Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Health Care?

Yarely
Posts: 329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 7:32:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Good health care shouldn't be limited to the wealthy. And then there are people who argue that "free health care" would be bad because it is "low quality healthcare."
That doesn't make much sense because it's like saying that there shouldn't be public schools because it is "crappy" compared to private schools.
The cost of health care is ridiculous
The U.S. Census Bureau reported that a record 50.7 million residents (which includes 9.9 million non-citizens) or 16.7% of the population were uninsured in 2009. More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country. A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals""
-Emma Goldman
Yarely
Posts: 329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 7:45:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 7:32:34 AM, Yarely wrote:
Good health care shouldn't be limited to the wealthy. And then there are people who argue that "free health care" would be bad because it is "low quality healthcare."
That doesn't make much sense because it's like saying that there shouldn't be public schools because it is "crappy" compared to private schools.
The cost of health care is ridiculous
The U.S. Census Bureau reported that a record 50.7 million residents (which includes 9.9 million non-citizens) or 16.7% of the population were uninsured in 2009. More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country. A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.

It's like this; if you get sick, you're on your own. Because insurance companies most of the time could care less about your health
If you get injured, you're bankrupt
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals""
-Emma Goldman
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 8:45:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 7:51:27 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
Valid points.
So what are you suggesting? And how much will free heath care cost me?

That's such an interesting, almost nonsensical question. I mean, if it's free, how could it cost you anything? ^_^

Well, I've been playing with an idea in my head for a while...

I kind of want to revisit the idea of anarchy... but, with the rejection of a monetary system. I don't think one or the other is feasible, but perhaps both...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 10:02:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 7:32:34 AM, Yarely wrote:
Good health care shouldn't be limited to the wealthy. And then there are people who argue that "free health care" would be bad because it is "low quality healthcare."

1st off, it's not "free", nothing is "free"; it's paid for by taxes.
The higher quality of care means the more likely the patient will live. This includes waiting times, doctor patient ratio, nurse patient ratio, and the supply of medicine and equipment.
currently the nurse patient ratio is already stretched thin, and due to current tort statutes doctors are stretched thin, because many won't preform certain procedures due to personal risks. For example, most doctors won't deliver babies any more, because any defect of the child may result in a frivolous law suite.

That doesn't make much sense because it's like saying that there shouldn't be public schools because it is "crappy" compared to private schools.

Actually in many cases public schools teach false information, and the children end up worse than if they were not taught anything at all.
One example would be the high-school world history text books which called Buddhism monotheistic. That pissed me off a 4 years back, as there is no deity worship in Buddhism, and Buddha is not a god. I remember arguing with the history teacher because he aced some freshman's project that compared Buddhism to Islam, and Buddha to Allah. WTF?!

the history books are not written by historians, all the textbooks are written by text book companies who know little to nothing about the topic.
That's why high-school textbooks are cheaper than college textbooks

The bad textbooks aside, the teachers don't know squat, as I had to correct the teachers several times, back in high-school.

On top of that they don't care about teaching the kids, they care about accreditation, test scores, and attendance. My ex-best friend made a deal with the school, that they would pass her just for showing up for class. She graduated, and she slept through every class, and did no work. This was so their attendance statistics would improve.
In Florida it was even worse, as the teachers only taught what would be on the state test, because their salary depended on test scores.

The cost of health care is ridiculous
So you suggest we increase the number of people on health care, and hand the cost to the tax payers? You must really hate tax payers.
The U.S. Census Bureau reported that a record 50.7 million residents (which includes 9.9 million non-citizens) or 16.7% of the population were uninsured in 2009.
I'll take that over crappy quality of care.
More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country. A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.

I like how you provide sources.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 10:17:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 10:02:47 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/23/2012 7:32:34 AM, Yarely wrote:
Good health care shouldn't be limited to the wealthy. And then there are people who argue that "free health care" would be bad because it is "low quality healthcare."

1st off, it's not "free", nothing is "free"; it's paid for by taxes.
The higher quality of care means the more likely the patient will live. This includes waiting times, doctor patient ratio, nurse patient ratio, and the supply of medicine and equipment.
currently the nurse patient ratio is already stretched thin, and due to current tort statutes doctors are stretched thin, because many won't preform certain procedures due to personal risks. For example, most doctors won't deliver babies any more, because any defect of the child may result in a frivolous law suite.

