Universal HealthCare - Why? - The Pros & Cons

Universal HealthCare - Why? - The Pros & Cons

Universal HealthCare - UHC - is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms.

Why do we need it?
* Is one reason because costs have been driven out of the reach of the average citizen?

Is it economically & ethically sustainable?
* Is the funding for this Universal HealthCare going to be like trying to fill a Black Hole?
* Will it go the way of Social Security whereas there are more users than payers?
* Will medical services have to eventually be 'rationed' like in some countries causing death rather than curing the sick?

Experiences:
While most industrialized/advanced countries have UHC, with exception of the USA & Turkey, if you do have it what are your experiences pro & con? And are these experiences typical/universal throughout your system?

Are you perfectly happy with your system? If yes, why? If not, do you think it can be improved? How?

Have you become disillusioned with your system? Why?

Is your system ' FREE ', or do you have a co-pay/out-of-pocket/excess payment? If you pay, is it getting more expensive? Was it always this way?

We would like to discuss these issues with you, & hear your opinions whether you agree with UHC or you disagree with UHC.

Please state the Country you are from, or the Country you have had direct first hand experience in/with their system.

Please, try to keep the discussion civil, & show those with differing opinions than your own the basic respect due all.

Please take time to answer our poll, even if you have decided not to take part in the debate. Thanks

First hand experience: Germany and the US.

In Germany it's difficult but not impossible to lose health insurance, and it covers more or less whatever is necessary. You never see a doctor's bill although you may be required to pay a (usually small) share for some medications and such. Getting sick is not going to ruin anyone. And that's the big difference to the US. If you get sick here you start paying through the nose even if you have insurance. There's always a deductible, copayment, just-because-we-can fee, some detail that's not covered by your crappy insurance, whatever. There's a metric shitload of paperwork ( mostly bills though ), getting through it makes you sick all over again.

And the other side? People always draw the comparison between Canada's system and the U.S., and actually universal health care starts to look pretty bad in that comparison - so we would like to hear if your experiences in Germany correspond.

The main complaints with Canada have to do with waiting lists, denials, and drug costs. Okay, simple exams are just that - simple - but some surgeries have 6 month waiting lists. Why? Well, higher demand since it isn't a question of cost, and also fewer doctors ... they can make 3-5 times as much in this country so they do, or just fewer people go into medical specialties up there. Not that HMOs don't deny things as unnecessary here either, but here you have a choice. And ... well, working in Wal-mart less than 100 miles from the Canadian border I hear all the time how much both over the counter and prescription medicines would cost people "back home", it's amazing that so many of the medicines we take for granted are 2-3 times more just across the border. (I would assume either taxes or just the drug companies charging more because they are limited on how much they can charge for other stuff.)

Any of that in Germany, or is Canada's experience a fluke?

I'm unclear, are you saying that prescriptions cost more in Canada under it's form of UHC than in the USA?

The ones that aren't paid for do, their form of UHC doesn't include all prescription drugs. I heard it particularly about prescription allergy medication, I'm not sure (since I don't live there) what drugs are or are not covered.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

And the other side? People always draw the comparison between Canada's system and the U.S., and actually universal health care starts to look pretty bad in that comparison - so we would like to hear if your experiences in Germany correspond.

The main complaints with Canada have to do with waiting lists, denials, and drug costs. Okay, simple exams are just that - simple - but some surgeries have 6 month waiting lists. Why? Well, higher demand since it isn't a question of cost, and also fewer doctors ... they can make 3-5 times as much in this country so they do, or just fewer people go into medical specialties up there. Not that HMOs don't deny things as unnecessary here either, but here you have a choice. And ... well, working in Wal-mart less than 100 miles from the Canadian border I hear all the time how much both over the counter and prescription medicines would cost people "back home", it's amazing that so many of the medicines we take for granted are 2-3 times more just across the border. (I would assume either taxes or just the drug companies charging more because they are limited on how much they can charge for other stuff.)

Any of that in Germany, or is Canada's experience a fluke?

I'll have to speak for the UK. There are waiting lists for non urgent treatments. If you need a hip replacement, you'll probably have to wait a little while. Maybe even six months. Need urgent life saving heart surgery? Got cancer? Treatment is very quick. There'll always be stories of screw ups and the such, but for the most part, it's quick enough.

