Universal health care

[Franzl]

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".

[Franzl]

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".

Well I happen to value both universal coverage as well as medical innovation equally -is there not a health care system that can do that?  How about one based on the Bismarck model?  

Bismarck comes closest, IMO...but there's always an element of sacrificing one for the other, no?

[Franzl]

Last time a I checked, no one has died of neglect in an American hospital.

How did you check this?

Well even assuming it's correct (which it very certainly isn't), it doesn't tell you anything about the people that die of neglect because they aren't treated to begin with.

[Franzl]

Last time a I checked, no one has died of neglect in an American hospital.

How did you check this?

Well even assuming it's correct (which it very certainly isn't), it doesn't tell you anything about the people that die of neglect because they aren't treated to begin with.

I was under the impressions American hospitals were legally obligated to treat people and the bill was to be dealt with afterwards.

This is entirely correct. One is much less likely to suffer severe neglect or ill-treatment before or during care relative to the situation one often ends up in after.

Not everything is treatable in a hospital emergency room.

[Franzl]

Job centric health care insurance was one of the worst things to ever happen.

Indeed.

[Franzl]

I oppose UHC.

Survival of the fittest, eh?

[Franzl]

I oppose UHC.

Survival of the fittest, eh?

Free healthcare with no taxes is not a right.

As I said: survival of the fittest.

[Franzl]

That sentiment isn't just an Austrian one...but rather of the entire rich world with the exception of the United States.

[Franzl]

Oppose how are we going to afford it?. The Canadian economy is broke from a full out Free Healthcare system. Everyperson should be made to buy there own Private Insurance its that simple.

Why are we getting so many idiots lately?

[Franzl]

The Canadian economy is not broke.  In fact, one of the benefits of having alternative health care systems to the U.S. is that they cost the countries in which they exist far, far less than ours costs us, and have superior medical outcomes in many important areas to boot.  

Err, our economy is certainly not broken, but our medical outcomes aren't the best. Wait times and expanding costs are a major issue in Canada.

The average person still can expect better outcomes on average (before someone quotes some study showing somewhat better cancer survival rates in the U.S.), and that for less money and with total security throughout life.

[Franzl]

The Canadian economy is not broke.  In fact, one of the benefits of having alternative health care systems to the U.S. is that they cost the countries in which they exist far, far less than ours costs us, and have superior medical outcomes in many important areas to boot.  

Err, our economy is certainly not broken, but our medical outcomes aren't the best. Wait times and expanding costs are a major issue in Canada.

Health care costs are rising in every system given the growing populations and improvements in medical technology.  But wait times in Canada are surely a problem.  I've generally found Bismarck systems much more efficient in that respect.

Depends. I'm fortunate enough to be privately insured (and as much as I support public healthcare....of course the private insurance is better than the public product). I know several people, though, (like 85-90% of Germans are public patients), that have waited 2 months for an appointment with an orthopedist. When I get one within a day or two.

[Franzl]

Free healthcare would bankrupt the economy lol. The best way to is to do what we did in the fifties with programs like Blue Cross and drive down costs and force everyone to be insured through market means. The Free Market is key period. Free Healthcare is a fail.

There's no incentive to reduce cost in free market healthcare. Nor to increase access.

[Franzl]

i'm beginning to feel like america must have some sort of bizarre psychological issue with uhc, though i'm not quite sure what it is.

Just the effects of massive propaganda.

[Franzl]

How does one oppose the principle of access to healthcare being universal per se?

[Franzl]

How does one oppose the principle of access to healthcare being universal per se?

That would probably be opposition to being forced to pay the cost of another's self inflicted sickness/injury.

Besides the fact that not nearly everything is "self-inflicted", do these people just want to let people die in the streets? Is that more moral than mandating access?

[Franzl]

How does one oppose the principle of access to healthcare being universal per se?

That would probably be opposition to being forced to pay the cost of another's self inflicted sickness/injury.

I have a hard time seeing how cancers of the skin (which are on the rise), and other kinds, etc., as well as high blood pressure, hyper tension, kidney stones, and so on are self-inflicted. It's vastly hereditary.

So people with good genes should subsidize those with bad genes?  More relevantly, people with good health habits should subsidize those with bad habits?

Basically, yes.

Encourage good health habits, but society is ultimately responsible for caring for its members, even if some are more responsible than others.