Talk Elections

Vote

I had an indepth post with a poll about this exact subject about two months ago. If I remember correctly about 40% supported while 60% opposed. The thread also reached a good 9 or 10 pages.

No. Among ideas that are actually being seriously considered by politicians today, I can think of nothing worse than the idea that the government should pay everyone's healthcare costs.

No.  The universe can pay for its own health care.

Only if it's two-tier.

You disappoint me, Lt. Governor :(

I voted yes, of course. Health care is a right, and no one deserves better health care than anyone else.

Hell no.


No, it isn't.

You make me beem with pride, GOvernor. We'll (meaning me ;)) will make a socialist out of you yet. :D

Maybe not in self centred-Libertarian land, but here in the land where people care about one another, it is.  Health care is my right, and I'll be damned if a greedy Libertarian will say otherwise.

No.  We do not need to add yet another layer of "Big Government" and "Big Taxes" on the population of the nation. 

How is it your right to take money from other people to pay for your healthcare?

I'll be sure to bill all my health bills to Canada.  If it s a right, you will surely pay for mine with a smile.

I did not plan to participate in this thread, but I just need to respond to this misleading comment.

Dibble, you already pay for other people's healthcare. What do you think one of the reasons is for such high health insurance premiums? On average, more than $1,000 of a person's annual health insurance premium  goes towards paying the health care costs of the uninsured/underinsured.  The current system is one of cost-shifting, where we all pay for those without health insurance and those who have no health insurance.

So, in essence, what you're complaining about already exists.

See my comment directly above.  You are already paying for other people's health care.

That's only the case if I decide of my own free will to purchase health insurance - under your proposed system I'm forced to against my will whether I want to or not.

You are operating under the assumption I have health insurance.  I, in fact, do not.

^^^

That is quite foolish for a 33-year old. Let's hope you remain in good health.

No, I have made other arrangements to pay for long term health issues I may get.

Though I am going to get full coverage paid for by my employer soon.

Get your own free health care. You don't pay into our system, so you don't get to reap the benefits.

So candians who do not pay taxes and thus do not pay into the system should not get the coverage then, right?

People in Canada who don't make any money also don't pay into the system, but you seem to have no problem with paying for them.

Ahh, going down that route are we? Let me choose a different path then, health care is a right in Canada. Clearly, it is not a right in the U.S. It's a right, it's my right as a Canadian citizen. And it should be a right for Americans. However, since it isn't, and since the U.S. is a different jurisdiction altogether, don't expect me to pay your health care costs.

Your favorable view of coercion is sickening.

Don't tread on me

You asserted that Tredrick shouldn't get healthcare from your system because he doesn't pay into it - if a Canadian doesn't pay into the system, why should he receive healthcare from it?

The Canadian trash can refrain from forcing his socialism (or maybe social democracy :P) on us greedy capitalist Americans. Other country's can run themselves into the ground paying for a welfare state, America has shown itself to oppose it.

I'm not forcing anything on you. I'll also have you know that Canada's economy is doing quite well, and I ask you to present evidence of Canada running itself into the ground paying for a "welfare state"


Because it is a right in Canada

So if I go to Canada, can I get free health care?  Could be worth a car ride.

Once again, I am forced to elaborate. It is a right for Canadian citizens :)

One must realize that when you work hard for your money, you have to use your common sense and realize that by paying taxes, you in effect make your life better. It means a higher standard of living for not just you, but for everyone. Of course, one must reach a balance, because high taxes put a damper on the economy. In Canada, I feel we have reached this balance.

Tweed never said that we were talking about the U.S., so, technically, Earl is correct in saying it's a right protected by the Canadian Federal Government. :)

You still haven't answered the question - you asserted that one person shouldn't get healthcare from Canada because he didn't pay into the system(not because he didn't live in Canada), so why does someone else who doesn't pay into the system deserve it simply because they happen to live in Canada?

Say I'm a healthy person who rarely has a need for healthcare - by being forced to pay the extra taxes, my life is worse because I'm paying for nothing that benefits me.

