Universal Healthcare

[Alceste]

No, we aren't. Also, we have been on a complete decline for years due to adding more layers of bureaucracy. On top of that, we also return a considerable amount of wounded veterans from war which count against our world ranks.

Do you even care about facts, or do you prefer just to wing it?

 

[Crystallas]

Hong Kong is closer to your ideal than the US?

The chart below illustrates the overall structure of the healthcare system and the services provided in Hong Kong:



GovHK: Overview of the Health Care System in Hong Kong

So you would rather the US switch to a mainly public system like Hong Kong's, with the government directly managing the delivery of most health care services?

LOL! See, I knew you were fishing. And Hong Kong more private than the US? I don't think so, not after what I saw when I was there last year. The US is far more public. The government has it's hands on everything here. I would almost say that the US might even have more regulation than any nation, when it comes to healthcare.

 

[Crystallas]

Do you even care about facts, or do you prefer just to wing it?

I love facts. I am waiting for some.

 

[Alceste]

LOL! See, I knew you were fishing. And Hong Kong more private than the US? I don't think so, not after what I saw when I was there last year. The US is far more public. The government has it's hands on everything here. I would almost say that the US might even have more regulation than any nation, when it comes to healthcare.

Fishing?? YOU brought up Hong Kong as an example of a better health care model. As you can plainly see from the chart, their system is almost entirely public.

In what way is the American system, which is well over half privatized, MORE public than the system in Hong Kong?

 

[Alceste]

I love facts. I am waiting for some.

Fact: The US health care system is more than twice as expensive than any other health care system in the developed world.

Fact: Despite this enormous waste of resources, it is also less effective and efficient than most other health care systems in the developed world.

Fact: The dominant feature that sets the US system apart from the other health care systems in the world is its LACK of universal health care.

There's three. Go nuts.

 

[Crystallas]

Fishing?? YOU brought up Hong Kong as an example of a better health care model. As you can plainly see from the chart, their system is almost entirely public.

In what way is the American system, which is well over half privatized, MORE public than the system in Hong Kong?

Because you ignored my statement twice. The US system is regulated in every which way or manor. There is no reason to buy the cow when you get the milk for free. The whole system if corrupt from bureaucrats that want to make money off every contract that goes into the private sector. That is the textbook definition of state-capitalism. State-capitalism is nothing like capitalism. It is a politicized term.

How can the US be half-private, if every action is regulated, every drug is regulated, every piece of equipment is regulated, every professional is certified, and they pay many layers of taxes on top of everything? Not much of that is private, if any of it?

 

[Crystallas]

Fact: The US health care system is more than twice as expensive than any other health care system in the developed world.

Fact: Despite this enormous waste of resources, it is also less effective and efficient than most other health care systems in the developed world.

Fact: The dominant feature that sets the US system apart from the other health care systems in the world is its LACK of universal health care.

There's three. Go nuts.

The third one is opinion.

 

[Magic Man]

That is not a free market. A free market would mean that I would have free entry to compete with the corrupt fat cats. A free market would mean that I could buy services from whoever across state lines. A free market would mean that I could go to a doctor, and get whatever I wanted to get without having to opt out of different state programs. A free market would mean that the person who provides the service is liable for bad services, and not protected, as long as they file hefty paperwork to satisfy standards that do not even apply in most cases. A free market is NOT what we have. It is far from a free market. It's called state-capitalism, which is nothing like capitalism or free markets. That is why it is a controlled market.

Incorrect. A free marker doesn't mean that it has no regulation or controls at all. It just means that it's a market where anyone can start a business and compete with other businesses for customers. The healthcare/insurance market is that.

 

[Magic Man]

The third one is opinion.

It's pretty hard to argue with someone who can't even acknowledge the facts. I think that's a good sign to give up.

 

[Majikthise]

IMHO, regulation and oversight are ok for the government to egage in, I just don't want these unqualified boobs actually turning the nuts and bolts.

 

[lunakilo]

Alternatively you could raise taxes and stop paying for the private insurance.
In reality you would probably have to do that in steps and not al at once, but it could be done.

So let me ask you this. What is your solution to lower the cost of the goods and services that are provided with healthcare?

I am not sure I see the connection between my sugestion and your question.

I don't have a plan for lowering the cost. Should I have?

Here, any social service we subsidize, goes up in cost. It's a means of hurdling. If we price-fix, the jobs go away. If we limit imports, we make a new enemy(we are the "arrogant war-hungry US after-all, and all of the doves in the world have had no luck fixing this one.) If we cut wages, the labor will unionize.

I have seen many examples of privatisation that went terribly wrong and cost the public lots of money when the state had to clean up afterwards.

 

[lunakilo]

This is a funny dialog. I wonder where it went wrong

For your healthcare system to work best, you need nations like the US to provide the innovations using our set of ideas. And this is a good thing because if your nation has an innovation, we benefit as well. But in the current global climate, we are in a terrible position to assume the same system as you have mentioned, and it would not be in your nation's best interest to have the US emulate Denmark.

And I don't see how the helth care system in the US has much effect on Denmark regardless of which system you implement.

Okay, then all treatments, drugs, and practices developed outside of Denmark can not be used in Denmark. Now do you see?

So you are saying that the only reason why new drugs are invented is because of the US healthcare system?

No, I said

Okay, then all treatments, drugs, and practices developed outside of Denmark can not be used in Denmark. Now do you see?