No waiting lists in the US? Well, those people waiting till they have the cash will never be registered as being on a waiting list, will they. I know of a couple of examples of this. It's also fair to say that many US citizens will go without some of those non urgent but life improving surgeries and keep the cash instead. That is a choice I suppose.

Denial of care? This has been a contentious issue in the UK, as a new system implemented a few years ago created something of a postcode lottery, but this is being amended. However, most of these 'denials' involve experimental drugs where a successful outcome is unlikely. A whilst they make the newspaper headlines in a big way, they affect very few people. And this happens in the US too.

Costly drugs? Name any drug you like, and I'll tell you the price in the UK to British citizens. Absolutely any drug. Doesn't matter if it costs $10 to make or $10,000. It'll cost a working British citizen $10 per prescription. Whatever the drug. If you're over 65, under 18, out of work or (I believe) live in Socialist Scotland, it's free. From what I've read the UK is the world leader when it comes to drugs.

I've lived in a couple of countries and am reasonably well aware of the situation in the US, with quite a few relatives there. I wouldn't mind staying in Mexico. I wouldn't mind living in the US either. And health care isn't the sole factor in choosing where we do live. But in the end we will go and settle in the UK, and health care is one of the bigger reasons we'll go there.

For me, the health services offered in the US and UK bear no comparison - I'd choose the UK system in a heartbeat. Much like, in economic terms, I'd choose the US over Mexico.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Universal HealthCare - Why?

Simple, we are the only modern, industrialised country without it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxdRI_OV5K8

I will elaborate more tomorrow.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

And the other side? People always draw the comparison between Canada's system and the U.S., and actually universal health care starts to look pretty bad in that comparison - so we would like to hear if your experiences in Germany correspond.

The main complaints with Canada have to do with waiting lists, denials, and drug costs. Okay, simple exams are just that - simple - but some surgeries have 6 month waiting lists. Why? Well, higher demand since it isn't a question of cost, and also fewer doctors ... they can make 3-5 times as much in this country so they do, or just fewer people go into medical specialties up there. Not that HMOs don't deny things as unnecessary here either, but here you have a choice. And ... well, working in Wal-mart less than 100 miles from the Canadian border I hear all the time how much both over the counter and prescription medicines would cost people "back home", it's amazing that so many of the medicines we take for granted are 2-3 times more just across the border. (I would assume either taxes or just the drug companies charging more because they are limited on how much they can charge for other stuff.)

Any of that in Germany, or is Canada's experience a fluke?

Not in my experience. I always had plenty doctors to choose from, I never heard of a long waiting list on surgery although I never needed any myself. Fewer doctors than in the US? Not really. For my US visa I had to collect some medical statements from different doctors, I found them all in the same street in Berlin ( ok, Schlosstrasse is a pretty major road but still ). I don't know if doctors in Germany make more or less than doctors in the US, I have no idea what either actually make but being a doctor in Germany definitely puts you in the upper income class. Prescription cost - hard to compare, I never had to pay a lot there either. It seems to depend on what your doctor thinks is necessary - you'll have to pay for aspirin but things like vaccinations or antibiotics are usually free or almost free. For the visa I had to get an extra vaccination, didn't cost me a penny. Probably because it was one I was supposed to have had as a child anyway, vaccinations against diseases uncommon in germany ( like the stuff you'll want if you visit tropical contries ) will cost something, but probably not a lot.

I only have experience with the UK's NHS, frankly I can't see why anyone would prefer the US's system to it.

Yep, I would agree - although I (touch wood) have never had a serious or life-threatening illness, it seems to work very well for day-to-day patient care. There's no doubt that the service is overstressed in places, but private healthcare is still available if you need it and can afford it.

What we need more than anything is a policy to "prevent" illness such as reduced premiums if you join and use a health club, etc.

Yes, universal, or at least global, health care is a good idea. Unfortunately universal health care largely applies to Europe and North America. Elsewhere if you get gravely ill and have no money, more likely than not you'll die.

[/img]
Why do Universal Healthcare?