It benefits you, because you will need it when you get older. Plus, people who can't afford things, especially important things like health care are more likely to commit crimes. I for one like my low crime rate.
I have already changed my reasoning, Dibble. Try and follow a long. I know I may not be coherent all the time, but please help me out :)

Yes. The government should provide health care for all.

Yes, it is miserable being healthy.

Is this supposed to be an argument?

Does anyone force you to have health insurance?
Last time I checked, you can just pay it all out of your own pocket.

I support the idea of their being government provided healthcare free at the point of use; in the end it benefits the whole of society and can be good for social cohesion.
At the same time, it's a good idea to keep the private sector legal; the use of the private sector as a sort of dumping ground for minor operations is a great idea as it keeps costs down for the state provided service (and, if the system is funded by taxation, keeps taxes down as well).
I'm not a fan of insurance-based systems as a general rule...

The view that healthcare is a "right" is rather shocking. Sure, I agree that everyone has the right to obtain medical care--at his own cost. I would not agree that there is a right to take someone else's money to pay one's medical bills.

Pity that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects "life, liberty and security of the person," but not private property.

1. How do you know I'll need it when older? What if I simply take good care of myself and in my old age I still don't really need it much? And if I've saved the money that I would have paid in taxes in your system, I can simply use that in my old age if I need it. Why is it you feel compelled to force me, to remove my right to choose? Why do you think YOU know what's better for me than I do, huh? Why shouldn't I be able to choose?

2. Don't try to peg your low crime rate on that alone. I can mention numerous reasons for the difference, if you'd like.


In other words, your argument got blasted out of the water and you're trying to dodge that fact.

I never asserted it was - I asserted my life would be better if less of my hard earned money wasn't taken away for me for something I didn't even benefit from. Repeat after me: READING COMPREHENSION.


It's supposed to be pointing out an inconsistency in the other argument. Once again: READING COMPREHENSION.

Definitly not

Of course 'right' and 'wrong' don't enter into it, but it should be noted that these owners got their money through their position in the State-imposed social heirarchy.  So, taking a portion back is merely rectifying oppression, not 'taking' in any original sense.

Don't worry Dibble, everyone gets sick and dies, eventually.

I think it's worth looking at in an honest fashion given the health care issues facing this nation. I'd like to see the various mechanics behind such a system and what different options existed in the construction of such a system. I'd also like to see a number of cost and savings impact estimates for the federal and state governments, for the national economy, and for the individuals at differing income level, and how they change as the mechanics behind the system shift. If this is something that ultimately put more money in people’s and businesses pockets after the taxes have been paid for it, it's worth thinking about. I'm not saying that it would, but this is something that could benefit corporate America, small business American and the average American by reducing the payout in health care. It's also one of only a few things I can think of that would likely help with the real wage numbers that are doing so poorly right now and it would almost surely create a major stimulus for the economy as a whole. Something needs to be done about health care costs and the impact they are having on the individuals and businesses that comprise this nation. Is this it? I'm not sure, but I'd sure like to see the government seriously exploring it.

Are food, clothing and housing rights too? How about cars? All of them are probably as important as healthcare.

A national health care voucher that is large enough to pay for basic insurance should be available, funded by the government.

If you want to upgrade, you can do so out of pocket.

Having an insurance system where only those who are at risk of needing care buy insurance is insane.  Anyone who advocates this doesn't fully grasp the idea behind insurance.

Asking businesses to pick up the tab is equally insane.  Look at GM, you'll see that company provided benefits will never be as stable as they should be.  We have a masive welfare state provided by corporations to their employees, yet we pretend to have a free health care market.

Want to know why Europe, with all its torubles, is stil leconomically competitive with us?  One reason is they don't push companies to provide the benefits government should be providing.  They let companies, you know, make money instead.

Pretending that tax increases to fund this would cost the average person more than they pay anyway in premiums is willful delusion.

The Pew poll has 65% support, 30% oppose.

I bet it didn't mention numbers.

Yeah, I suppose if they had mentioned cost compared to the current system, it would have done even better.

It kills me to say I support universal healthcare, because it's such a left-wing thing in an American context. I would keep the private sector legal and not allow people making over a certain amount access to the government run health system(without any tax break).

