Universal health care

[Frodo]

Is one necessarily antithetical to the other?  I have heard this argument come up by conservatives, that if the government gets a larger role in the health care sector that it could at the very least seriously impact what had been the most innovative (though expensive) health care system in the world. 

How true is this? 

[Sibboleth]

It is a well known fact that absolutely no meaningful medical research whatsoever takes place outside the United States.

[I left.]

To an extent likely true, but it's kind of a moral question whether you're willing to sacrifice the health of a large portion of your citizens in order to maximize "innovation".

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Universal Healthcare is for anyone who wants to wait 6 weeks to be seen for a broken arm. If you don't believe me go to the Olympics and start asking the British.

[Redalgo]

My answer to the poll is yes, though I do not think Canada and the UK are the best role models the U.S. could emulate for establishing a reformed system. With a few adjustments I reckon that the approach applied in France or that implemented in neighboring Germany may be better for us.

Then again, I am not well-versed on how the health-care systems in Nordic states and third-world countries work. There may be some attractive, seemingly promising policies out there I have yet to become familiar with.

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

My answer to the poll is yes, though I do not think Canada and the UK are the best role models the U.S. could emulate for establishing a reformed system. With a few adjustments I reckon that the approach applied in France or that implemented in neighboring Germany may be better for us.

Then again, I am not well-versed on how the health-care systems in Nordic states and third-world countries work. There may be some attractive, seemingly promising policies out there I have yet to become familiar with.

If you want your children to wait 6 weeks for a broken arm and think it's fair because everyone else gets poor healthcare then go right ahead.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Universal Healthcare is for anyone who wants to wait 6 weeks to be seen for a broken arm. If you don't believe me go to the Olympics and start asking the British.

one guy had a double liver compound fracture of his spine and was leaking feces and had to wait 18 months to see a doctor.

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Universal Healthcare is for anyone who wants to wait 6 weeks to be seen for a broken arm. If you don't believe me go to the Olympics and start asking the British.

one guy had a double liver compound fracture of his spine and was leaking feces and had to wait 18 months to see a doctor.

exactly see what I mean!

[© Tweed the Younger]

Universal Healthcare is for anyone who wants to wait 6 weeks to be seen for a broken arm. If you don't believe me go to the Olympics and start asking the British.

one guy had a double liver compound fracture of his spine and was leaking feces and had to wait 18 months to see a doctor.

exactly see what I mean!

[Redalgo]

lol Tweed ^^

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I don't know what my previous remarks in this thread have been, but I've come to the conclusion that Canada's system is at least better than Obamacare.

I would much prefer a fully universal, government sponsored system than one where people or businesses are forced to buy a product. Our system has a lot of flaws, but it still does a good for the people, and we're too far in to turn back. I don't hate it enough to care. There are ways to work within the confines of our system as it currently exists... I would love if we had more private options in Canada. Maybe one day.

Still, Obamacare has it wrong and I believe some changes need to be made in America--but I would not implement a Canadian-style system.

[Secretary Polnut]

My answer to the poll is yes, though I do not think Canada and the UK are the best role models the U.S. could emulate for establishing a reformed system. With a few adjustments I reckon that the approach applied in France or that implemented in neighboring Germany may be better for us.

Then again, I am not well-versed on how the health-care systems in Nordic states and third-world countries work. There may be some attractive, seemingly promising policies out there I have yet to become familiar with.

If you want your children to wait 6 weeks for a broken arm and think it's fair because everyone else gets poor healthcare then go right ahead.

I'm sorry, but as someone who lives in a country with a universal system, this would NEVER happen. The right wing really believes everything it's told. You might get a bad day in a bad hospital but the suggestion that someone needing emergency medical attention, and a broken arm would be considered that, would have to wait days, let alone weeks for medical attention is utterly, utterly ridiculous.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Waiting for surgeries is common. Waiting for a medical emergency is not.

