Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare

[Hurlshort]

why, because they work better? even charter schools work better on less money than the public sector waste that is educating our youth.

 

taks

 

I'm pretty sure we've argued this before, but how, exactly are you measuring what works better?

 

My regular ole' public school was second in the state last year for testing. We beat plenty of charter schools and any private schools that actually bother with the testing. My former students are going to Yale, Stanford, Harvard, and pretty much any other distinguished University you can name.

 

Now if you are arguing strictly from a financial standpoint, I will concede that charter schools and private run more efficiently. But Charter schools by design function on a small scale, so taking an urban area and turning all the schools into the charter model would never work. Charter Schools rely heavily on the parent community taking an active role, and as a teacher who has spent time in less distinguished schools, I will tell you that there are just a buttload of terrible parents out there. And private institutions simply cut off the bottom half of the population from educational opportunities.

[Monte Carlo]

I can only say that our system isn't actually bad.

but if it could be better, at less expense, and not violate your rights, wouldn't you prefer that? an insurance-based system with little government intervention would be extremely efficient and affordable for everyone and probably wouldn't take up 15% of our entire GDP (in the US). you can't even legally sue an HMO in the US, even if they violate your contract with them (an insurance policy is a contract). what does that do? it rewards bad behavior. now we're contemplating putting what everyone knows to be a corrupt, inept, and generally worthless government completely in charge of the whole system. ludicrous.

 

taks

 

A system you describe would be perfect, but experience shows it unlikel to work for what we seek to achieve. If you want to work from a basic principle (and it's a lofty one) that you want to provide universal health care then something's gotta give. Personally, I think that swathes of the NHS could work on an insurance-based system but as I mentioned earlier it's a 'third rail' issue. Most people in the UK love the NHS. Political tinkering is viewed as an assault. It drives me mad, but it's become a sacred cow.

 

Again, I think scale comes into it, as well as political tradition. I'm from a very small country. We are sceptical of government, but do not view it by default as something to be resisted. One of the fascinating aspects of the US Constitution was the way that tension was written into it, on purpose, as a failsafe. We don't have that, we have Magna Carta, then a common law system (you are still lumbered with a bastard child of the Napoleonic Code) and ergo we view the role of government in something like healthcare quite differently.

 

I don't feel any less 'free' that the government takes a portion of my salary and uses it to run hospitals for people that need them. In fact, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Again, it just depends were you come from. On other issues I'm sure I'd be on the side of muscular Republican neo-cons, but not this one. And because of where the British centre-right comes from, that really isn't a problem over here.

 

Cheers

MC

[taks]

A system you describe would be perfect, but experience shows it unlikel to work for what we seek to achieve.

what experience would that be?

 

If you want to work from a basic principle (and it's a lofty one) that you want to provide universal health care then something's gotta give.

i don't. charity, btw, does go a lot farther when people aren't forced into at gunpoint.

 

i didn't have time to read the rest of what you wrote (well, not enough time to really comment) because i am running late for school. teaching a one credit-hour class is for the birds.

 

taks

[Monte Carlo]

^ The experience of every western democratic government that attempts to provide universal health-care.

 

None have found a perfect universal system that isn't resource-intensive. Healthcare requires logistics, policy and operational commitments that would tax a dozen generals. Most countries have opted for direct-taxation schemes, insurance only schemes or a combination thereof. None are perfect.

 

What I'm trying to say is that you cannot divorce major public service provision (like universal healthcare) from the political tradition of the country implementing it. Obama has been given a mandate to implement something, but I've suggested that he needs to work with the grain of US political tradition, not against it.

 

I also pointed out that despite paying for healthcare for direct taxation, I didn't have to attend Collective Farm 26 this morning to hear the latest tractor production figures (not yet, anyway )

 

Cheers

MC

[Wrath of Dagon]

1)How does a person need police protection more than universal healthcare? State run police only helps those that couldn't afford a private service.

Almost no one can afford a private security detail following them everywhere, and besides without law enforcement a society can't function, which would affect even the rich. Also I'll point out it's not like we have people dying in the streets because no one will treat them.

[Humodour]

I'm not calling for a tax increase, or that there should necessarily be UHC. It would be a major upheaval not only to the healthcare industry but the whole system altogether.

 

How else would it be financed? Thats why countries with socialist programs pay upwards of 60% taxes.

 

Point a) Americans spends as much tax money per capita on healthcare as the 'socialist' (lol) democracies (mainly Scandinavia) anyway,so moot point.

 

Point b) Australia spends less tax money per capita on healthcare than America and has roughly the same taxation level, so again, moot point.