...because Tommy Douglas did it nearly 50 years ago in Saskatchewan that's why. Surely you are not going to let SASKATCHEWAN outdo you

Sounds like a good idea, and I've supported some sort of universal coverage here in the past. But without going into the comparative quality of health care systems that I don't know much about anyway, I'll offer two huge problems that will probably kill the concept for this country for the foreseeable future:

1. Something like three-fourths of people who are privately insured right now are happy with their health care plans and do not want to be included in a government plan. Most people will ask why Medicaid and Medicare can't be fixed first.
2. Just a few months ago the government spent nearly a trillion dollars on the economic stimulus package. We can't afford it.

There are many reasons why adopting universal health care in the United States is the right thing to do. First, it would save money. Yes, you read that right - SAVE money. At first glance it would appear that providing better health care to more citizens would add substantial cost. There are more than 40 (47 million I would reckon) million Americans without health insurance. If no other changes were made in our health care system, providing basic health care to those 40 (or 47 million as I reckon) million Americans would increase the $1.9 trillion per year cost of the American health care system by an estimated $77 billion — about a 4% increase. But that 4% increase would only be present if we added yet another level of complexity to our bloated private payer system, and that would be foolish. How can providing health care for the 16% of Americans who don't have insurance add only 4% to our nation's health care bill? The only health care now available to those without insurance is emergency rooms — the most expensive and least efficient mechanism for handling medical care. Routine care, preventative treatment and medication are far lower cost as well as being more humane than waiting until crisis drives sick people to the emergency room. In addition, today, many people enter our medicare system at 65 with conditions that could and should have been addressed years earlier under a more reasonable system. It costs our nation fully as much to perform a hip transplant at age 65 as it would have cost to save the individual years of suffering by performing the procedure earlier.

Around the world, the per capita cost of health care is generally proportional to national income levels. The United States is the only developed country whose health care costs are dramatically higher than would be expected from our income levels. Our costs are $480 billion per year (33%) higher than would be expected from our income levels. Do we receive better health care for those dollars? Objectively, no. $480 billion is a huge amount of money. It's $1600 per year for every man, woman, and child. It's more than six times the additional cost of providing ongoing health care to those now without medical insurance. So where does that $480 billion go? Are Americans sicker than others? The bottom line is, no. We get a few conditions more often, many others less often, and we are on average younger than the citizens of other highly developed countries, which would be expected to lower our health care cost substantially. How about the costs of medical malpractice insurance and litigation? Our country's excess in damage awards costs us $20 billion per year. While this is certainly an area for correction, it only represents 4% of the overspending.

The $412 annual per capita that the United States spends on the administration of it's health care system is six times more than it is projected to be under a public system — that's a savings of almost $100 billion per year. A full $75 billion per year of that currently goes directly to the corporate profits and additional costs imposed by the private payer system. That alone is equivalent to the incremental cost of providing health care to our 40 million uninsured Americans. Moreover, a universal system would provide a platform for reducing the costs of drugs, devices, and other costs that have become run-away under our current system. Should the expected cost savings be the primary reason for adopting universal health care? How about improving the nation's productivity because we'll be healthier? Should our primary argument be that a universal health care system is even more crucial to our nation's future than a universal education system? For me, the primary argument for universal health care in the United States is that it is the only morally acceptable response to the suffering caused by illness. For me, it's a bonus that universal health care will reduce costs, but I would vote to provide medical care to all our citizens, regardless of the cost.

Serious illness is always a personal catastrophy. Over 50% of personal bankruptcies are the result of medical costs, and untold lives and families are destroyed by our nation's callous disregard of its citizens. Our current system serves the rich, the very poor, those over 65, and those healthy enough and fortunate enough to work for employers who provide private health insurance. Everyone else is out of luck. Once one is thrown out of the current system, it is impossible to get back in. Once you get sick, you are labeled as having a "preexisting condition," and cannot get private health insurance at any price. Further, even if you are healthy enough to work, you are unlikely to find an employer who will hire you, as it drives up the company's insurance rates to employ those with a "preexisting condition." But of course it will never say that in the rejection letter.

I base all this from "Accounting for the cost of health care in the United States" by the prestigious McKinsey Global Institute.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

2. Just a few months ago the government spent nearly a trillion dollars on the economic stimulus package. We can't afford it.

Nonsense.
If we cut our military expenditures by 1/4, the money is there.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

2. Just a few months ago the government spent nearly a trillion dollars on the economic stimulus package. We can't afford it.