Uhm, reference? Because for doctors who deliver babies, Obstetricians, that's one of their primary functions. It's like saying most brain surgeons refuse to perform brain surgeries.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 10:43:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Speaking as someone lucky enough to live in a country with free healthcare, it's kinda great. In fact, if you look at WHO studies an the like, the UK NHS is around 20 places better ranked than the American healthcare system.

The 2 questions I would always ask detractors of govt-run healthcare is:

1. Why is it that in every single country by country comparison, the strong trend is towards govt-run healthcare having the best results (France, UK etc)?

2. Why is there no movement in countries like the UK for demolishing the NHS, to the extent that any party which proposed to do so would never even have a hope to do well in an election?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 11:00:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 10:43:21 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Speaking as someone lucky enough to live in a country with free healthcare, it's kinda great. In fact, if you look at WHO studies an the like, the UK NHS is around 20 places better ranked than the American healthcare system.

The 2 questions I would always ask detractors of govt-run healthcare is:

1. Why is it that in every single country by country comparison, the strong trend is towards govt-run healthcare having the best results (France, UK etc)?

Not really.
http://www.ncpa.org...
http://blog.heritage.org...

2. Why is there no movement in countries like the UK for demolishing the NHS, to the extent that any party which proposed to do so would never even have a hope to do well in an election?

I bet smaller parties are against it.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 11:16:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 11:00:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/23/2012 10:43:21 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Speaking as someone lucky enough to live in a country with free healthcare, it's kinda great. In fact, if you look at WHO studies an the like, the UK NHS is around 20 places better ranked than the American healthcare system.

The 2 questions I would always ask detractors of govt-run healthcare is:

1. Why is it that in every single country by country comparison, the strong trend is towards govt-run healthcare having the best results (France, UK etc)?

Not really.
http://www.ncpa.org...
http://blog.heritage.org...

The first link doesn't work. The second link just selectively picks bits out of the US system which are good. Overall, as the WHO report in 2000 and 2007 (if I remember rightly) confirm, as do other reports besides, the US system simply languishes behind the UK, and the French system is simply the best.

2. Why is there no movement in countries like the UK for demolishing the NHS, to the extent that any party which proposed to do so would never even have a hope to do well in an election?

I bet smaller parties are against it.

I honestly don't know a smaller party that would get rid of the NHS. All the way from the various socialist parties to even the far right BNP http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk... recognise that it's political suicide to propose getting rid of the most sacred of cows.

Further, when Daniel Hannan (a conservative MEP) criticised the NHS on Sean Hannity's show in 2008, leader David Cameron quickly disassociated himself with the comments. In fact, the Conservative Party in the last election (as in every other election since its inception) tried to align itself as protectors of the NHS. If they didn't, they most likely wouldn't have got anywhere close to winning.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 11:32:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 11:16:13 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/23/2012 11:00:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/23/2012 10:43:21 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Speaking as someone lucky enough to live in a country with free healthcare, it's kinda great. In fact, if you look at WHO studies an the like, the UK NHS is around 20 places better ranked than the American healthcare system.

The 2 questions I would always ask detractors of govt-run healthcare is:

1. Why is it that in every single country by country comparison, the strong trend is towards govt-run healthcare having the best results (France, UK etc)?

Not really.
http://www.ncpa.org...
http://blog.heritage.org...

The first link doesn't work. The second link just selectively picks bits out of the US system which are good. Overall, as the WHO report in 2000 and 2007 (if I remember rightly) confirm, as do other reports besides, the US system simply languishes behind the UK, and the French system is simply the best.

this work? http://www.ncpa.org...

Um, no, it compares the US technology and other aspects to the UK and canada and proves on balance the US private insurance trumps the inefficient insurance. The private sector has the motivation of money to do well, the goverment has none.

The argument on the US is ranked low is because overall health lowers the US on ranking, as we have high obesity and smoking rates, we rank number on on speedy effective healthcare. Also if you look at canada US trumps. This site compares NHS vs US, US wins.
http://www.biggovhealth.org...

The french healthcare is extremely costly, 10% of each families income. They spend the most GDP on HC in Europe. They underpay doctors and restrict the amount of doctors that go to med school. They have worse technology then the US and have a shortage overall. And everyone is insured bu have very high rates of under insured.
http://www.biggovhealth.org...

france has bad HC.


2. Why is there no movement in countries like the UK for demolishing the NHS, to the extent that any party which proposed to do so would never even have a hope to do well in an election?

I bet smaller parties are against it.

I honestly don't know a smaller party that would get rid of the NHS. All the way from the various socialist parties to even the far right BNP http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk... recognise that it's political suicide to propose getting rid of the most sacred of cows.