 

That being said, It seems to me that the majority of Americans don't want universal healthcare - and as such they shouldn't be forced into it..

 

The majority of Americans most certainly do want healthcare. More Americans want healthcare than even voted for Obama (in percentage terms). Roughly 60% to 80% or so, depending on the wording of the poll question.

[Gfted1]

I'm not calling for a tax increase, or that there should necessarily be UHC. It would be a major upheaval not only to the healthcare industry but the whole system altogether.

 

How else would it be financed? Thats why countries with socialist programs pay upwards of 60% taxes.

 

Point a) Americans spends as much tax money per capita on healthcare as the 'socialist' (lol) democracies (mainly Scandinavia) anyway,so moot point.

 

Point b) Australia spends less tax money per capita on healthcare than America and has roughly the same taxation level, so again, moot point.

 

Ill be honest here, I dont understand your point. Regardless of what happens in Scandinavia and Australia (lol), a UHS implementation in the US will result in a dramatic increase in my taxes to pay for it.

[Walsingham]

The whole notion of private healthcare is belied by the nature of diseases. If 50% of the population get sick from, say, swine flu, you lose out. It doesn't matter how good your cover is. there's plenty of criticism to be levelled at bureaucratised national health care. but to me it makes very sobvious sense. And that's ignoring the fact that I wouldn't be here at all if it weren't for the NHS giving me treatment my parents couldn't have afforded.

[Humodour]

I'm not calling for a tax increase, or that there should necessarily be UHC. It would be a major upheaval not only to the healthcare industry but the whole system altogether.

 

How else would it be financed? Thats why countries with socialist programs pay upwards of 60% taxes.

 

Point a) Americans spends as much tax money per capita on healthcare as the 'socialist' (lol) democracies (mainly Scandinavia) anyway,so moot point.

 

Point b) Australia spends less tax money per capita on healthcare than America and has roughly the same taxation level, so again, moot point.

 

a UHS implementation in the US will result in a dramatic increase in my taxes to pay for it.

 

No it won't.

[Gfted1]

I'm not calling for a tax increase, or that there should necessarily be UHC. It would be a major upheaval not only to the healthcare industry but the whole system altogether.

 

How else would it be financed? Thats why countries with socialist programs pay upwards of 60% taxes.

 

Point a) Americans spends as much tax money per capita on healthcare as the 'socialist' (lol) democracies (mainly Scandinavia) anyway,so moot point.

 

Point b) Australia spends less tax money per capita on healthcare than America and has roughly the same taxation level, so again, moot point.

 

a UHS implementation in the US will result in a dramatic increase in my taxes to pay for it.

 

No it won't.

 

Oh, okay, since you say so.... Meanwhile, why dont you review this article on Wisconsin's UHC system from two years ago.

[Wrath of Dagon]

No it won't.

That's right, our new paradigm is borrow money like there's no tomorrow.

[Walsingham]

Er... but if you have state healthcare surel you'll be able to afford a bit of tax because you'll...

 

1. No longer have to pay for private healthcare

 

OR

 

2. No longer have to worry yourself sick about not having enough money for private healthcare

[Gfted1]

Er... but if you have state healthcare surel you'll be able to afford a bit of tax because you'll...

 

1. No longer have to pay for private healthcare

 

OR

 

2. No longer have to worry yourself sick about not having enough money for private healthcare

 

 

1) People who dont have private healthcare dont have it because they cant afford it. Now you want to force them to afford it? I doubt too many people are uninsured because they cant be arsed.

 

2) Huh? Worrying is free.

[Hurlshort]

Actually worry and stress cause real medical problems, making it quite costly in the long run.

[Walsingham]

Er... but if you have state healthcare surel you'll be able to afford a bit of tax because you'll...

 

1. No longer have to pay for private healthcare

 

OR

 

2. No longer have to worry yourself sick about not having enough money for private healthcare

 

 

1) People who dont have private healthcare dont have it because they cant afford it. Now you want to force them to afford it? I doubt too many people are uninsured because they cant be arsed.

 

2) Huh? Worrying is free.

 

OK we see eye to eye on a lot of things, so help me to understand your perspective here. We have the NHS here in the UK. It has flaws, but no-one gets left hanging out to dry. First order consequence, I know I can expect good healthcare any time I need it. Not the best, maybe. But it's quite good. Further, the NHS invests in things that stop me getting sick in the first place, rather than making drug companies happy, because it only loses money when it spends on drugs.

 

Second order consequences, I live among people. They are generally pretty healthy, because they get healthcare when they need it. As a consequence I can expect my employees, friends, and relations to reliably stay alive.

