that.

 

[JacobEzra.]

The OP assumes there's something wrong with it sufficient to oppose its implementation. I don't believe that.

I thought there was something wrong, because we do not have it here, right?

 

[Crystallas]

OK, if we accept your arguments, then how would you deal with the problem?

First, you need to sort through the problems. We can't continue to simplify a complex issue, by bundling all of healthcare into one mass.

Each issue within healthcare has unique problems that require many solutions, not one, and certainly not a central planned solution made by those who aren't necessarily best suited to make a solution for the majority. Once you have the government regulating the solutions, you also close out other, often better, ideas from entering the industries. We also don't eliminate the flaws just by writing a new law or regulation. The market itself provides the solutions that drastically cut the negatives, and it does this by introducing alternatives, options, growth in industry, as well as the much lost, doctor patient relationship.

I can not stress this enough, we have to sort through the problems, not bundle them together.

 

[Alceste]

I thought there was something wrong, because we do not have it here, right?

It's not as profitable for the private sector as the American system is. That's all that's "wrong" with it as far as your government and its corporate colleagues are concerned.

Consider this, Americans spend more per capita on Medicare alone than the next highest paying country in the WHO's database spends to insure their entire population.

 

[jarofthoughts]

This:

It's not as profitable for the private sector as the American system is. That's all that's "wrong" with it as far as your government and its corporate colleagues are concerned.

Consider this, Americans spend more per capita on Medicare alone than the next highest paying country in the WHO's database spends to insure their entire population.

The ghost saying that universal healthcare is the road to hell is a lie, pure and simple.