Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arguments For/Against National Healthcare?

SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 6:27:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You could potentially change my mind. I'd like to hear arguments from both sides. Make good arguments. Edit out all the stuff about how conservatives/liberals are ruining this country because I really couldn't care less.

My questions:

Would the quality of healthcare increase or decrease if the government nationalized healthcare?

Where would the money for national healthcare come from? Would national healthcare cause an increase in taxes? If so, how much?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 6:30:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When a government cannot effectively manage a budget and appropriately allocate funds, then why do you think that national healthcare will be anything other than a bureaucratic failure and disaster?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 6:32:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 6:27:02 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You could potentially change my mind. I'd like to hear arguments from both sides. Make good arguments. Edit out all the stuff about how conservatives/liberals are ruining this country because I really couldn't care less.

My questions:

Would the quality of healthcare increase or decrease if the government nationalized healthcare?

decrease.

"More than half of Canadian adults (56 percent) sought routine or ongoing care in 2005 – of these, one in six said they had trouble getting routine care. Fourteen percent of Canadians - approximately five million people - are still without a family doctor. Within this group, more than two million (41 percent) have tried to find a family doctor and were not successful. ... Eighty-five percent of doctors in Canada agree that private insurance for health services already covered under Medicare would result in shorter wait times. [meaning private insurance > government insurance] ... 17.8 weeks from general practitioners' referrals to treatment by a specialist ... Patients have long waiting lines for critical procedures
There is a lack of access to current technology Taxpayers and patients face increasing costs Canada is facing a brain drain as one in nine doctors who trained in Canada has left to practice medicine in the United States"
http://www.biggovhealth.org...


Where would the money for national healthcare come from? Would national healthcare cause an increase in taxes? If so, how much?

Likely an increase, though thats debatable. I fail to understand the logic behind it would decrease though.
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
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 6:45:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 6:27:02 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You could potentially change my mind. I'd like to hear arguments from both sides. Make good arguments. Edit out all the stuff about how conservatives/liberals are ruining this country because I really couldn't care less.

My questions:

Would the quality of healthcare increase or decrease if the government nationalized healthcare?

Decrease. Signficantly.
Where would the money for national healthcare come from? Would national healthcare cause an increase in taxes? If so, how much?
Nowhere. Only for the wealthy. Until they can't be any further.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 6:50:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 6:27:02 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You could potentially change my mind. I'd like to hear arguments from both sides. Make good arguments. Edit out all the stuff about how conservatives/liberals are ruining this country because I really couldn't care less.

My questions:

Would the quality of healthcare increase or decrease if the government nationalized healthcare?


Nationalization of Healthcare increases the demand for treatment, without increasing the supply of medicine, equipment, and personnel. This means a higher price, and longer wait. There is already a shortage of hospitals and doctors willing to preform certain procedures which puts them at risk for frivolous law suits.

Where would the money for national healthcare come from? Would national healthcare cause an increase in taxes? If so, how much?

Yes; it depends on size of the population, and the demand for treatment.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 7:08:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 6:51:08 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
USPS had a -7% profit margin last year.

UPS had a +7% profit margin last year.

Private wins.

+1.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:07:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow, this thread has been taken over by right wingers.

But don't worry, I am here! Single-Payer National Healthcare is my most passionate issue, and here are the real facts:

Background

Currently, we are the 37th best in healthcare for our citizens. [1] We are several spots below Morocco. We spend 40% more than the nearest nation, because the corporate bureaucracy of private health insurance is inefficient. [2]

Better Future with Massive Efficiency

If America switched to a Single Payer system, one huge benefit is that we would save an estimated $300 billion dollars, other estimates range higher. [2] [3] [4] [5] It would reduce income inequality, and would make American businesses more competitive worldwide. For example, US automakers have to add $1500 to the cost of each car because of healthcare. For Japan, it is $500 per car.