Nonsense.
If we cut our military expenditures by 1/4, the money is there.

Exactly, here is Canada I would say that if we cut back on Minister's and MP's salaries we could do a lot more... and the politicians would still live perfectly fine.

In the case of Alberta we can do even better, cut back on Ministers and MLAs salaries, and INCREASE Oil and Gas Royalties. The line of "they will move" does not apply, where will the oil companies move too? Conventional Oil in Alberta is nearly gone anyway, what matter is the Tar Sands and they are not going to just abandon those even if the government takes a larger cut.... but I digress back to healthcare

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

2. Just a few months ago the government spent nearly a trillion dollars on the economic stimulus package. We can't afford it.

Nonsense.
If we cut our military expenditures by 1/4, the money is there.

Do you know what the projected cost of "Obamacare" is?

(edit) And would cutting military spending by 25% "fix" Medicaid and Medicare?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Do you know what the projected cost of "Obamacare" is?

*shakes head*

Are you perhaps bigoted against Obama, fanfaron? "Obamacare", really?
To answer your question, no. And I frankly don't care.
With the vast sums of $$$ we spend on the military and maintaining our Empire whilst ignoring our citizens needs, the cost doesn't bother me at all.
So we're in debt, big deal. George Walker Bush is at fault for that, not Obama. Obama inherited this vast debt, he didn't create it.
So please, spare me the lecture about "Obamacare".

Originally posted by fanfaron:

(edit) And would cutting military spending by 25% "fix" Medicaid and Medicare?

You bet.
In time, both should be done away with anyway.
I say we base our healthcare on France's model, widely proclaimed as the best in the world.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Do you know what the projected cost of "Obamacare" is?

*shakes head*

Are you perhaps bigoted against Obama, fanfaron? "Obamacare", really?

Not really. "Obamacare" is just shorthand for whatever public option comes before Congress.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

To answer your question, no. And I frankly don't care.

You'll care when you have to spend $56.95 for a loaf of bread. We can't just print money forever.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

We can't just print money forever.

Something I've long said as you well know.
Again, if we cut our military expenditures, the money is there.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

We can't just print money forever.

Something I've long said as you well know.
Again, if we cut our military expenditures, the money is there.

Military expenditures wouldn't begin to cover health care costs. I can bemoan the money wasted on the military too, but it's just not the case that we'd have unicorns floating over us crapping Skittles if that money were just redirected.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Military expenditures wouldn't begin to cover health care costs. I can bemoan the money wasted on the military too, but it's just not the case that we'd have unicorns floating over us crapping Skittles if that money were just redirected.

Prove your claim then, please.

By the way, the only people I've heard call an American universal healthcare system "Obamacare" is Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck and most of the Republican Senators who are benefited by being against a universal healthcare system by compensation from the ridiculously rich CEO's of the pharmaceutical companies and the ilk.

What do you have to lose from universal healthcare fanfaron?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Military expenditures wouldn't begin to cover health care costs. I can bemoan the money wasted on the military too, but it's just not the case that we'd have unicorns floating over us crapping Skittles if that money were just redirected.

Prove your claim then, please.

By the way, the only people I've heard call an American universal healthcare system "Obamacare" is Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck and most of the Republican Senators who are benefited by being against a universal healthcare system by compensation from the ridiculously rich CEO's of the pharmaceutical companies and the ilk.

Nah, "Obamacare" is used like "Romneycare" was in Massachusetts. It's not necessarily derogatory, unless Obama is ashamed to have his name attached to it. And talking about ridiculously rich CEOs and pharm companies is just shallow populism that really won't get us anywhere.

Anyway, you said cutting 1/4 from defense expenditures would do the job. Last year, military spending was about $495 billion, I think. Now, tell me what sort of health system you'll make for ~ $125 billion.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

What do you have to lose from universal healthcare fanfaron?

If we were in the black right now, probably not much. Maybe Congress could have allocated the $800 billion or so in stimulus funds a little more wisely, ya think?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

So we're in debt, big deal. George Walker Bush is at fault for that, not Obama. Obama inherited this vast debt, he didn't create it.

And sorry, but that's not quite right. Bush spent like there was no tomorrow. Obama is on the road to doing him one (or more) better. Bush was responsible for increasing the debt by something like $2.5 trillion up through 2008. Obama's proposals would add about $5 trillion up through 2016. Them's just the facts, sorry.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Now, tell me what sort of health system you'll make for ~ $125 billion.