Don't worry, 65% of Americans favor it.

This part of your statement takes you beyond left wing into the far loony left.  You are not only forcing people to pay for other's bills, but on top of that you are prohibiting certain people from participating in a system that they are being forced to pay for.

Why don't you just walk into their houses, steal their money, and be done with it?

Kemperor, we are talking about the owners and ruler of our society here, not someone being taken advantage of.  In other words, this 'robbery', as I'm sure you would call it, represents just a tiny percentage of that which they take by force every day.

They get to pay for thier own healthcare, which is what they want. In exchange for taking advantage of the poor by getting better healthcare they have to pay the penalty.

What? How are they taking advantage of the poor? They're not doing anything to the poor.

Certainly they are.  They are ruling over them and extracting their production.  The owner is born into his position, and the poor into his.  The latter labours for the former, and the State make sure the labourer does not rebel.  And so on, generation after generation...

Uh, no. The poor are not forced to do anything by the rich.

And I already posted the social mobility statistics.

Certainly they are, Philip.  They are forced to toil for them.


Yes, it does seem odd that anyone lives in the ghetto at all considering!  Perhaps it is occupied only by ex-millionaires who 'lost their shirts'.  :)

No, they're not.

You don't seem to understand what social mobility means.

Sure they are.  They'll starve otherwise.


Yes, I understand it to mean becoming better off, so I thought it might be useful to ask you - explain why the ghetto is full of people descended from people who are also descended from people who have lived there? 

If social mobility were in fact occuring, there should be black people in your neighborhood, and ex-millionaires on skid-row, and other such fanciful things, Philip.

Your second sentence does not support the first. The fact is you've got things exactly backwards. The rich do not harm the poor, they help them. No exchange ever takes place in the free market unless both parties believe they benefit.

The fact that there is social mobility does not mean there aren't counterexamples.

There is no 'free market' in the rigid social heirarchy of capitalism, Philip.


The counterexamples are, of course, nearly everyone.

Free market = no coercion


The statistics show otherwise.

An important aspect of the health care debate that is often overlooked is the impact of health care costs on American businesses. Companies like GM can't keep up with foreign competitors, who don't have to provide healthcare to their employess because their governments take care of this. I don't have a perfect solution to this, but we have to do something or all of our companies are going to go under because of health care costs.

Before we adopt a 100% government run healthcare system we should look at some facts about the two healthcare programs currently run by government, Medicare and Medicaid.

In 1967, the first full year for Medicare the combined cost of Medicare and Medicaid together was $4.4 billion. By 2004 the cost had risen to $473 billion, a 100 fold increase. That’s far in excess of inflation. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table9 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table9)

In terms of cost as a percentage of GDP, in 1967 the two programs took 0.5% of GDP. But in 2004 they took 4.1%. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table10 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table10)
 That’s eight times as much, in only 37 years. If the costs were to continue growing at that rate for the next 37 years Medicare and Medicaid would be consuming nearly 1/3 of our GDP.

The governments past performance on estimating future costs is poor at best as illustrated in this article by  Michael F. Cannon:

“Despite official projections in 1965 that hospital insurance under Medicare would cost only $9 billion in 1990, actual spending in 1990 was $66 billion. Medicare payroll taxes are now nearly double what supporters promised would be necessary, having been raised most recently in 1994, and the program consumes a growing share of general revenue.”
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/cannon-040326.html (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/cannon-040326.html)

As I have said many times before, a competitive free market is the best system for providing quality goods and services at the lowest prices. The rest of our economy operates that way successfully. Why can’t healthcare? Cars, food, clothing, housing, televisions, and PCs are all provided by an essentially competitive free market and we don’t have a crisis in those things.

Medical care, on the other hand, does not operate as a competitive free market and we do have a crisis there. Maybe there’s a connection.  Do we really want to abandon the free market and have the government running 100% of our healthcare system?

This sentence makes no sense.

If we start with Universal health care, what's next? Does the government then determine what we can eat and what we can't, etc based on government savings?

I don't support universal health care supplied by the government.