The reason for the huge savings is due to the brilliantly simple structure of a Single-payer system. Compared to the Canadian system, private insurance companies spend 31% of all spending just on administrative costs. In Canada, the number is less than 17%. The system if fully electronic, would also be streamlined, efficient, and equitable. Researchers concluded that we would save over $77.8 billion annually with a fully electronic system. [6] The reasons for all of the savings are because of the streamlined, electronic administration, the elimination of marketing, profit, and other associated costs, and with a brilliantly simple, yet efficient framework for healthcare. And we could still cover everybody, including the under or uninsured with huge savings in the billions. [5]

Medical information would be stored confidentially on a Health Security type smart card. [7]

Since SP covers all medically necessary health care costs, preventive care would be accessible to all citizens. Co-pays would be adjusted so that they are based on according to pay ability, so we get the best of both systems. Preventive care would save much money this way.

Quality Improvements

The quality of healthcare would not be diminished. Quality would improve actually. This is because all would have health care access. There are no complicated rules to get care, fair and simple rules for getting the necessary care. It is continous. There is free choice of provider. There is stable access to care. All patients are covered, and greater potential for support by a network of providers. Poor quality care is care denied. Single Payer deals with all of attributes of quality and resounds them nicely. [8]

All citizens would be covered with quality health care. Since all citizens are in one system, the political pressure would make sure the system is maintained and of good quality.

Rationing Fears - A Conservative Dream

All citizens could get the care they need. Rationing, widely shown as a tradeoff, is not real. Taiwan has the same kind of system that I'm describing, and they don't have rationing. With much more time due to a large reduction in paperwork, more time could be spent with patients. There may be potential problems of rationing in a single payer system, but it would not be nearly as severe as the current style of US rationing, which causes massive suffering and death based on one's ability to pay. Since it is based on medical need, and all systems ration, it could be labeled as beneficial rationing. [9]

Effective Treatments and Funding

A clinical excellence system would preferably be established with single payer, in which treatments and drugs are compared for doctors so that patients get the most effective treatments that reduces waste and ineffective treatments. The British have a similar system, called NICE. The CBO showed that such a system would significantly reduce healthcare costs. [10]

To pay for Single Payer, it would require a 2% income tax hike, and a 7% payroll tax, or about $850 in new taxes, but overall, people and businesses would have a reduction in health care costs with about $910 per capita and more. [11] Other sources of current gov't health care would be retained and redirected.
So, the net cost of achieving universal health insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative. [12]

Summary:

Single Payer national health insurance would bring:
- Universal, comprehensive coverage for all American citizens
- A Single insurance plan in each region, administered primarily at the federal level
- Global budgets, competition between medical professionals
- Free Choice of Providers
- Clinical System of Excellence
- Public Accountability, Federal Health Board used to oversee health care system
- Protection of access to health care
- High quality and availability to all
- Efficient, Streamlined system
- Confidential Medical information
- Affordable Drug Prices (negotiated down)
- Liberal benefits, conservative spending
- Net savings in the hundreds of billions
- Large reduction in health care inflation [3]
- Economy, and businesses are made more competitive

So, we could cover all Americans with all of these benefits that I've proved. And we would have a net savings of cash. Pretty common sense right? For those who want to pay more for less benefits, a worse economy, and for a system that costs hundreds of billions more [13] while costing the lives of 45,000 people a year [14] simply make me want to vomit. It is morally, economically, and socially reprehensible.

"In purely economic terms, single-payer is clearly the way to go." - Paul Krugman

"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Sources:

[1] http://www.photius.com...
[2] http://library.thinkquest.org...
[3] http://www.dollarsandsense.org...
[4] Steffie Woolhandler, Terry Campbell, and David U. Himmelstein, "Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada," New England Journal of Medicine (Aug. 2003), pp. 768-75.
[5] http://www.nytimes.com...
[6] J. Walker et al., "The Value of Health Care Information Exchange and Interoprerability."
[7] http://www.google.com...
[8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[9] http://pnhp.org...
[10] http://pnhp.org...
[11] Sasha Bartolf, "Orszag Discusses New Ways of Alleviating Soaring Health Care Costs," CQ Health Beat, May 22, 2007
[12] http://www.cbo.gov...
[13] http://www.pnhp.org...
[14] http://www.reuters.com...

It's a Dream come true. I hope you have experienced a change of heart.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:20:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One of the easiest ways to find out what the universal HC is like is to ask recipients of it what they think. In the UK, polls done on this indicate a level of support for it around the 90% mark. The political landscape is such that even the right-wing parties support UHC, as far as I'm aware, universally.