That will do well in the early stages. After all, it will take years to ease into seeing as how we've been hard-headed towards the issue for
the past 20-30 years.
Why not add all that (expletive) tax money that the federal money gets from cigs? After all, they hiked it up substantially.
It will take plenty of time to get the logistics right and I don't see it being implemented this year (though I may be wrong) but probably next year.
As for the rest of the funds, I will wait and see what Congress says and does in the next few weeks before commenting further. I am no politician after all. I just support universal heathcare.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Maybe Congress could have allocated the $800 billion or so in stimulus funds a little more wisely, ya think?

I completely agree.
On most issues, I disagree whole-heartedly with Obama.
But on this particular issue, he has my support 110%.

I have yet to see a valid, well-reasoned argument against universal healthcare in the US. All I have seen thus far is fearmongering, a common tactic that was used quite a bit during the previous administration.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Why not add all that (expletive) tax money that the federal money gets from cigs? After all, they hiked it up substantially.

Wait a second. I thought all those tobacco tax increases for the past number of years was supposed to go toward health care. Haven't they? Banning smoking in public places was supposed to save billions in health care costs due to decreased illness from "second-hand smoke". How has it turned out?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I have yet to see a valid, well-reasoned argument against universal healthcare in the US. All I have seen thus far is fearmongering, a common tactic that was used quite a bit during the previous administration.

I have yet to see a valid, well-reasoned argument against giving every man, woman and child in the country $1 million dollars apiece outright, beyond the "we can't afford it!" fearmongering.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Obama's proposals would add about $5 trillion up through 2016.

Yes indeed, but you are conviently forgetting that ole Dubya was responsible for the two quagmires that we have been stuck in (and losing) for the past few years. FSM only knows how much money we've wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would gladly possibly waste lots of money in a system that has a chance of failing (not much though) that has the ability to help 47 million people, rather than pump who knows how much into two wasteful,worthless wars that seemingly have no end. Wars that cost American lives.

Seriously fanfaron, which would you rather put money into?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Wait a second. I thought all those tobacco tax increases for the past number of years was supposed to go toward health care. Haven't they?

Search me, I have no clue.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Banning smoking in public places was supposed to save billions in health care costs due to decreased illness from "second-hand smoke". How has it turned out?

You'll get no argument from me here. I have long been against the smoking bans.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I have yet to see a valid, well-reasoned argument against giving every man, woman and child in the country $1 million dollars apiece outright, beyond the "we can't afford it!" fearmongering.

Ah, so you have no good argument against it? That's what I figured.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

We can't just print money forever.

Something I've long said as you well know.
Again, if we cut our military expenditures, the money is there.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Military expenditures wouldn't begin to cover health care costs. I can bemoan the money wasted on the military too, but it's just not the case that we'd have unicorns floating over us crapping Skittles if that money were just redirected.

1. A billion dollars a day spent on Iraq (thats $365 billion freed up per year)
2. How much are you expecting health care to cost anyway?
3. There are other reserves of cash still left, like actually taxing the rich of unearned income (oh dear did I say the dirty 't' word )
4. Instead of bailing out companies the money should be spend on buying them out, and fire the executives responsible for failing them

I have a cochlear implant. At the time I received it, it costed £25,000 for the assessment, the implant operation and the hardware plus £12,300 for the initial few years rehabilitation. It costs a further unspecified amount in terms of reprogramming, monitoring, parts, batteries, replacements, upgrades, etc.

Because I live in the UK, it costs me nothing.

Without it, I wouldn't be able to talk today. I'm totally (as in zero hearing) deaf without it.

So, guess which way I'm voting.

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

1. A billion dollars a day spent on Iraq (thats $365 billion freed up per year)

Might cover the interest.

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

2. How much are you expecting health care to cost anyway?

Dunno. What do you think? I'm not crafting a national plan.

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

3. There are other reserves of cash still left, like actually taxing the rich of unearned income (oh dear did I say the dirty 't' word )

Ahhhh, taxes. You could confiscate all wealth, and it would have to be a one-off thing. Tax those filthy corporations until those filthy CEOs squeeeeealllll....and then who's going to do hiring? The government?