Further, when Daniel Hannan (a conservative MEP) criticised the NHS on Sean Hannity's show in 2008, leader David Cameron quickly disassociated himself with the comments. In fact, the Conservative Party in the last election (as in every other election since its inception) tried to align itself as protectors of the NHS. If they didn't, they most likely wouldn't have got anywhere close to winning.

Odd, as the NHS is terrible. They are probably just used to it, as it has been that way for a while. Learn about the UK system here: http://www.biggovhealth.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 11:43:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 10:17:07 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/23/2012 10:02:47 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/23/2012 7:32:34 AM, Yarely wrote:
Good health care shouldn't be limited to the wealthy. And then there are people who argue that "free health care" would be bad because it is "low quality healthcare."

1st off, it's not "free", nothing is "free"; it's paid for by taxes.
The higher quality of care means the more likely the patient will live. This includes waiting times, doctor patient ratio, nurse patient ratio, and the supply of medicine and equipment.
currently the nurse patient ratio is already stretched thin, and due to current tort statutes doctors are stretched thin, because many won't preform certain procedures due to personal risks. For example, most doctors won't deliver babies any more, because any defect of the child may result in a frivolous law suite.

Uhm, reference? Because for doctors who deliver babies, Obstetricians, that's one of their primary functions. It's like saying most brain surgeons refuse to perform brain surgeries.

It's not so much the doctors as it is the hospitals. The doctors who do deliver babies usually push for c-sections because there is less risk of law suites. The hospitals are the one's who make the policy of no deliveries, because of their liability. Doctors are always covering their a** these days. I can't tell you the number of times they called of surgery on my mom, because of minor things, or opted for a different surgical option, not in the interest of the patient, to reduce the risk and liability.

www.norc.org/
Here is the article;
http://www.google.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 11:45:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 10:43:21 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Speaking as someone lucky enough to live in a country with free healthcare, it's kinda great. In fact, if you look at WHO studies an the like, the UK NHS is around 20 places better ranked than the American healthcare system.

The 2 questions I would always ask detractors of govt-run healthcare is:

1. Why is it that in every single country by country comparison, the strong trend is towards govt-run healthcare having the best results (France, UK etc)?

2. Why is there no movement in countries like the UK for demolishing the NHS, to the extent that any party which proposed to do so would never even have a hope to do well in an election?

You trust WHO? LOL I never trust anything coming out of the UN, they have a bad track record.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 11:48:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
LOL

I love how liberal idealists think that the word "free" actually means "costs no money".

I've got a better idea - this is how you get truly free health care.

Ready?

The medical companies and the doctors all volunteer for no money! ... :D

That's what the OP really wants or else he's using free to mean "push it onto the wealthy and middle class taxpayers"...

Silly liberal idealists...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 11:51:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 11:45:52 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/23/2012 10:43:21 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Speaking as someone lucky enough to live in a country with free healthcare, it's kinda great. In fact, if you look at WHO studies an the like, the UK NHS is around 20 places better ranked than the American healthcare system.

The 2 questions I would always ask detractors of govt-run healthcare is:

1. Why is it that in every single country by country comparison, the strong trend is towards govt-run healthcare having the best results (France, UK etc)?

2. Why is there no movement in countries like the UK for demolishing the NHS, to the extent that any party which proposed to do so would never even have a hope to do well in an election?

You trust WHO? LOL I never trust anything coming out of the UN, they have a bad track record.

The UN just mailed a strongly worded letter to Syria.. so they are slightly less ineffectual this week..
Debate.org Moderator
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 11:52:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 11:48:30 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
LOL

I love how liberal idealists think that the word "free" actually means "costs no money".

I've got a better idea - this is how you get truly free health care.

Ready?

The medical companies and the doctors all volunteer for no money! ... :D

That's what the OP really wants or else he's using free to mean "push it onto the wealthy and middle class taxpayers"...

Silly liberal idealists...

its free as in a socialist system the rich pay for us. So depending on her wealth its free.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 11:55:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 11:48:30 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
LOL

I love how liberal idealists think that the word "free" actually means "costs no money".

I've got a better idea - this is how you get truly free health care.

Ready?

The medical companies and the doctors all volunteer for no money! ... :D

That's what the OP really wants or else he's using free to mean "push it onto the wealthy and middle class taxpayers"...

Silly liberal idealists...

Yes, actually, you have a point, and I completely agree with you.