There's also studies done by WHO and others which documents the massive success that UHC has across the globe. When compared with the US, countries like the UK, France and others are simply better overall, and the trend is such that the WHO actually recommends UHC,or at least significant govt involvement.

Speaking from personal experience, UHC is pretty fantastic. Having healthcare free at the point of use for everyone in the country is something we just take for granted. It seems pretty logical too. Preventive care is much cheaper than dealing with an illness which has been allowed to fester for months because someone couldn't afford to see a doctor.

To be fair, I'm not bothered about whether Americans or anyone else adopt UHC, or what kind of ideological problems there are and so on. I support UHC because I know it works.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:32:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 6:51:08 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
USPS had a -7% profit margin last year.

UPS had a +7% profit margin last year.

Private wins.

I loved how Obama used this as an example for Obamacare. Political fails ftw!
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
LeoL
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:34:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 6:32:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/23/2012 6:27:02 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You could potentially change my mind. I'd like to hear arguments from both sides. Make good arguments. Edit out all the stuff about how conservatives/liberals are ruining this country because I really couldn't care less.

My questions:

Would the quality of healthcare increase or decrease if the government nationalized healthcare?

decrease.

"More than half of Canadian adults (56 percent) sought routine or ongoing care in 2005 – of these, one in six said they had trouble getting routine care. Fourteen percent of Canadians - approximately five million people - are still without a family doctor. Within this group, more than two million (41 percent) have tried to find a family doctor and were not successful. ... Eighty-five percent of doctors in Canada agree that private insurance for health services already covered under Medicare would result in shorter wait times. [meaning private insurance > government insurance] ... 17.8 weeks from general practitioners' referrals to treatment by a specialist ... Patients have long waiting lines for critical procedures
There is a lack of access to current technology Taxpayers and patients face increasing costs Canada is facing a brain drain as one in nine doctors who trained in Canada has left to practice medicine in the United States"
http://www.biggovhealth.org...


This is hilarious. I love to see conservative Americans describe the Canadian healthcare system as living hell, when Canadians are almost 100% in favor of national healthcare and understand that it's positive aspects overide it's negative aspects drastically.

In fact, if what you believe is true, that many Canadians are having such a difficult time with our national healthcare, the Conservative Party of Canada would oppose it! The Conservative Party of Canada, which contains many very right-wing politicians, doesn't or cannot oppose national health care because Canadians hold it too dear, and it would be political suicide. In the recent Conservative budget in Canada, almost every part of the government was cut..EXCEPT for national healthcare, because as a Canadian living in Canada it is almost impossible to oppose it.

Why is it so loved in Canada? Because you don't have to worry about how rich you are to get medical care. You will get your care no matter what, because canadians understand that medical care is a fundamental right. Of course there are longer line ups, BECAUSE everyone can get care! the 'small' lineups in the U.S are because not Many people can afford it. Do you consider this better?

Also, conservative Americans like to exaggerate that people with serious health issues have to wait 12 months before they can have their procedures or operations. Now, as someone who needed an operation in Canada, I can proudly say this is wrong. If your health concern is serious enough, they will convince you to stay in the hospital and they will change their schedule for you.

Those statistical papers show what conservatives want everyone to see. Of course there are sone issues, but compared to American health care it's beautiful.
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -Douglas Adams
LeoL
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:38:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:20:13 PM, unitedandy wrote:
One of the easiest ways to find out what the universal HC is like is to ask recipients of it what they think. In the UK, polls done on this indicate a level of support for it around the 90% mark. The political landscape is such that even the right-wing parties support UHC, as far as I'm aware, universally.

There's also studies done by WHO and others which documents the massive success that UHC has across the globe. When compared with the US, countries like the UK, France and others are simply better overall, and the trend is such that the WHO actually recommends UHC,or at least significant govt involvement.

Speaking from personal experience, UHC is pretty fantastic. Having healthcare free at the point of use for everyone in the country is something we just take for granted. It seems pretty logical too. Preventive care is much cheaper than dealing with an illness which has been allowed to fester for months because someone couldn't afford to see a doctor.