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

4. Instead of bailing out companies the money should be spend on buying them out, and fire the executives responsible for failing them

No, the money shouldn't be spent on buying them out. "Government Motors" is laughable. Companies that are bankrupt should just....go bankrupt.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

FSM only knows

Good grief.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I would gladly possibly waste lots of money in a system that has a chance of failing (not much though) that has the ability to help 47 million people, rather than pump who knows how much into two wasteful,worthless wars that seemingly have no end. Wars that cost American lives.

Seriously fanfaron, which would you rather put money into?

Honestly? At this point I'd rather keep a little more of what I make for myself. (There's an idea!) I'm sick of seeing it wasted not only on idiotic wars, but on all sorts of other garbage.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:
I have yet to see a valid, well-reasoned argument against giving every man, woman and child in the country $1 million dollars apiece outright, beyond the "we can't afford it!" fearmongering.


Ah, so you have no good argument against it? That's what I figured.

Sure. We can't afford it at this point.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Obama's proposals would add about $5 trillion up through 2016.

Yes indeed, but you are conviently forgetting that ole Dubya was responsible for the two quagmires that we have been stuck in (and losing) for the past few years. FSM only knows how much money we've wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would gladly possibly waste lots of money in a system that has a chance of failing (not much though) that has the ability to help 47 million people, rather than pump who knows how much into two wasteful,worthless wars that seemingly have no end. Wars that cost American lives.

Seriously fanfaron, which would you rather put money into?

Certainly on Bush's idiocy, but at some point it's going to have to be Obama's show.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I say we base our healthcare on France's model, widely proclaimed as the best in the world.

I'm not so sure that's a good idea. It is the best health care system in the world, but you can have too much of a good thing - it's bankrupting them.

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

2. How much are you expecting health care to cost anyway?

About $2.5 trillion.

Here's the thing. In the US, any sort of universal health coverage would probably have to be on a state-by-state basis. It's been tried in a few states, and has generally failed, but I think it could eventually be made to work. I just don't see any sort of grand, sweeping national plan from the central bureaucracy working here any time soon.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

3. There are other reserves of cash still left, like actually taxing the rich of unearned income (oh dear did I say the dirty 't' word )

Ahhhh, taxes. You could confiscate all wealth, and it would have to be a one-off thing. Tax those filthy corporations until those filthy CEOs squeeeeealllll....and then who's going to do hiring? The government?

Well quite frankly they aren't exactly hiring as it is. No this isn't due to the current "crisis" they have been cutting jobs for decades before that. The whole "job loss" argument is, in my view, a false one. There are no jobs regardless.

Originally posted by garydenness:

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

2. How much are you expecting health care to cost anyway?

About $2.5 trillion.

Why does it cost THAT much. If it is really that expensive then how come ANY country can afford it? Lets take France as another example (a model that seems quite popular). The United States has an approximate population of 306,876,000, France has 65,073,482 people. So about 5 Americans for every Frenchman. Therefore it should cost France $500 million. In 2005 France spent €181 billion on health care. Which is about $252 million U.S. In 2005 the French Population was about 63.0 million. The approximate ratio of Frenchmen to Americans is the same. So how come under your model France should have spent $500 million rather than the $253 million it did spend.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Here's the thing. In the US, any sort of universal health coverage would probably have to be on a state-by-state basis. It's been tried in a few states, and has generally failed, but I think it could eventually be made to work. I just don't see any sort of grand, sweeping national plan from the central bureaucracy working here any time soon.

This would all be simple if the United States State/Federal system were simpler. I still can't wrap my head around it. How come the States have some powers and the Feds have some powers and they overlap and conflict. E.g. There is Federal Murder, and State Murder. In the respect it is simpler in Canada less than 2 years sentence is Provincial Prison more than 2, Federal. Health is shared between the Feds and the Provinces. Ultimately the Provinces administer Health Care but the Feds chip in funding. Traditionally there have been local health boards in charge of actual administration but in Alberta we are in the process of making them all into a Province wide board. Why couldn't something similar be done in the States? Where the States do the management and some funding and the Feds chip in the rest. It seems that the U.S. system of governing won't allow that because the States, and the Feds are in a constant battle of who has jurisdiction over what. In other countries (such as Canada) this also occurs but it isn't near as bad, with much fewer examples of overlapping jurisdiction.