First of all, the government supplies nothing in essence.  Fellow citizens supply things, with the government as their means of delivery.

And government has proven to be an incompetent, ineffective, and inefficient means of delivery for most of the services it provides.

I would fear that with government as the means of delivery, overall quality would fall, and those with money would opt out of the government system and obtain private health care, effectively paying twice.  That is how it works with education in many areas, and I have no reason to believe that government health care would be any better in general quality than inner city education.  Government reduces things to the lowest common denominator, and seeks to equalize inequality by pulling down those who are doing better.  This is not in the interests of the vast majority of people. 

There could perhaps be piecemeal programs to help those without health care, as we have now, but I'd go no further than that.  I don't want government controlling such a large segment of the economy, and I don't want government directly involved in things like medical school admissions, etc.  I still remember that Hillary's health care plan required admissions quotas for medical school to "ensure balance and diversity."  I am completely against that, and I don't trust government with that kind of power.

I've never heard anybody suggest that the government provide healthcare. Instead, some have suggested that the government pay for healthcare. The difference is enormous.

That's a good point States. My own brother who happens to be a Liberal Democrat seems to believe that government should have some control over what people eat since government pays healthcare costs for the poor.
(To avoid fatalities my brother and I don't discuss politics much anymore.)

Anyways, in a broader sense, when we turn over our responsibilities to government we also turn over some of our freedom.

First of all, government pays for nothing.  Citizens pay for it through their taxes, and government is the transfer agent.  Second, the person who writes the checks calls the shots, and since government would be writing the checks, it would be calling the shots.  I don't think too many people would like the result, honestly, based upon other areas where government has controlled things.  I have no faith.

First, the governement already pays for a large number (don't have the precise figure, sorry) through Medicaid and Medicare. Second, I'm not so convinced that private insurance companies are doing such a great job as the "transfer agent." Anyhow, my mind is not made up on the healthcare debate. It's really a tough issue. I just think it's smug and cruel to deny access to health care.

That's unfortunate you have such little faith.

But in reality, the proof is in the pudding. Medicare/Medicaid delivers health care much more efficiently and for a smaller cost. Administrative costs for Medicare/Medicaid are approximately 3% while private health insurance has adminstrative costs of approximately 25% (some go up to 30%). The health insurance industry is one of the most wasteful and inefficient industries in the world and the governmental health programs have clearly outperformed them.

Libertarians are not banning people from accessing healthcare. That would undoubtedly be cruel. Rather, we only believe that one is not entitled to steal another's money in order to obtain healthcare.

I believe universal healthcare should only be implemented in countries that can take it. It's a good idea in a place like Sweden or the UK, but a bad idea in places like the USA or Brazil or Russia. You have to take it on a case by case basis.

Please explain why you think that it is good for some countries but bad for others. What distinguishes the US from the UK, for instance?

In the U.S. there is a much larger gap between the rich and the poor, and a large segment of the population that doesn't pay taxes, including illegals. The U.S. would also have an extreme shortage of doctors because of it's very large population and because of the fact that most people in the US become doctors to make money, whereas people in Europe are more community-oriented and become doctors to help people. The larger the gap is the worse off the system will be. In Brazil for instance we have universal healthcare. No person that makes any kind of decent money would dream of visiting a public hospital, yet they are over-crowded and understaffed.

I would answer your question more in depth but it's late here.

I think universal health care would be a huge factor in helping to bridge the gap between rich and poor in the U.S. And it could certainly be done (by way of a single-payer system) without cutting doctor's salaries or quality of care.

I refute that a large percentage of the population doesn't pay taxes. Everybody pays taxes of some sort. If you buy a loaf of bread, you pay sales tax. No matter how little you make, you pay Social Security taxes. It's only on income taxes that the very poor catch a break. I also disagree that most American doctors have chosen their occupation for the money. Most doctors are passionate about what they do. You have to be to get through the rigorous schooling that they have endured.

If you go to or work at a university then yes.

Yet oddly it is okay to steal my money to kill Iraqis... Hmmm

I was for a hybridesque Clinton-Kerry system.  I could easily be talked into a single payer system. 