To be fair, I'm not bothered about whether Americans or anyone else adopt UHC, or what kind of ideological problems there are and so on. I support UHC because I know it works.

Exactly, people who live in evolved states with universal health care STRONGLY support it. The only people that strongly don't support it are ideologically driven conservatives that live in countries and never experienced UHC. And, even in Canada the conservative party supports UHC, and that says A LOT.
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -Douglas Adams
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:39:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
National health care in the USA would mean bureacrats making health care decisions for over 300 Million Americans.

How does that sound?
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:39:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:07:49 PM, Contra wrote:
Wow, this thread has been taken over by right wingers.

But don't worry, I am here! Single-Payer National Healthcare is my most passionate issue, and here are the real facts:

Background

Currently, we are the 37th best in healthcare for our citizens. [1] We are several spots below Morocco. We spend 40% more than the nearest nation, because the corporate bureaucracy of private health insurance is inefficient. [2]

False. Calling the US a private health insurance country is beyond retarded. The US provides programs for the elderly and those who would not be able to afford them by themselves (Medicare, Medicaid, etc...). To call the US private is ludicrous. The US combines the worst of the socialist and the private healthcare systems into one.

Also, it's the government bureaucracy that has taken over the healthcare system in the US. Private bureaucracies don't exist.

Better Future with Massive Efficiency

If America switched to a Single Payer system, one huge benefit is that we would save an estimated $300 billion dollars, other estimates range higher. [2] [3] [4] [5] It would reduce income inequality, and would make American businesses more competitive worldwide.

The notion that the US Fedeal Government would save money by paying for the medical procedures of everybody, not just the elderly is completely illogical.

For example, US automakers have to add $1500 to the cost of each car because of healthcare. For Japan, it is $500 per car.

Higher prices cars are good how? I don't think you understand how competitiveness and businesses work.

The reason for the huge savings is due to the brilliantly simple structure of a Single-payer system. Compared to the Canadian system, private insurance companies spend 31% of all spending just on administrative costs. In Canada, the number is less than 17%. The system if fully electronic, would also be streamlined, efficient, and equitable. Researchers concluded that we would save over $77.8 billion annually with a fully electronic system. [6] The reasons for all of the savings are because of the streamlined, electronic administration, the elimination of marketing, profit, and other associated costs, and with a brilliantly simple, yet efficient framework for healthcare. And we could still cover everybody, including the under or uninsured with huge savings in the billions. [5]

A governmentally instated electronically operated system would just create a massive bureaucracy, which is rampant with inefficiencies due to the inherent problems that all bureaucracies face.

Medical information would be stored confidentially on a Health Security type smart card. [7]

This is an utter violation of personal liberty.

Since SP covers all medically necessary health care costs, preventive care would be accessible to all citizens. Co-pays would be adjusted so that they are based on according to pay ability, so we get the best of both systems. Preventive care would save much money this way.

SP would create too much supply, as anybody with any condition would be able to access the medical system. On the other hand, demand would stay constant, resulting in a shortage.

Quality Improvements

The quality of healthcare would not be diminished. Quality would improve actually. This is because all would have health care access. There are no complicated rules to get care, fair and simple rules for getting the necessary care. It is continous. There is free choice of provider. There is stable access to care. All patients are covered, and greater potential for support by a network of providers. Poor quality care is care denied. Single Payer deals with all of attributes of quality and resounds them nicely. [8]

I dare you to theoretically back up the notion that the quality of healthcare from companies who's sole interest is serving the consumer is worse than a bureaucracy that is not at all accountable.

I dare you.

All citizens would be covered with quality health care. Since all citizens are in one system, the political pressure would make sure the system is maintained and of good quality.

Rationing Fears - A Conservative Dream

All citizens could get the care they need. Rationing, widely shown as a tradeoff, is not real. Taiwan has the same kind of system that I'm describing, and they don't have rationing. With much more time due to a large reduction in paperwork, more time could be spent with patients. There may be potential problems of rationing in a single payer system, but it would not be nearly as severe as the current style of US rationing, which causes massive suffering and death based on one's ability to pay. Since it is based on medical need, and all systems ration, it could be labeled as beneficial rationing. [9]

Canada has one of the biggest problems in wait times in the world.

"As reported by the Health Council of Canada, a 2010 Commonwealth survey found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 43% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 10% in the U.S. "

I really don't even feel like reading the rest of the propaganda BS.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:39:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
All healthcare systems ration. Our current American system uses massive pain and suffering, death, and the value of money over life to make sure that some get care, while over 45,000 die on the streets because they can't get care. How many in Canada got no healthcare? 0

ALSO, in recent years more doctors are returning to Canada then going to America.

And when you look at the facts, that we can cover all and massively improve the system, why the heck wouldn't you want to have national healthcare?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:43:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:38:44 PM, LeoL wrote:
At 5/23/2012 9:20:13 PM, unitedandy wrote:
One of the easiest ways to find out what the universal HC is like is to ask recipients of it what they think. In the UK, polls done on this indicate a level of support for it around the 90% mark. The political landscape is such that even the right-wing parties support UHC, as far as I'm aware, universally.

There's also studies done by WHO and others which documents the massive success that UHC has across the globe. When compared with the US, countries like the UK, France and others are simply better overall, and the trend is such that the WHO actually recommends UHC,or at least significant govt involvement.

Speaking from personal experience, UHC is pretty fantastic. Having healthcare free at the point of use for everyone in the country is something we just take for granted. It seems pretty logical too. Preventive care is much cheaper than dealing with an illness which has been allowed to fester for months because someone couldn't afford to see a doctor.

To be fair, I'm not bothered about whether Americans or anyone else adopt UHC, or what kind of ideological problems there are and so on. I support UHC because I know it works.

Exactly, people who live in evolved states with universal health care STRONGLY support it. The only people that strongly don't support it are ideologically driven conservatives that live in countries and never experienced UHC. And, even in Canada the conservative party supports UHC, and that says A LOT.


I don't know, I'm pretty indifferent to this issue. Id like people who can't afford HC to have an option, but I also see the value of a profit driven system towards innovation and quality.

However, on your point, all its says is that once people get used to having free stuff, they don't like not getting that free stuff.
Debate.org Moderator
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:43:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:34:03 PM, LeoL wrote:
At 5/23/2012 6:32:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/23/2012 6:27:02 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You could potentially change my mind. I'd like to hear arguments from both sides. Make good arguments. Edit out all the stuff about how conservatives/liberals are ruining this country because I really couldn't care less.

My questions:

Would the quality of healthcare increase or decrease if the government nationalized healthcare?

decrease.

"More than half of Canadian adults (56 percent) sought routine or ongoing care in 2005 – of these, one in six said they had trouble getting routine care. Fourteen percent of Canadians - approximately five million people - are still without a family doctor. Within this group, more than two million (41 percent) have tried to find a family doctor and were not successful. ... Eighty-five percent of doctors in Canada agree that private insurance for health services already covered under Medicare would result in shorter wait times. [meaning private insurance > government insurance] ... 17.8 weeks from general practitioners' referrals to treatment by a specialist ... Patients have long waiting lines for critical procedures
There is a lack of access to current technology Taxpayers and patients face increasing costs Canada is facing a brain drain as one in nine doctors who trained in Canada has left to practice medicine in the United States"
http://www.biggovhealth.org...


This is hilarious. I love to see conservative Americans describe the Canadian healthcare system as living hell, when Canadians are almost 100% in favor of national healthcare and understand that it's positive aspects overide it's negative aspects drastically.

In fact, if what you believe is true, that many Canadians are having such a difficult time with our national healthcare, the Conservative Party of Canada would oppose it! The Conservative Party of Canada, which contains many very right-wing politicians, doesn't or cannot oppose national health care because Canadians hold it too dear, and it would be political suicide. In the recent Conservative budget in Canada, almost every part of the government was cut..EXCEPT for national healthcare, because as a Canadian living in Canada it is almost impossible to oppose it.

Why is it so loved in Canada? Because you don't have to worry about how rich you are to get medical care. You will get your care no matter what, because canadians understand that medical care is a fundamental right. Of course there are longer line ups, BECAUSE everyone can get care! the 'small' lineups in the U.S are because not Many people can afford it. Do you consider this better?