As for the bad "central bureaucracy", how come with most examples of privatization this argument is used. Stating that the lack of this will decrease consumer cost, and yet in EVERY example I have encountered consumer cost (and indeed administration cost) INCREASED! Alberta recently ended Health Care premiums for its residents because the cost of administering them was greater than the money made from them. This is from a public system that doesn't need to make money. Have a private system, which is supposed too (neigh many would argue must) make a profit. The only way to do this is to overcharge pure and simple. Which brings me to yet another option. Price regulation on medication and equipment. Other countries manage to set government prices of these (most notably drugs) and the companies involved still make a profit and sell drugs in said countries.

I have said here and thedagfan has graciously repeating it of the 47 million who cannot afford any health care - doctor or dentist. We had a news item about a group of volunteer denstists in the USA who were so concerned that they visted several States offering free dental treatment and were inundated. How sad in the world's "richest" nation and the home of the brave, et, etc. It is a blight making lofty proclamations to the world when a big chunk of the population are terrified.

The fact that i can go to my local GP and not have to pay him or get free prescriptions is a worthwhile facility of the State that I have a great respect for. The NHS is a kind of sacred cow for everyone these days of all political hues. Oddly the doctors were Hell bent against it in 1948 but now do extremely well out of it. Neither do you have to worry going in on an ambulance whether your credit card will cover it or lose the cover if you fall ill. All in all it is on balance a worthy thing for a country to be concenred about the health of it's population and their ability to get to services without going bankrupt.

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

Well quite frankly they aren't exactly hiring as it is. No this isn't due to the current "crisis" they have been cutting jobs for decades before that. The whole "job loss" argument is, in my view, a false one. There are no jobs regardless.

Unemployment here is high at the moment, but lots of people are working, and they all aren't working on the government payroll. That's one of my problems with the Left: they like jobs but hate employers.

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Here's the thing. In the US, any sort of universal health coverage would probably have to be on a state-by-state basis. It's been tried in a few states, and has generally failed, but I think it could eventually be made to work. I just don't see any sort of grand, sweeping national plan from the central bureaucracy working here any time soon.

This would all be simple if the United States State/Federal system were simpler. I still can't wrap my head around it. How come the States have some powers and the Feds have some powers and they overlap and conflict.

Dilution of centralized power. It was designed that way.

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

As for the bad "central bureaucracy", how come with most examples of privatization this argument is used. Stating that the lack of this will decrease consumer cost, and yet in EVERY example I have encountered consumer cost (and indeed administration cost) INCREASED! Alberta recently ended Health Care premiums for its residents because the cost of administering them was greater than the money made from them. This is from a public system that doesn't need to make money. Have a private system, which is supposed too (neigh many would argue must) make a profit. The only way to do this is to overcharge pure and simple. Which brings me to yet another option. Price regulation on medication and equipment. Other countries manage to set government prices of these (most notably drugs) and the companies involved still make a profit and sell drugs in said countries.

Overcharging and inflated costs of health care here don't come only from the rush to make insane profits. The reasons are actually a little more complex than that.

But, we know about "corporate greed". What about "state greed"? The state doesn't have to worry so much about making profit because it has the power to tax. And tax. And tax. And print money.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I have said here and thedagfan has graciously repeating it of the 47 million who cannot afford any health care - doctor or dentist. We had a news item about a group of volunteer denstists in the USA who were so concerned that they visted several States offering free dental treatment and were inundated. How sad in the world's "richest" nation and the home of the brave, et, etc. It is a blight making lofty proclamations to the world when a big chunk of the population are terrified.

The fact that i can go to my local GP and not have to pay him or get free prescriptions is a worthwhile facility of the State that I have a great respect for. The NHS is a kind of sacred cow for everyone these days of all political hues. Oddly the doctors were Hell bent against it in 1948 but now do extremely well out of it. Neither do you have to worry going in on an ambulance whether your credit card will cover it or lose the cover if you fall ill. All in all it is on balance a worthy thing for a country to be concenred about the health of it's population and their ability to get to services without going bankrupt.

here here

Tommy Douglas was inspired to create universal healthcare in Canada by an event in his childhood.