But I'm essentially a socialist...

I'm shocked to see a single payer system at 50/50 split considering this site tends to have very conservative Democrats...

Please change your country to France immediately.

People keep saying the government is incomeptent in delivering goods, but today most people get health care from corporations, which are ill suited to the task and have proven incapable of delivering adequate health care.

Why all this animosity towards government when the greatest failures of our current sysytem are that we've asked corporations to provide for people's health care and corporation by their nature have proven incapable of doing the job?  By all rights, they never should have been asked to provide helath care, they're not built to do that, they're built to turn a profit, it makes no sense to have this massive private sector welfare state as the recent collapse of GM demonstrates.

A national, universal, health care voucher would allow us to keep the management of health care in the private sector without burdening businesses with the role of nanny state and it would provide universal insurance which is the only effective kind of insurance.  It preserves the free market while still ensuring a basic safety net for everyone.

Would this prevent the government from determining if our actions are "healthy" or "unhealthy" or is that just "a risk we'd have to take" with such a program?

Not so, Emsworth.  How do you think the wealthier classes get the money with which they obtain health care?

They sell goods and services on a scale sufficient to get rich, of course. This requires the labor of others, but seeing as slavery is illegal they have to pay the laborers, so they aren't stealing anything.

Like the Libertarian Party, I oppose the Iraq war, so that point isn't exactly valid.

How would the voucher work? Would it be the same amount for young people as for geezers? Would it be different for people with pre-existing conditions? How much would the voucher be?

What will you do when the Democrats bring into congress a parade of geezers who all claim that the voucher amount is not enough, their deductables are too high, the copay is too high, and they have to eat dogfood in order to pay their medical bills? The Democrats will accuse the Republicans of being mean-spirited ogres. The Republicans will cave in and say; "no no we aren't mean spirited. We're nice ogres. We're going to give you twice as much as those cheap-skate Democrats".  Then you will end up with the same skyrocketing costs that have plagued the medicare/medicaid system.

BTW I agree business should not be providing healthcare to their employees. That practice started during the FDR era. FDR's wage and price controls prevented compaines from enticing employees with higher wages so they offered healthcare insurance instead.

States,

I think the voucher's value should be based on age.  If someone wants to be unhealthy the voucher might not cover the quality of care that person wants.  They'd have to augment the voucher out of pocket.  That seems fair to me, that they pay the cost of their own behavior.

David,

The objection you raise is, I think, a political one and not so much a policy one.  In any health care system, there will always be people whose goal is not to provide a safety net, but to provide a cradle-to-grave luxury/welfare state.  They will always use sad stories to justify higher and higher expenditures.

We just have to find politicians responsible enough to say "no".  Every once in a while, they actually come along.

So this person would still have to pay the same amount of tax money for the program and recieve less coverage?

Not so Dibble.  They are placed in their position, and the laborers in theirs by the State, which imposes, and has imposed since its inception, a class heirarhcy.

The value of the voucher should be the same, but it may no get you as far if you don't take care of yourself.

So this person would still have to pay the same amount of tax money for the program and recieve less coverage?

So you feel that taxation for military funding is also stealing?

Strictly speaking, all taxation could be considered stealing. I support taxation for military funding in some circumstances, but oppose it in many others.

It is essential for a nation to maintain a military to defend itself. Funding the military cannot really be avoided, and taxation for this purpose is a necessary evil. Within reasonable limitations, I do not oppose taxing to fund the military. However, I do oppose using the military to perform actions that do not actually involve national defense. For example, the Iraq war was definitely unnecessary.

Defense is a constitutional function of our government. Foreign aid, welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security are not. But I agree with Emsworth; defense should be defense and not world's policeman.

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? 

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

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".

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.

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.

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!

lol Tweed ^^

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.

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.

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

()

Guys, you're arguing with a banned troll.

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

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.

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.

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

"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.

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 :P

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.

looks like we have another case of vosem syndrome.

Mm? Is it treatable?

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

yes but you can't afford it.

We must have Universal Health Care. Strongly Yes.