Also, conservative Americans like to exaggerate that people with serious health issues have to wait 12 months before they can have their procedures or operations. Now, as someone who needed an operation in Canada, I can proudly say this is wrong. If your health concern is serious enough, they will convince you to stay in the hospital and they will change their schedule for you.

Those statistical papers show what conservatives want everyone to see. Of course there are sone issues, but compared to American health care it's beautiful.

So how about the fact the Canadian Healthcare system causes unneeded surgery (http://www.marketwatch.com...)

or how about the the fact that the Castonguay (one of the founders of the system) believes it is failing? (http://www.civitasreview.com...)

maybe how the health care system is failing to meet the needs of the patients. Even the doctors are admitting it! (http://www.cma.ca...)

I can continue if you want.
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:43:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Contra, why do foreign leaders come to the USA to get health care?

Why aren't they going to the wonderful systems in place in Canada and the UK?
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:46:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:43:42 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Contra, why do foreign leaders come to the USA to get health care?
The richest people in the world will get the most elite care they can. This happens to be in the US, primarily. However, no average person could ever in a million years dream of getting the care these foreign leaders receive. So you have no point.

Why aren't they going to the wonderful systems in place in Canada and the UK?
Because those systems are suited to give care to the people, not the aristocratic and political elite while ignoring everyone else.
Sapere Aude!
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:46:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:46:10 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 5/23/2012 9:43:42 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Contra, why do foreign leaders come to the USA to get health care?
The richest people in the world will get the most elite care they can. This happens to be in the US, primarily. However, no average person could ever in a million years dream of getting the care these foreign leaders receive. So you have no point.

Why aren't they going to the wonderful systems in place in Canada and the UK?
Because those systems are suited to give care to the people, not the aristocratic and political elite while ignoring everyone else.

to bad the systems are failing to give aid to the people...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:48:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:46:10 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 5/23/2012 9:43:42 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Contra, why do foreign leaders come to the USA to get health care?
The richest people in the world will get the most elite care they can. This happens to be in the US, primarily. However, no average person could ever in a million years dream of getting the care these foreign leaders receive. So you have no point.


Um, so they receive better treatment than us? Care to elaborate what this special treatment is?

Why aren't they going to the wonderful systems in place in Canada and the UK?
Because those systems are suited to give care to the people, not the aristocratic and political elite while ignoring everyone else.

Ah, I see, so we settle for bad, and still have to pay for it, as opposed to good, and having to pay for it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:49:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:48:26 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/23/2012 9:46:10 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 5/23/2012 9:43:42 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Contra, why do foreign leaders come to the USA to get health care?
The richest people in the world will get the most elite care they can. This happens to be in the US, primarily. However, no average person could ever in a million years dream of getting the care these foreign leaders receive. So you have no point.


Um, so they receive better treatment than us? Care to elaborate what this special treatment is?

Why aren't they going to the wonderful systems in place in Canada and the UK?
Because those systems are suited to give care to the people, not the aristocratic and political elite while ignoring everyone else.

Ah, I see, so we settle for bad, and still have to pay for it, as opposed to good, and having to pay for it.

That's what universal health care is all about!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:50:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
OH NO! The notion that people must actually pay out of pocket for services that are voluntarily bestowed onto them by people pursuing their own self-interests is beyond abysmal!! OH THE HORROR *faints*

Why should the government not pay for cars if they pay for health care? Housing?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:52:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:50:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
OH NO! The notion that people must actually pay out of pocket for services that are voluntarily bestowed onto them by people pursuing their own self-interests is beyond abysmal!! OH THE HORROR *faints*

Why should the government not pay for cars if they pay for health care? Housing?

Why not just have the government take care of everything?

Thats definitely worked in the past.(North Korea, Soviet Union, ect.)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:52:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:52:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/23/2012 9:50:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
OH NO! The notion that people must actually pay out of pocket for services that are voluntarily bestowed onto them by people pursuing their own self-interests is beyond abysmal!! OH THE HORROR *faints*

Why should the government not pay for cars if they pay for health care? Housing?

Why not just have the government take care of everything?