Originally posted by wikipedia:

At the age of ten, Douglas injured his leg and developed osteomyelitis. The leg would have been amputated had it not been for a doctor who saw the condition as a good subject to teach his students and agreed to help for free.

from that event he vowed that no child should have to face such an event.

In my personal life I have faced similar problems with my dog. He is 11 and occasionally exhibits weird health problems (the rest of the time he is perfectly fine). I cannot afford veterinary treatment, and when he acts up I wonder at what point do I take him in. Lately its been not even if he is dieing. Yes I care about the dog but I also need to eat. This is a situation that is bad enough to face with a pet, but imagine if you are a poor family and need to face this decision with a child, a situation that is very realistic for many Americans who live under the current health care system.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

Well quite frankly they aren't exactly hiring as it is. No this isn't due to the current "crisis" they have been cutting jobs for decades before that. The whole "job loss" argument is, in my view, a false one. There are no jobs regardless.

Unemployment here is high at the moment, but lots of people are working, and they all aren't working on the government payroll. That's one of my problems with the Left: they like jobs but hate employers.

"at the moment" sorry but as I have said before "I am a poor peasant during the good times, and I am a poor peasant during the bad". Also what is so bad about this "government payroll"?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

But, we know about "corporate greed". What about "state greed"? The state doesn't have to worry so much about making profit because it has the power to tax. And tax. And tax. And print money.

More critically don't forget that the government is employed by the people, that is one of the fundamental characteristics of democracy. Yes the state can and does get greedy but in any honest system the people can change the government. I might as well say it, that I do not care about taxation because I cannot see myself ever being in a high enough bracket. If I ever do I will be happy to contribute to the common pot, if it actually goes to decent social programs, such as health care.

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

Well quite frankly they aren't exactly hiring as it is. No this isn't due to the current "crisis" they have been cutting jobs for decades before that. The whole "job loss" argument is, in my view, a false one. There are no jobs regardless.

Unemployment here is high at the moment, but lots of people are working, and they all aren't working on the government payroll. That's one of my problems with the Left: they like jobs but hate employers.

"at the moment" sorry but as I have said before "I am a poor peasant during the good times, and I am a poor peasant during the bad". Also what is so bad about this "government payroll"?

What's so good about it?

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

But, we know about "corporate greed". What about "state greed"? The state doesn't have to worry so much about making profit because it has the power to tax. And tax. And tax. And print money.

More critically don't forget that the government is employed by the people...

Which, throughout history, has been used as a justification for the darnedest things.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

Well quite frankly they aren't exactly hiring as it is. No this isn't due to the current "crisis" they have been cutting jobs for decades before that. The whole "job loss" argument is, in my view, a false one. There are no jobs regardless.

Unemployment here is high at the moment, but lots of people are working, and they all aren't working on the government payroll. That's one of my problems with the Left: they like jobs but hate employers.

"at the moment" sorry but as I have said before "I am a poor peasant during the good times, and I am a poor peasant during the bad". Also what is so bad about this "government payroll"?

hmmm more secure source of income springs to mind

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

But, we know about "corporate greed". What about "state greed"? The state doesn't have to worry so much about making profit because it has the power to tax. And tax. And tax. And print money.

More critically don't forget that the government is employed by the people...

Which, throughout history, has been used as a justification for the darnedest things.

Kids say the Darndest things (sorry couldn't resist)

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

So how come under your model France should have spent $500 million rather than the $253 million it did spend.

My model? I just quoted you the most recent published health care spending in the US. Why? A million reasons.

Ah ok on the model thing

A million reasons? Sounds closer too 200 million

Please check your figures.

Originally posted by klingoncowboy4:

....In 2005 France spent €181 billion on health care. Which is about $252 million U.S......

€181billion = $252 million U.S ....am I seeing right????? Europe would be for sale & Mongolia would be able to take over at those prices!

could point, perhaps the currency converter I used was wrong...

there we go replace million with billion (I redid that)

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I have said here and thedagfan has graciously repeating it of the 47 million who cannot afford any health care - doctor or dentist.

Well, I do try to speak the truth as often as I can.


And yet still, I have yet to see any good reason against Universal Healthcare here in the US.
So far, we have had the usual Republican fearmongering tactic, sarcasm and at the moment I'm waiting on one of the anti-universal healthcare people to label me a Socialist.