Definitely, yes

call me crazy im for the current healthcare bill i believe we could improve on it

Well that doesn't sound like "single-payer."  That sounds like at least "two-payer" which is fine.  I'm all for it.  There should be a stripped down basic government option for everyone and if you want more pay for it.

I'm surprised at the results atm - I thought this forum was right-leaning if anything. I'm obviously in favor. Single-payer is far more efficient than the whole 'crony capitalist' model of subsidizing private healthcare. It's really a shame that it's being debated to reform the NHS in the UK - it's one of the better healthcare models around and just about every Brit I know hates the idea of changing it.

Have you seen the mock election?

Last time a I checked, no one has died of neglect in an American hospital. The issue in America is cost. Personally I think the government should provide an extremely barebones catastrophic insurance for all, while cutting Medicare for wealthy seniors.

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?

One of these days that is going to trigger a nervous breakdown... if the hItLr wSa sOCIaliSt posts don't get me first.

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 don't know if a single-payer system is best for the country necessarily, but it is definitely the system I'd prefer right now. I'd pretty much support anything over the disastrous system we have in place right now. Anything that leaves millions uninsured is unacceptable to me. As a first world nation, I think the current healthcare system is a disgrace. I totally reject the idea that basic healthcare should be for-profit.

Yes, single public health institution with private hospitals on the side seems to work fine in New Zealand

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.

Exactly. A Canada/UK style single payer system encourages neglect. The government should provide catastrophic insurance for all to help people being totally wiped out by their medical bills while leaving routine stuff to be paid out of pocket or with insurance.

Not everything is treatable in a hospital emergency room.

What about welfare state under the Tudors?

Under the 1980's EMTALA law, American hospitals are only legally obligated to treat people who are in immanent danger of death or who are in active labor.  They can, and do, turn people away without care if those conditions don't apply.  So, people with no insurance but long-term chronic illnesses that could be treated in the progress of their development can go for long periods of time without treatment until those illnesses are past the point of treatment.  In any case, if those receiving emergency care under EMTALA are not able to or don't pay their bills, the costs get passed onto other consumers and taxpayers. 

Ok, fair enough. Exactly why we need universal catastrophic health insurance and forcing hospitals to provide care. The government should ensure no one dies of cancer, but I have no problem with hospitals fixing broken legs and then setting people up on an instalment plan.

I didn't as few as two years ago, but I do now. And no, my change has nothing to do with my personal life or anyone related to me. I actually cannot give a good reason for my change of position on this issue other than simply I dislike the idea of people going deep into debt because some emergency occurs. Or that your healthcare coverage is tied with your job. Job centric health care insurance was one of the worst things to ever happen.

Indeed.

Yes, I have reaped the benefits of such a system more times than I would've liked in Britain. Though the Tory coalition is trying to privatise as much as they can of my NHS now, it won't work. The country is too in love with the NHS, this Thatcherite government will not be winning the next election as a result. Healthcare in a modern, rich society should be something that one expects and the only reason the US has not adopted such a system is not because their system is better but simply for ideological reasons. Oh no they can't be looking any bit Socialist! The shame! Well slowly but surely the US seems to be realizing how broken their system really is and I hope that in the very near future they too can reap the benefits of universal healthcare coverage.

Explain? 

I oppose all form of health care. Repeal Obamacare go back to what we had before also cut Medicare.

Obamacare is hear to stay! The only thing to do now is to expand it!

I oppose UHC.

Survival of the fittest, eh?

Free healthcare with no taxes is not a right.

As I said: survival of the fittest.

The thing about healthcare is you have to lower the cost but keep it in the free market like in the 50s.

Good luck with not having Republican state administrations/Congress not slowly grind it down, or at least degenerate very large parts into lawsuits that may well not be settled in the law's favor. Also keep in mind that folks who want to repeal the law outright continue to form an outright majority in the United States, and keep in mind that while Republicans just accepted the Great Society, repealing parts of the New Deal was still a mainstream position that could've won well into the early 1950s -- or fifteen years later. It's perfectly plausible that, in the aftermath of the wave of 2028, Obamacare finally gets repealed. Or sooner. Or it could stay; 2012 was basically it's biggest threat and clearly it's passed that hurdle.