If we were to have truly free healthcare, then doctors, technicians, surgeons, administrators, nurses, caretakers, researchers, biologists, and medical scientists would all need to work for free.

The question would need to be, at that point, why?

Well, so that they can have access to what everyone else can provide in society.

But, how does one determine how much they can take? To that, I'd have to say, the limits of what we procure is the same as what we produce. Therefore, if it is within our capacity to provide it, they would have access to it, just as others have access to their healthcare.

Well, then what incentive does anyone have to do anything at all?

Ahhh, there's the rub. Incentive to maintain order to correctness without a contrived rationale. I think therein lay the real question.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 11:57:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have to admit... socialism/communism seems like an attempt to establish a society like that, which would remain compatible with a global economy that won't necessarily cooperate.

Now, that's a thought.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 11:59:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 11:48:30 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
LOL

I love how liberal idealists think that the word "free" actually means "costs no money".

I've got a better idea - this is how you get truly free health care.

Ready?

The medical companies and the doctors all volunteer for no money! ... :D

That's what the OP really wants or else he's using free to mean "push it onto the wealthy and middle class taxpayers"...

Silly liberal idealists...

Interesting. You see, I thought it was common knowledge that - in an informal sense, at least - "free" used in this context meant "no additional cost above and beyond taxes".

You're not aware of this usage of the term? Weird. I mean, proposed Healthcare plans that meat the criteria here don't actually use the word "Free" in them, so I'm unsure of what your crticism is, anyway. Inaccuracy in language? Don't conservatives call it "Obamacare". That doesn't exactly reak of accuracy either.

Or is it that there are no more intact panes in your house of glass that you don't care about slinging stones?
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:01:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The answer to the healthcare industries problems isnt to make it free. Just read my arguments from this debate and youll see a universal healthcare policy still wont solve the true underlying issues behind its high-cost and low quality.

http://www.debate.org...
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:02:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Health care is a scarce resource. That means that it can't be free.

So, this whole thread is a bit ridiculous.
President of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:05:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 12:02:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Health care is a scarce resource. That means that it can't be free.

So, this whole thread is a bit ridiculous.

o.o

Seriously, though?

Healthcare is not a resource. It is a competency. It requires a finite resource to be functional -- manpower -- but, much like the speed of light, that can simply be a constant upon which everything else is based (in part).

Every day, monetization looks just a little more nonsensical to me. I'm a little concerned as to what state of mind I may eventually wake up into.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:07:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 12:02:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Health care is a scarce resource. That means that it can't be free.

So, this whole thread is a bit ridiculous.

We just want everyone to be healthy and happy and free from the unfair burdens of life... You obviously just want to see small children dying in the street don't you?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
crossfade102495
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:15:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 12:07:35 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We just want everyone to be healthy and happy and free from the unfair burdens of life... You obviously just want to see small children dying in the street don't you?

Well, that just sounds like the good old liberal, humanitarian, personal attacks which people have grown so accustomed to. It's not that we don't want people to have healthcare, it's that the costs far outweigh the benefits. I believe Obama's healthcare reform plan will increase the national debt by $1.76 trillion in ten years (check me on that though, I'm not totally sure). Sounds a bit steep for a nation that's already $15.5 trillion in debt.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:23:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 12:07:35 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/23/2012 12:02:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Health care is a scarce resource. That means that it can't be free.

So, this whole thread is a bit ridiculous.

We just want everyone to be healthy and happy and free from the unfair burdens of life... You obviously just want to see small children dying in the street don't you?

Yes because making a policy of universal healthcare will solve the impending nurse/physician/surgeon right?
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:24:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 12:23:12 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 3/23/2012 12:07:35 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/23/2012 12:02:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Health care is a scarce resource. That means that it can't be free.

So, this whole thread is a bit ridiculous.

We just want everyone to be healthy and happy and free from the unfair burdens of life... You obviously just want to see small children dying in the street don't you?

Yes because making a policy of universal healthcare will solve the impending nurse/physician/surgeon right?

Shortage*. it will solve the high costs? The wasteful practices? The abysmal quality?
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:25:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 11:32:39 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/23/2012 11:16:13 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/23/2012 11:00:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/23/2012 10:43:21 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Speaking as someone lucky enough to live in a country with free healthcare, it's kinda great. In fact, if you look at WHO studies an the like, the UK NHS is around 20 places better ranked than the American healthcare system.

The 2 questions I would always ask detractors of govt-run healthcare is:

1. Why is it that in every single country by country comparison, the strong trend is towards govt-run healthcare having the best results (France, UK etc)?