Thats definitely worked in the past.(North Korea, Soviet Union, ect.)

The Soviet Union was an extraordinarily successful country! Geez....just look at history....
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:53:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:52:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/23/2012 9:50:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
OH NO! The notion that people must actually pay out of pocket for services that are voluntarily bestowed onto them by people pursuing their own self-interests is beyond abysmal!! OH THE HORROR *faints*

Why should the government not pay for cars if they pay for health care? Housing?

Why not just have the government take care of everything?

Thats definitely worked in the past.(North Korea, Soviet Union, ect.)

OMG! You're onto something. I should totally write a manifesto about this which will inspire the murder of hundreds of millions of people.

*OFF AND AWAY*!!
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:53:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:48:26 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/23/2012 9:46:10 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 5/23/2012 9:43:42 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Contra, why do foreign leaders come to the USA to get health care?
The richest people in the world will get the most elite care they can. This happens to be in the US, primarily. However, no average person could ever in a million years dream of getting the care these foreign leaders receive. So you have no point.


Um, so they receive better treatment than us?
Obviously.
Care to elaborate what this special treatment is?
Care to elaborate on which foreign leaders?

Why aren't they going to the wonderful systems in place in Canada and the UK?
Because those systems are suited to give care to the people, not the aristocratic and political elite while ignoring everyone else.

Ah, I see, so we settle for bad, and still have to pay for it, as opposed to good, and having to pay for it.
If you don't like it, there is always private healthcare. And why then, if it is as you say "bad," do almost all UHC countries rank higher than the US in healthcare>
Sapere Aude!
LeoL
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:54:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 9:43:26 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 5/23/2012 9:34:03 PM, LeoL wrote:
At 5/23/2012 6:32:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/23/2012 6:27:02 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You could potentially change my mind. I'd like to hear arguments from both sides. Make good arguments. Edit out all the stuff about how conservatives/liberals are ruining this country because I really couldn't care less.

My questions:

Would the quality of healthcare increase or decrease if the government nationalized healthcare?

decrease.

"More than half of Canadian adults (56 percent) sought routine or ongoing care in 2005 – of these, one in six said they had trouble getting routine care. Fourteen percent of Canadians - approximately five million people - are still without a family doctor. Within this group, more than two million (41 percent) have tried to find a family doctor and were not successful. ... Eighty-five percent of doctors in Canada agree that private insurance for health services already covered under Medicare would result in shorter wait times. [meaning private insurance > government insurance] ... 17.8 weeks from general practitioners' referrals to treatment by a specialist ... Patients have long waiting lines for critical procedures
There is a lack of access to current technology Taxpayers and patients face increasing costs Canada is facing a brain drain as one in nine doctors who trained in Canada has left to practice medicine in the United States"
http://www.biggovhealth.org...


This is hilarious. I love to see conservative Americans describe the Canadian healthcare system as living hell, when Canadians are almost 100% in favor of national healthcare and understand that it's positive aspects overide it's negative aspects drastically.

In fact, if what you believe is true, that many Canadians are having such a difficult time with our national healthcare, the Conservative Party of Canada would oppose it! The Conservative Party of Canada, which contains many very right-wing politicians, doesn't or cannot oppose national health care because Canadians hold it too dear, and it would be political suicide. In the recent Conservative budget in Canada, almost every part of the government was cut..EXCEPT for national healthcare, because as a Canadian living in Canada it is almost impossible to oppose it.

Why is it so loved in Canada? Because you don't have to worry about how rich you are to get medical care. You will get your care no matter what, because canadians understand that medical care is a fundamental right. Of course there are longer line ups, BECAUSE everyone can get care! the 'small' lineups in the U.S are because not Many people can afford it. Do you consider this better?

Also, conservative Americans like to exaggerate that people with serious health issues have to wait 12 months before they can have their procedures or operations. Now, as someone who needed an operation in Canada, I can proudly say this is wrong. If your health concern is serious enough, they will convince you to stay in the hospital and they will change their schedule for you.

Those statistical papers show what conservatives want everyone to see. Of course there are sone issues, but compared to American health care it's beautiful.