But it ain't getting expanded.

when did the git-r-done types join the forum?

A comparison of the Austrian and US healthcare system by CNN in 3 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXvDSGYtHFw

A more detailed report is here:

http://austrianinformation.org/current-issue-summer-2012/2012/8/21/austrias-health-care-system.html

http://www.bmg.gv.at/cms/home/attachments/2/1/2/CH1015/CMS1287855495948/the_austrian_health_care_system_2010_e1.pdf

Wow good links. Id be willing to pay for Universal Healthcare if we reformed to a Progressive taxation but only after we balance the budget,deport all 12million illegal immigrants/secure our borders/fine mexico for all there evil criminal illegals and make them pay use for all there damage,bring jobs back home and reform to a fair tax system.

This pretty much sums up my opinion on this:

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

Of the viable systems out there now (and yes, these are somewhat artificial classifications), my rankings of best to worst are:

Bismarck
Beveridge
National Health Insurance model
U.S. System
Out-of-Pocket Systems

Why is it a dumb idea? Saying that something is a bad idea without actually explaining why makes you look like an idiot in my eyes whether I agree with you or not.

Do your own research or go home.

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?

So you support Obamacare, then?

Wow so just because I dont support government run healthcare means im a idiot?. Try again.

This might have more to do with it.

In the '50's, a lot of the major health insurance plans like Blue Cross were non-profit organizations, and that gave them tax-exempt status and enabled them to charge low premiums.  Other commercial plans during this decade began to be offered through employers where unions negotiated good work contracts.

There are different degrees to which government regulates health care.  In some systems, government owns the hospitals and many of the care facilities as well as pays the medical bills, while in others, like Bismarck systems, providers are private, and what the government does is annually negotiated medical price caps and require insurance companies to be non-profit orgainizations.  

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.  

There are good reasons that people favor and oppose different health care and insurance systems.  But, in the U.S., when people throw around labels like "socialized medicine" and such, they often don't inform themselves very much about the systems they are criticizing.

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.

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.

Absolutely agree. I'm a Bismarck fanboy.

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.

Blue Cross was a non-profit company in the '50's.  If you're suggesting that insurance companies should be non-profit organizations, I'm with you!  That's precisely what Bismarck systems do!  Why anyone actually wants the board members of their health insurance companies to spend their time thinking about how to satisfy investors instead of thinking about how to finance their customers' medical bills is beyond me.

But, no one is talking about "free" healthcare.  Where did you get the idea that healthcare was "free" anywhere?  In the systems I assume you're primarily opposing, healthcare is paid for primarily with tax revenues.  So, the argument is about whether people should pay for health care through private sector premiums or through taxes; it's not about "free" healthcare.  

I'm also always amused by this continuous charge that single-payer or national insurance health care systems bankrupt the countries they exist in.  Canada spends about 11.5% of its GDP on health care, Cuba 10%. the U.K. about 9.5% and Taiwan...wait for it...6.5%.  The U.S. system's health care expenditures now claim about 18% of our GDP.  Remind me again which country's health care system is going to make them bankrupt first?      

almost every other country in the industrialized world has universal healthcare, and it's worked pretty well there.

also, it isn't "free healthcare". it's healthcare that's paid for by the tax contributions of everybody, and thus everybody can use it. this is already done with schools, the police etc. so why is healthcare such a different proposition?

This guy has 31 posts and not a single of them makes any sense. He's either very stupid, or a troll, and probably both. Let's just ignore him.

Perhaps he is a sockpuppet. Has the moderator hive-mind looked into this yet?

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.

Wow attacking me for not supporting Socialist Healthcare. Real mature.

Proof?. Im open to all theories and beliefs on every subject weres the proof for this?.