Not really.
http://www.ncpa.org...
http://blog.heritage.org...

The first link doesn't work. The second link just selectively picks bits out of the US system which are good. Overall, as the WHO report in 2000 and 2007 (if I remember rightly) confirm, as do other reports besides, the US system simply languishes behind the UK, and the French system is simply the best.

this work? http://www.ncpa.org...

Um, no, it compares the US technology and other aspects to the UK and canada and proves on balance the US private insurance trumps the inefficient insurance. The private sector has the motivation of money to do well, the goverment has none.

The argument on the US is ranked low is because overall health lowers the US on ranking, as we have high obesity and smoking rates, we rank number on on speedy effective healthcare. Also if you look at canada US trumps. This site compares NHS vs US, US wins.
http://www.biggovhealth.org...

The links are doing essentially what I said the other one does. They are selecting statistics which suit the political narrative, rather than evaluating the system as a whole.

To give an analogy, suppose we break down the results of 2 sports teams. All you (or more specifically the links provided) are doing is giving out interesting but ultimately irrelevant information. Who cares if Team A has more passes, shots or home wins (or whatever else), if, at the end of the day, points are the name of the game, and Team B has more?

Similarly, while pointing out particular results are interesting, you simply can't ignore the overall picture. UK results are better than the US by a long way.

As for obesity and such, you're talking to someone who lives in a country with delicacies such as deep-fried mars bars and the like. Our health trends are some of the worst in Europe, yet the results of the NHS are as they are.

The french healthcare is extremely costly, 10% of each families income. They spend the most GDP on HC in Europe. They underpay doctors and restrict the amount of doctors that go to med school. They have worse technology then the US and have a shortage overall. And everyone is insured bu have very high rates of under insured.
http://www.biggovhealth.org...

france has bad HC.

Again, you're just picking out statistics selectively. French HC costs LESS, in terms of GDP than the US (and 5% so), it has a better infant mortality rate, better life expectancy and so on.

Also, on another note, you can't selectively use statistics from a study that you doubt the efficacy of. If the WHO reports are true, and they do correlate with other, similar reports, they show that the overwhelming trend favours govt healthcare.



2. Why is there no movement in countries like the UK for demolishing the NHS, to the extent that any party which proposed to do so would never even have a hope to do well in an election?

I bet smaller parties are against it.

I honestly don't know a smaller party that would get rid of the NHS. All the way from the various socialist parties to even the far right BNP http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk... recognise that it's political suicide to propose getting rid of the most sacred of cows.

Further, when Daniel Hannan (a conservative MEP) criticised the NHS on Sean Hannity's show in 2008, leader David Cameron quickly disassociated himself with the comments. In fact, the Conservative Party in the last election (as in every other election since its inception) tried to align itself as protectors of the NHS. If they didn't, they most likely wouldn't have got anywhere close to winning.

Odd, as the NHS is terrible. They are probably just used to it, as it has been that way for a while. Learn about the UK system here: http://www.biggovhealth.org...

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. In terms of impartial statistics, it fares tremendously well. As for British people being "used to it", this seems incredibly naive. In the 1980s, under Thatcher, the UK pretty much eviscertated the state's role in the economy. This wholesale, radical change didn't include the NHS because of it's huge popular support and its viability as a health care provider. Unlike the US, we have the option of either the NHS or going private. Again, the NHS survives competition because of its effectiveness.

I should emphasise this isn't a right vs left issue in the UK. People who want to abolish the NHS are alongside people who want to repeal votes for women in terms of how much support they get.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:30:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 11:48:30 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
LOL

I love how liberal idealists think that the word "free" actually means "costs no money".

I've got a better idea - this is how you get truly free health care.

Ready?

The medical companies and the doctors all volunteer for no money! ... :D

That's what the OP really wants or else he's using free to mean "push it onto the wealthy and middle class taxpayers"...

Silly liberal idealists...

It's probably less misleading to call the NHS and other systems as taxpayer funded healthcare, free at the point of use. Given that US taxpayers pay for medicare, medicaid, and pay for the uniinsured visists to emergency rooms through their premiums, you guys are still paying for it, and paying far more for relatively poor results.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:38:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Because people seem to need to be rided NOT to put the government in charge of alot,

"Some writers have confounded society with government, as to leave little to no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. 

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a neccesary evil in it worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!"
-Thomas Paine, "Common Sense"
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:43:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No healthcare for political dissenters anyone? Lolol
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion