Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Single-Payer healthcare

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 11:22:25 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
One con would be that there is a longer waiting period for specialists. Instead of waiting a few weeks for a heart surgeon when you're on the verge of death, you'll be waiting a few months.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 3:36:48 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/8/2015 11:22:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
One con would be that there is a longer waiting period for specialists. Instead of waiting a few weeks for a heart surgeon when you're on the verge of death, you'll be waiting a few months.

This statement is incorrect. In single-payer healthcare systems, people who have life-threatening conditions are given treatment almost immediately. This is because the system prioritizes those who are in most need of it. If you opt for elective surgery for non-essential issues, then you will need to wait several months.

On a general point of single-payer healthcare, it works effectively in many countries. Medical services are provided by the Government in the form of public hospitals or in collaboration with private GPs; and hospital staff are employed by the state. Any citizen or eligible resident has access to either affordable or free healthcare. In the case of cancer, a person can receive full treatment for absolutely no charge.

Another system of healthcare that exist is one similar to Switzerland's or the Netherlands'. In these countries healthcare services are mainly provided by the private sector but the Government heavily regulates the industry, such as implementing price controls, etc. For e.g. in the Netherlands, all private insurers offer a single 'Universal Healthcare Package' but all companies must charge the same fee for that package; other packages are available at greater cost and vary between the insurers.

Perhaps the United States could implement this system as opposed to the former, as it would be more in line with the American way of doing things. But one thing to note about universal and affordable healthcare is this: government regulation is necessary, regardless of which system you choose. The free market cannot, in its right, create a system that allows for affordable and universal access to healthcare. This is the economic trade-off between accessibility and efficiency; the more accessible it is, the less efficient it is; the more efficient it is the least accessible (or more expensive it is). You cannot achieve both at the same time.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 3:39:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 3:36:48 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:22:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
One con would be that there is a longer waiting period for specialists. Instead of waiting a few weeks for a heart surgeon when you're on the verge of death, you'll be waiting a few months.

This statement is incorrect. In single-payer healthcare systems, people who have life-threatening conditions are given treatment almost immediately. This is because the system prioritizes those who are in most need of it. If you opt for elective surgery for non-essential issues, then you will need to wait several months.
http://nypost.com...


On a general point of single-payer healthcare, it works effectively in many countries. Medical services are provided by the Government in the form of public hospitals or in collaboration with private GPs; and hospital staff are employed by the state. Any citizen or eligible resident has access to either affordable or free healthcare. In the case of cancer, a person can receive full treatment for absolutely no charge.

Another system of healthcare that exist is one similar to Switzerland's or the Netherlands'. In these countries healthcare services are mainly provided by the private sector but the Government heavily regulates the industry, such as implementing price controls, etc. For e.g. in the Netherlands, all private insurers offer a single 'Universal Healthcare Package' but all companies must charge the same fee for that package; other packages are available at greater cost and vary between the insurers.

Perhaps the United States could implement this system as opposed to the former, as it would be more in line with the American way of doing things. But one thing to note about universal and affordable healthcare is this: government regulation is necessary, regardless of which system you choose. The free market cannot, in its right, create a system that allows for affordable and universal access to healthcare. This is the economic trade-off between accessibility and efficiency; the more accessible it is, the less efficient it is; the more efficient it is the least accessible (or more expensive it is). You cannot achieve both at the same time.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 3:50:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 3:39:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/10/2015 3:36:48 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:22:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
One con would be that there is a longer waiting period for specialists. Instead of waiting a few weeks for a heart surgeon when you're on the verge of death, you'll be waiting a few months.

This statement is incorrect. In single-payer healthcare systems, people who have life-threatening conditions are given treatment almost immediately. This is because the system prioritizes those who are in most need of it. If you opt for elective surgery for non-essential issues, then you will need to wait several months.
http://nypost.com...

Ok, so, first things first: this article is written for an American audience and is clearly biased against a single-payer healthcare system. Second, the so-called waiting times prescribed by this article are dubious at best, because each person's individual circumstance and condition is different. Also, I have read articles about single-payer healthcare systems that praise it and acknowledge it as good system. Third, the country of focus in this article is Canada, which is just one country that has a single-payer healthcare system: other nations like the UK, Australia, NZ, France, etc. have single-payer healthcare systems and are extremely affordable and effective. France offers free cancer treatment for its citizens. Fourth, are you saying that people should go bankrupt in medical bills because a single-payer healthcare system is less efficient?? Would you personally prefer to pay $100k in cancer treatment as opposed to receiving for no cost at all?