Sure thing!  It's not hard to find; here is only the tip of the iceberg of evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita)

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS
 (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS)
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0212/countries-with-the-highest-healthcare-spending.aspx#axzz2DX8W0I9i
 (http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0212/countries-with-the-highest-healthcare-spending.aspx#axzz2DX8W0I9i)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/11/why-does-healthcare-cost-so-much.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/11/why-does-healthcare-cost-so-much.html)

http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.ca/2012/05/why-does-us-spend-more-on-health-care.html
 (http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.ca/2012/05/why-does-us-spend-more-on-health-care.html)

Yes. Tempering the war machine / war industry more than a trifle would go a long way in helping provide it.

I strongly oppose single-payer, but if my party doesn't put up some sort of workable market solution that covers everyone, a few decades down the road we will end up with it anyway.

I oppose universal health care, although I would prefer it to "Obamacare". (I really hate that term...)

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?

Because it's a no good socialism. Herp.

give them enough care to save their lives, but leave them mangled, and hassle them with collection agencies til Grim death.

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.

...the bell tolls for thee.

Good genes and good health habits are no guarantors against health emergencies.  Besides, anyone who just buys private insurance but doesn't need to make any claims is subsidizing the costs of others in that private pool while at the same time covering their own risk.  That's how insurance works. 

Yes,, people with good genes should subsidize those with bad genes. Some things you should be entitled to just by being born.
More relevantly, people with good health habits should NOT subsidize those with bad habits or those who acted irresponsibly. This is a problem with some UHC systems around the world, but you can do things like refuse treatment. It really peeves me when leftists complain there isn't enough money in the NHS for "little kids with cancer" and ask to whack up taxes, but are happy to provide care to robbers who cut their hand punching somebody's windows in or a triple bypass for some 600 kg housewhale. If you are to have UHC, make sure its based on Need+Individual Repsonsibillity

And how, exactly, would 'individual responsibility' be defined? 'Exactly' being very much the operative word.

Was this Illness, Injury or Disease clearly brought on by your liefestyle or actions?

And how, exactly, would you define that? And by 'that' I mean almost all of it... 'lifestyle', 'actions', 'clearly', 'brought on'... and who would make the decisions? Who would have the power? How would the system work?

Unhealthy lifestyles can certainly exacerbate existing conditions or conditions one is prone to have, but eating your oatmeal every day and running a mile is absolutely no guarantee against anything, and while it's a great idea to eat your oatmeal and run your mile, the heart association as well as any physician will tell you it's no guarantee. That said, no, you don't want to blow up your weight and eat fast food and doughnuts.

Breast cancer is not self-inflicted. Some people smoke and get lung cancer, some people don't. Determining causation is a slippery slope and nearly impossible because of genetic factors.

And yes, it's not too much to ask those with "good genes" to help those with "poor genes," if it's to be worded as such.

Yes. We have a horrible health care system in this country (pre-Obamacare anyway). TBH I'd wait until Obamacare gets implemented fully in 2014. Let it work for 2 years, then assess it. If it does its job fine, then case closed, we don't need a change from that. If Obamacare isn't enough to catch up to other 1st world countries, let's go universal. Healthcare is a right, and the more things removed from greedy private giant corporations, the better

NO.

I would say yes do to the fact Trump supports it.

We need it now more then ever.

Our great founders and natives that found this fine land did not bleed and fight for use to have socialism or free healthcare. The natives of this fine land know this.

Define "natives." 

Given who this troll took as a screen name, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.  William Poole was a Know Nothing who wanted to keep the Irish Catholics out.

Why does the question assume that universal health care requires single payer? The Bismarck model is common in developed countries like Germany and Japan, but does not use a single payer.

I'm not sure that it does.  You can be in favor of universal health care but not single-payer systems.  In that case you'd vote No in this poll.

We had a thread a while back that compared four basic medical services models.  The conclusion was that the United States was unusual because it maintains so many separate systems for separate classes of people, utilizing aspects of all four of those models.  Apparently all the other countries have settled on one model for everybody, and any of them seem to be simpler and less expensive than the US system. 

I voted No as well, for what it's worth.

No, I don't, because I favor a bismarck model. Of course even a single payer system would be better than the current system, even after the implementation of Obamacare.

Obamacare is a good "testing the waters" for healthcare reform in the US. If it doesn't live up to its goal, then we must move on to single payer. If it works, we keep it for at least a generation.