 

Thirdly, but probably not third order, no-one worries about it. Having friends and relations across the pond I can't emphasise how great that is. None of us worry about going to seee a doctor for a check up, or having a lump looked at. The only thing stopping us is laziness.

 

I've lived and worked in countries where there's no public healthcare, and it was just crazy. I got injured once, and got paratyphoid another time. Each time I became a chequebook, not a patient. Soi much so that when I had paratyphoid and couldn't remember my insurance details I nearly got chucked out. Only the arrival of a friend stopped them.

 

from my perspective I compare that with the really quite painless business of having an NHS and I wonder why you think it's going to be such a nightmare.

[Gfted1]

OK we see eye to eye on a lot of things, so help me to understand your perspective here. We have the NHS here in the UK. It has flaws, but no-one gets left hanging out to dry. First order consequence, I know I can expect good healthcare any time I need it. Not the best, maybe. But it's quite good. Further, the NHS invests in things that stop me getting sick in the first place, rather than making drug companies happy, because it only loses money when it spends on drugs.

 

Second order consequences, I live among people. They are generally pretty healthy, because they get healthcare when they need it. As a consequence I can expect my employees, friends, and relations to reliably stay alive.

 

Thirdly, but probably not third order, no-one worries about it. Having friends and relations across the pond I can't emphasise how great that is. None of us worry about going to seee a doctor for a check up, or having a lump looked at. The only thing stopping us is laziness.

 

I've lived and worked in countries where there's no public healthcare, and it was just crazy. I got injured once, and got paratyphoid another time. Each time I became a chequebook, not a patient. Soi much so that when I had paratyphoid and couldn't remember my insurance details I nearly got chucked out. Only the arrival of a friend stopped them.

 

from my perspective I compare that with the really quite painless business of having an NHS and I wonder why you think it's going to be such a nightmare.

 

 

My objections to UHC is not that people will get healhcare, its that Ill be on the hook to pay for it. While I can appreciate the beauty that each special snowflake of a person brings to the table, its just not my problem to make sure John Smith get medical insurance, its John Smiths problem.

 

Its almost certainly a culteral thing where social programs that hold your hand from cradle to grave are the norm on your side of the Atlantic even moreso than here. Im curious where you would draw the line. Should everything be free IYO? Should that bum on the corner get a free house? No? Why not? Same stuff, different name. Food should be free to right? Everyones gotta eat after all.

 

Theres programs for:

 

Medical

Dental

Unemployment

Drug use

College

Housing (?)

 

Push come to should, could you literally live you life free of charge in the UK if you work the system enough?

[Humodour]

The free market should not be invoked when the item being competed for is a person's life, Gfted.

[Gfted1]

I dunno, food and housing are pretty essential to life.

[Humodour]

I dunno, food and housing are pretty essential to life.

 

Indeed they are, which is why both have public welfare programs in place to ensure there a no gaps left by the free market (namely work for the the dole and public housing). It wouldn't surprise me if these programmes are also inadequate in America, but you're certainly right.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Let's not foget currently US subsidizes drug research for the entire world, because US is pretty much the only country drugs can be sold for full price, thus making back the research investment.

[Humodour]

Let's not foget currently US subsidizes drug research for the entire world, because US is pretty much the only country drugs can be sold for full price, thus making back the research investment.

 

That's not correct. America has the largest number of drug makers of any Western country, but, and this might shock you, America also has the largest number of people of any Western country. The drug industries in the EU, Australia, and Canada, are far more vibrant than you presume. It may be correct to say that disturbing pharmaceutical industry political lobbying is less rife in the rest of the West, if that's what you were going for.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutica...erms_of_revenue

 

Please note the countries of origin.

 

It's likely that without the rest of the Western world around to buy your so-called 'subsidised' drugs, they would be too expensive to develop in the first place. Perhaps you should be thanking us.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Krezack

[Wrath of Dagon]

Where a company is headquatered means nothing in a global market, what matters is where most of the profit is made. From your link

The United States accounts for almost half of the global pharmaceutical market,

[Humodour]

Where a company is headquatered means nothing in a global market, what matters is where most of the profit is made. From your link

The United States accounts for almost half of the global pharmaceutical market,

 

The United States population also accounts for almost half of the Western world's population (excluding Eastern Europe). Who woulda thunk it.

 

But don't divert the subject at hand, now. Your point was that the US does all the drug research and that the rest of the West rides off it, well that's patently false, no pun intended.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Krezack

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, I didn't say US does all the research, I said the US market is what makes that research profitable.

[Rosbjerg]

It's almost scary how much the average American knows about drugs too... Seems like you all have a minor degree in pharmaceuticals