On a general point of single-payer healthcare, it works effectively in many countries. Medical services are provided by the Government in the form of public hospitals or in collaboration with private GPs; and hospital staff are employed by the state. Any citizen or eligible resident has access to either affordable or free healthcare. In the case of cancer, a person can receive full treatment for absolutely no charge.

Another system of healthcare that exist is one similar to Switzerland's or the Netherlands'. In these countries healthcare services are mainly provided by the private sector but the Government heavily regulates the industry, such as implementing price controls, etc. For e.g. in the Netherlands, all private insurers offer a single 'Universal Healthcare Package' but all companies must charge the same fee for that package; other packages are available at greater cost and vary between the insurers.

Perhaps the United States could implement this system as opposed to the former, as it would be more in line with the American way of doing things. But one thing to note about universal and affordable healthcare is this: government regulation is necessary, regardless of which system you choose. The free market cannot, in its right, create a system that allows for affordable and universal access to healthcare. This is the economic trade-off between accessibility and efficiency; the more accessible it is, the less efficient it is; the more efficient it is the least accessible (or more expensive it is). You cannot achieve both at the same time.
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:31:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/8/2015 1:42:36 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
should the U.S adopt a National single-payer healthcare? What are the Pro's and Cons?

Oh God NO. We need more Healthcare options not fewer.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 5:58:26 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/8/2015 1:42:36 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
should the U.S adopt a National single-payer healthcare? What are the Pro's and Cons?

Paying for your neighbor's healthcare will make you feel better.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 7:14:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 4:31:28 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:42:36 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
should the U.S adopt a National single-payer healthcare? What are the Pro's and Cons?

Oh God NO. We need more Healthcare options not fewer.

I honestly cannot believe that you listen to Rand Paul about universal healthcare. You know Republicans don't really believe all the rubbish they propagate; they do it because there's a radical element in American society who adhere to the principles of market fundamentalism. And I guess you're one of them.

The question you need to answer is this: do you believe in universal and affordable access to healthcare? If you don't, then fine. But if you do, then the market cannot be relied on to provide affordable and accessible healthcare: there has to be regulation, whether you like it or not.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 10:57:09 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 7:14:58 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:31:28 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:42:36 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
should the U.S adopt a National single-payer healthcare? What are the Pro's and Cons?

Oh God NO. We need more Healthcare options not fewer.

I honestly cannot believe that you listen to Rand Paul about universal healthcare. You know Republicans don't really believe all the rubbish they propagate; they do it because there's a radical element in American society who adhere to the principles of market fundamentalism. And I guess you're one of them.

The question you need to answer is this: do you believe in universal and affordable access to healthcare? If you don't, then fine. But if you do, then the market cannot be relied on to provide affordable and accessible healthcare: there has to be regulation, whether you like it or not.

How do you know the market can't be relied on? How come when it comes to cell phones it can? Could it be that cell phones are regulated less?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 2:38:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 3:36:48 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:22:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
One con would be that there is a longer waiting period for specialists. Instead of waiting a few weeks for a heart surgeon when you're on the verge of death, you'll be waiting a few months.

This statement is incorrect. In single-payer healthcare systems, people who have life-threatening conditions are given treatment almost immediately. This is because the system prioritizes those who are in most need of it. If you opt for elective surgery for non-essential issues, then you will need to wait several months.

On a general point of single-payer healthcare, it works effectively in many countries. Medical services are provided by the Government in the form of public hospitals or in collaboration with private GPs; and hospital staff are employed by the state. Any citizen or eligible resident has access to either affordable or free healthcare. In the case of cancer, a person can receive full treatment for absolutely no charge.

Another system of healthcare that exist is one similar to Switzerland's or the Netherlands'. In these countries healthcare services are mainly provided by the private sector but the Government heavily regulates the industry, such as implementing price controls, etc. For e.g. in the Netherlands, all private insurers offer a single 'Universal Healthcare Package' but all companies must charge the same fee for that package; other packages are available at greater cost and vary between the insurers.

Perhaps the United States could implement this system as opposed to the former, as it would be more in line with the American way of doing things. But one thing to note about universal and affordable healthcare is this: government regulation is necessary, regardless of which system you choose. The free market cannot, in its right, create a system that allows for affordable and universal access to healthcare. This is the economic trade-off between accessibility and efficiency; the more accessible it is, the less efficient it is; the more efficient it is the least accessible (or more expensive it is). You cannot achieve both at the same time.

It's also worth nothing America is a large country with alot more people. Countries like France have smaller populations, and it's easier for them to give quality heatlhcare.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 2:47:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 2:38:05 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/10/2015 3:36:48 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:22:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
One con would be that there is a longer waiting period for specialists. Instead of waiting a few weeks for a heart surgeon when you're on the verge of death, you'll be waiting a few months.