I didn't say US, I said everyone but Denmark. This was pertaining to how diversity aids to development. Let's stay in context and not hyperbole.

You started by stating that exchange of 'innovations' is a good thing and that it would not be in my nation's best interest to have the US emulate Denmark.
That must mean if the US system changed to be more like the danish 'stuff' would not be invented and that would be bad in general and that means for Denmark too.

So my reply was that I don't see why the US emulating Denmark would influence Denmark, because I don't see why that would prevent 'stuff' from being invented.

Somehow you interpreted that to mean that "treatments, drugs, and practices developed outside of Denmark can not be used in Denmark" (not sure how you came to that conclusion ). But the only reason I can see why they could not be used would be if they were not invented.

Going back to your first statement it must mean that if the US emulate Denmark 'stuff' will stop being invented.

I think we misunderstood each other at some point

 

[Alceste]

The third one is opinion.

No, it is a fact: All other developed nations have some form of universal health care. This means that essential health care is tax-funded, single payer and the care is free to the user at the point of service.

The US is the only developed country with a primarily private, profit-driven, market-dependent health care model. It is also the most inefficient and expensive system in the developed world.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Look, I know this is a debate section. I don't normally like to debate. I do, however, like to have more than one or two options, and that is what I am trying to present here. Unfortunately the US healthcare system, and universal healthcare are just two, and we are ignoring so many more possibilities, so many that I can't even think of. Many that would change the way we see a doctor. I do acknowledge that there is a way to regulate and satisfy the markets, and protect the liberties that preserve free entries and promote incentive, innovation and competition. I see most nations ignore this method, and that is the method of mean-line standardization. That is when you recognize that the market itself, by the choices of the people, have determined a new freezing point and new boiling point for issues that bear real consequences to the innocent. Not for fluke issues, and not aggressive regulation, because that stunts the productivity and sends a shock to the market. But mean-line standardization would recognize, "Hey, look, everyone avoids this type of product because it has X-toxic chemical" therefore, let's throw some restrictions on this product. Not, "well, university X has found a study that this item that we have used for 200 years has a 0.0001% chance of causing cancer, so let's ban it and ignore what good it has done to save lives and help life better." There is no mean-line, and nothing to solidify it's restrictions. Plus, I don't trust corporations, why would I trust the government that is controlled by corporations to have this kind of authority?
When it comes to healthcare, we weren't doing bad when we strictly regulated drugs and equipment for low-benefit safety. We started getting ourselves into trouble when we started regulating the efficacy. We really got into trouble when we started telling doctors that they couldn't practice natural medicine without a lot of zany loopholes. Of course, big-agriculture didn't like natural medicine, neither did big-pharma, but nobody questions why quackery is still allowed with little or no licensing? This has got to stop. We need to make our own decisions, because the ones that are being made for us is not in our interest. This nation is too big and complex for most to pay attention to all of the details on both a federal and local level. Heck, I don't think there is a person on this earth that knows every law and regulation in the books, or even 0.1% at that.

Don't think other countries have not been through the "private" stage. all of them had private medicine before universal health care. None of them could make it work any better than the USA.

My father Had a private practise in those days, and was also a partner in the local cottage hospital. It worked after a fashion. The locals were on his "Panel" paying a penny a week. the wealthy paid £5 a visit or more depending on their wealth.
It was a bad system, and every one was glad to see the back of it.

Private medicine does not work anywhere.

 

[Alceste]

This is a funny dialog. I wonder where it went wrong



You started by stating that exchange of 'innovations' is a good thing and that it would not be in my nation's best interest to have the US emulate Denmark.
That must mean if the US system changed to be more like the danish 'stuff' would not be invented and that would be bad in general and that means for Denmark too.

So my reply was that I don't see why the US emulating Denmark would influence Denmark, because I don't see why that would prevent 'stuff' from being invented.

Somehow you interpreted that to mean that "treatments, drugs, and practices developed outside of Denmark can not be used in Denmark" (not sure how you came to that conclusion ). But the only reason I can see why they could not be used would be if they were not invented.

Going back to your first statement it must mean that if the US emulate Denmark 'stuff' will stop being invented.

I think we misunderstood each other at some point

Crystallis makes a lot more sense if you make a lot of wildly incorrect factual assumptions first. For example, he is assuming that the CEOs of the US health industry are spending all that extra dough Americans pay for their inferior health care system on "innovation" rather than yachts.

This is nonsense but without understanding this a priori assumption, it's impossible to make sense of the rest.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You know Corporations actually pay people to muddy the issues like this on forums.
It make you wonder.....

 

[Alceste]

You know Corporations actually pay people to muddy the issues like this on forums.
It make you wonder.....

It does, doesn't it.

 

[Alceste]

You know Corporations actually pay people to muddy the issues like this on forums.
It make you wonder.....

Poked around. Seems legit. I think we are beholding the wonder of a sincere but fantastically erroneous opinion.

 

[Crystallas]

You know Corporations actually pay people to muddy the issues like this on forums.
It make you wonder.....

Should I be snooping to discover the truth about someone here?

 

[Crystallas]

Going back to your first statement it must mean that if the US emulate Denmark 'stuff' will stop being invented.

I think we misunderstood each other at some point

Not quite, but it would limit diverse thinking. I think I have understood you, and I have tried not to make assumptions or draw conclusions.