So how about the fact the Canadian Healthcare system causes unneeded surgery (http://www.marketwatch.com...)

or how about the the fact that the Castonguay (one of the founders of the system) believes it is failing? (http://www.civitasreview.com...)

maybe how the health care system is failing to meet the needs of the patients. Even the doctors are admitting it! (http://www.cma.ca...)

I can continue if you want.

1) Yes doctors have made mistakes in the past, especially with that issue, but it is in no way more common than in the U.S.

2) Father of health care? Wow, and you got that info from a North Carolina website, the biggest conservative hangout in the world. The main founder of health care is Lester B Pearson.

3) Well it's not failing to meet my needs or anyone I know. Or anyone they know. So I support it.
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -Douglas Adams
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:55:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
False. Calling the US a private health insurance country is beyond retarded. The US provides programs for the elderly and those who would not be able to afford them by themselves (Medicare, Medicaid, etc...). To call the US private is ludicrous. The US combines the worst of the socialist and the private healthcare systems into one.

Private healthcare insurance CANNOT work. The massive complexity makes it so that private insurers would look constantly for loopholes to deny coverage and improve profits. They already do this.

Besides, 60% of care insurance is private. The current system is 60% funded by the government. The plethora of crap makes it inefficient.

Also, it's the government bureaucracy that has taken over the healthcare system in the US. Private bureaucracies don't exist.

Blue Care Network's administration in Massachusetts ALONE has more bureaucrats to cover people in JUST Mass. than Canada has administrators for the whole NATION.

Of total spending on administration, 25% vs 6%.

In Single Payer, medical decisions are left to the medical professionals and patients. Not the corporate profit greedy bureaucrat.

The notion that the US Fedeal Government would save money by paying for the medical procedures of everybody, not just the elderly is completely illogical.

Both evidence and reality prove otherwise.

Higher prices cars are good how? I don't think you understand how competitiveness and businesses work.

I do.

The US automakers need to add higher prices to cars for health care coverage costs. This reduces the competitiveness of American companies.

I got 4.0 in my economics class.

A governmentally instated electronically operated system would just create a massive bureaucracy, which is rampant with inefficiencies due to the inherent problems that all bureaucracies face.

See what I already said.

In Taiwan the smart card electronic system has low bureaucracy because health information is kept between the medical professionals and the patients. All the info sent to administrators is the procedure information, and financing is worked out simply.

This is an utter violation of personal liberty.

Having health care information on a private security card that is kept between you and your doctor is a violation of personal liberty, but massive bureaucracies that deny care to you and probe your personal information to find ways to cut coverage and interfere with your health decisions is not?

SP would create too much supply, as anybody with any condition would be able to access the medical system. On the other hand, demand would stay constant, resulting in a shortage.

First, with massive simplification of paperwork, about 2 hrs a day for an average doctor, that would be mostly gone.

Second, preventive care would allow people to get care when they need it.

Third, the ER would no longer be average healthcare service for the poor and uninsured.

I dare you to theoretically back up the notion that the quality of healthcare from companies who's sole interest is serving the consumer is worse than a bureaucracy that is not at all accountable.

I dare you.

First, the bureaucrat plethora arises from private health insurance companies.

But I get your thoughts.

Quality is broad, but is divided into several categories.

Access: Everyone is ensured access. The only real plan for real universal access and insurance. Global budgets to maintain affordability.

Simplicity: No complicated rules and complications. Simple system of financing.

Equability: Single System with fair rules for all. Generates database to identify disparities and track effectiveness of interventions.

Continuity: Steady coverage, not based on job, marital, or age status.

Choice: Instead of restricted coverage that put people at risk, there is free choice of medical provider.

Time: All patients covered, get care when they need it.

Care: Since current health research is nearly all paid by the NIH, research would not change. Medical field remains private. You cannot be possibly arguing that private insurance companies actually improve care. The opposite is actually true.

I really don't even feel like reading the rest of the propaganda BS.

Same could be said of the "caring, life oriented health insurance companies." That you see in commercials. It is bull.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:57:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The politically well connected do very well in nationalized health care systems.

It is the average person who suffers from the lacking quality, innefficiencies, waiting times, and lost innovation.

For all of its flaws, the USA has the best HC system in the world.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan