Universal health care

[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.

[DC Al Fine]

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.

Absolutely agree. I'm a Bismarck fanboy.

[Supermariobros]

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.

[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.

[anvi]

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.

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?      

[k-onmmunist]

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.

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?

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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?

[k-onmmunist]

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.

[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.

[Supermariobros]

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.

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

[Supermariobros]

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.

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?      

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

[anvi]

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.

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?      

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://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.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

[DemPGH]

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

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

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.

[Goldwater]

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

[Franzl]

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

[freefair]

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.

[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?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

Because it's a no good socialism. Herp.

[© tweed]

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?

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

[DemPGH]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...the bell tolls for thee.