[President Marokai]

Universal Healthcare is for anyone who wants to wait 6 weeks to be seen for a broken arm. If you don't believe me go to the Olympics and start asking the British.

one guy had a double liver compound fracture of his spine and was leaking feces and had to wait 18 months to see a doctor.

exactly see what I mean!

[Californian Tony]

Guys, you're arguing with a banned troll.

[a Person]

My answer to the poll is yes, though I do not think Canada and the UK are the best role models the U.S. could emulate for establishing a reformed system. With a few adjustments I reckon that the approach applied in France or that implemented in neighboring Germany may be better for us.

Then again, I am not well-versed on how the health-care systems in Nordic states and third-world countries work. There may be some attractive, seemingly promising policies out there I have yet to become familiar with.

If you want your children to wait 6 weeks for a broken arm and think it's fair because everyone else gets poor healthcare then go right ahead.

I agree!
It's an outrage that children have to wait six weeks to break their arms.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

My answer to the poll is yes, though I do not think Canada and the UK are the best role models the U.S. could emulate for establishing a reformed system. With a few adjustments I reckon that the approach applied in France or that implemented in neighboring Germany may be better for us.

Then again, I am not well-versed on how the health-care systems in Nordic states and third-world countries work. There may be some attractive, seemingly promising policies out there I have yet to become familiar with.

If you want your children to wait 6 weeks for a broken arm and think it's fair because everyone else gets poor healthcare then go right ahead.

I agree!
It's an outrage that children have to wait six weeks to break their arms.

What if you had other things that are broken....that you don't want anyone to know about?

Anyways, Obamacare is probably the best we can do within the frames of the current system. Like Hagrid said, they are too invested into their ways as we are invested into ours. It appears that only when the very fundamentals of our economy change can we implement the Government buying up or contract or even selling off a substantiall amount of the private economy or its own functions. Case in point- The New Deal. Only when Unemployment reached the twentysomethings was there enough will to do anything about starving old people or kids who lost their dads or towns without paved roads....this time is more of being content with what you have or being intimidate from getting more  than of actual fear or desperation of starving to death or dying of exposure.

[realisticidealist]

I strongly believe that implementing some form of universal healthcare is morally and financially necessary in the United States, but I'm not tied to any particular manifestation at this point as I simply haven't done enough research on the matter, hence why I rarely post about it. I have absolutely zero ideological qualms with a full single-payer system, a public option, or some other form (eg Swiss non-profit model), but my chief concern would be having a system that has the highest coverage rate, best health outcomes, and the most lives improved while minimizing costs (time to break out the Lagrange multipliers!). I certainly do not believe that the individual mandate model fulfills this condition, but it is a tiny step in the right direction. As I've said before though, I haven't studied nearly enough papers on health economics to have a firm position, and it honestly isn't an area that I have a burning passion for.

[anvi]

"Yes" to universal coverage, "no" to single-payer.  Bismarck systems are what appeal to me.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

"Universal healthcare is a big fat no!"

That being said, I support healthcare for everybody, but think we should low people to purchase health insurance across state lines.

[DC Al Fine]

Single payer is both bloated and corrupt. Personally, my dad got bumped up on the waiting list for a minor surgery because he coached the surgeon's nephew's hockey team

That said, universal health care is a good idea for a stable society. Something like the Swiss system seems appropriate.

[Pacific Councillor LiberalJunkie]

Single payer is both bloated and corrupt. Personally, my dad got bumped up on the waiting list for a minor surgery because he coached the surgeon's nephew's hockey team

That said, universal health care is a good idea for a stable society. Something like the Swiss system seems appropriate.

Canadians approve of their healthcare by wide margin's. You should know more then anyone that  most of us think the US system is way worse then ours.

[white trash heroes]

"Universal healthcare is a big fat no!"

That being said, I support healthcare for everybody

looks like we have another case of vosem syndrome.

[Vosem]

looks like we have another case of vosem syndrome.

Mm? Is it treatable?

[Secretary Polnut]

I live in a single-payer system with optional private cover on the side... and it works incredibly well.