This statement is incorrect. In single-payer healthcare systems, people who have life-threatening conditions are given treatment almost immediately. This is because the system prioritizes those who are in most need of it. If you opt for elective surgery for non-essential issues, then you will need to wait several months.

On a general point of single-payer healthcare, it works effectively in many countries. Medical services are provided by the Government in the form of public hospitals or in collaboration with private GPs; and hospital staff are employed by the state. Any citizen or eligible resident has access to either affordable or free healthcare. In the case of cancer, a person can receive full treatment for absolutely no charge.

Another system of healthcare that exist is one similar to Switzerland's or the Netherlands'. In these countries healthcare services are mainly provided by the private sector but the Government heavily regulates the industry, such as implementing price controls, etc. For e.g. in the Netherlands, all private insurers offer a single 'Universal Healthcare Package' but all companies must charge the same fee for that package; other packages are available at greater cost and vary between the insurers.

Perhaps the United States could implement this system as opposed to the former, as it would be more in line with the American way of doing things. But one thing to note about universal and affordable healthcare is this: government regulation is necessary, regardless of which system you choose. The free market cannot, in its right, create a system that allows for affordable and universal access to healthcare. This is the economic trade-off between accessibility and efficiency; the more accessible it is, the less efficient it is; the more efficient it is the least accessible (or more expensive it is). You cannot achieve both at the same time.

It's also worth nothing America is a large country with alot more people. Countries like France have smaller populations, and it's easier for them to give quality heatlhcare.

America's GDP per Capita is 11k larger than France. If anything, America is more capable of such a system than France.

https://www.google.com...

https://www.google.com...
"Change your sig."
~YYW
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 2:57:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 2:47:28 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 12/10/2015 2:38:05 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/10/2015 3:36:48 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:22:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
One con would be that there is a longer waiting period for specialists. Instead of waiting a few weeks for a heart surgeon when you're on the verge of death, you'll be waiting a few months.

This statement is incorrect. In single-payer healthcare systems, people who have life-threatening conditions are given treatment almost immediately. This is because the system prioritizes those who are in most need of it. If you opt for elective surgery for non-essential issues, then you will need to wait several months.

On a general point of single-payer healthcare, it works effectively in many countries. Medical services are provided by the Government in the form of public hospitals or in collaboration with private GPs; and hospital staff are employed by the state. Any citizen or eligible resident has access to either affordable or free healthcare. In the case of cancer, a person can receive full treatment for absolutely no charge.

Another system of healthcare that exist is one similar to Switzerland's or the Netherlands'. In these countries healthcare services are mainly provided by the private sector but the Government heavily regulates the industry, such as implementing price controls, etc. For e.g. in the Netherlands, all private insurers offer a single 'Universal Healthcare Package' but all companies must charge the same fee for that package; other packages are available at greater cost and vary between the insurers.

Perhaps the United States could implement this system as opposed to the former, as it would be more in line with the American way of doing things. But one thing to note about universal and affordable healthcare is this: government regulation is necessary, regardless of which system you choose. The free market cannot, in its right, create a system that allows for affordable and universal access to healthcare. This is the economic trade-off between accessibility and efficiency; the more accessible it is, the less efficient it is; the more efficient it is the least accessible (or more expensive it is). You cannot achieve both at the same time.

It's also worth nothing America is a large country with alot more people. Countries like France have smaller populations, and it's easier for them to give quality heatlhcare.

America's GDP per Capita is 11k larger than France. If anything, America is more capable of such a system than France.

https://www.google.com...

https://www.google.com...

That has nothing to do with efficiency. The U.S is more than capable, but actually producing quality healthcare, and managing it at a local level is pretty hard.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 2:59:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 2:57:18 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/10/2015 2:47:28 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 12/10/2015 2:38:05 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/10/2015 3:36:48 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:22:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
One con would be that there is a longer waiting period for specialists. Instead of waiting a few weeks for a heart surgeon when you're on the verge of death, you'll be waiting a few months.

This statement is incorrect. In single-payer healthcare systems, people who have life-threatening conditions are given treatment almost immediately. This is because the system prioritizes those who are in most need of it. If you opt for elective surgery for non-essential issues, then you will need to wait several months.

On a general point of single-payer healthcare, it works effectively in many countries. Medical services are provided by the Government in the form of public hospitals or in collaboration with private GPs; and hospital staff are employed by the state. Any citizen or eligible resident has access to either affordable or free healthcare. In the case of cancer, a person can receive full treatment for absolutely no charge.

Another system of healthcare that exist is one similar to Switzerland's or the Netherlands'. In these countries healthcare services are mainly provided by the private sector but the Government heavily regulates the industry, such as implementing price controls, etc. For e.g. in the Netherlands, all private insurers offer a single 'Universal Healthcare Package' but all companies must charge the same fee for that package; other packages are available at greater cost and vary between the insurers.

Perhaps the United States could implement this system as opposed to the former, as it would be more in line with the American way of doing things. But one thing to note about universal and affordable healthcare is this: government regulation is necessary, regardless of which system you choose. The free market cannot, in its right, create a system that allows for affordable and universal access to healthcare. This is the economic trade-off between accessibility and efficiency; the more accessible it is, the less efficient it is; the more efficient it is the least accessible (or more expensive it is). You cannot achieve both at the same time.

It's also worth nothing America is a large country with alot more people. Countries like France have smaller populations, and it's easier for them to give quality heatlhcare.

America's GDP per Capita is 11k larger than France. If anything, America is more capable of such a system than France.

https://www.google.com...

https://www.google.com...

That has nothing to do with efficiency. The U.S is more than capable, but actually producing quality healthcare, and managing it at a local level is pretty hard.

federal level*
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 3:05:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 2:47:28 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 12/10/2015 2:38:05 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/10/2015 3:36:48 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:22:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
One con would be that there is a longer waiting period for specialists. Instead of waiting a few weeks for a heart surgeon when you're on the verge of death, you'll be waiting a few months.

This statement is incorrect. In single-payer healthcare systems, people who have life-threatening conditions are given treatment almost immediately. This is because the system prioritizes those who are in most need of it. If you opt for elective surgery for non-essential issues, then you will need to wait several months.

On a general point of single-payer healthcare, it works effectively in many countries. Medical services are provided by the Government in the form of public hospitals or in collaboration with private GPs; and hospital staff are employed by the state. Any citizen or eligible resident has access to either affordable or free healthcare. In the case of cancer, a person can receive full treatment for absolutely no charge.

Another system of healthcare that exist is one similar to Switzerland's or the Netherlands'. In these countries healthcare services are mainly provided by the private sector but the Government heavily regulates the industry, such as implementing price controls, etc. For e.g. in the Netherlands, all private insurers offer a single 'Universal Healthcare Package' but all companies must charge the same fee for that package; other packages are available at greater cost and vary between the insurers.

Perhaps the United States could implement this system as opposed to the former, as it would be more in line with the American way of doing things. But one thing to note about universal and affordable healthcare is this: government regulation is necessary, regardless of which system you choose. The free market cannot, in its right, create a system that allows for affordable and universal access to healthcare. This is the economic trade-off between accessibility and efficiency; the more accessible it is, the less efficient it is; the more efficient it is the least accessible (or more expensive it is). You cannot achieve both at the same time.

It's also worth nothing America is a large country with alot more people. Countries like France have smaller populations, and it's easier for them to give quality heatlhcare.

America's GDP per Capita is 11k larger than France. If anything, America is more capable of such a system than France.

https://www.google.com...

https://www.google.com...

Also, the U.S spends more than France, so spending isn't an issue.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 5:10:48 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 7:14:58 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:31:28 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:42:36 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
should the U.S adopt a National single-payer healthcare? What are the Pro's and Cons?

Oh God NO. We need more Healthcare options not fewer.

I honestly cannot believe that you listen to Rand Paul about universal healthcare. You know Republicans don't really believe all the rubbish they propagate; they do it because there's a radical element in American society who adhere to the principles of market fundamentalism. And I guess you're one of them.

The question you need to answer is this: do you believe in universal and affordable access to healthcare? If you don't, then fine. But if you do, then the market cannot be relied on to provide affordable and accessible healthcare: there has to be regulation, whether you like it or not.

I believe in innovation, affordable, and choice when it comes to healthcare. More choices will cause that. It's not a Rand idea, it's a Mitlon Friedman idea.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 4:32:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 10:57:09 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/10/2015 7:14:58 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:31:28 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:42:36 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
should the U.S adopt a National single-payer healthcare? What are the Pro's and Cons?

Oh God NO. We need more Healthcare options not fewer.

I honestly cannot believe that you listen to Rand Paul about universal healthcare. You know Republicans don't really believe all the rubbish they propagate; they do it because there's a radical element in American society who adhere to the principles of market fundamentalism. And I guess you're one of them.

The question you need to answer is this: do you believe in universal and affordable access to healthcare? If you don't, then fine. But if you do, then the market cannot be relied on to provide affordable and accessible healthcare: there has to be regulation, whether you like it or not.

How do you know the market can't be relied on? How come when it comes to cell phones it can? Could it be that cell phones are regulated less?
--
First of all, comparing the cell phone market with the healthcare market is a completely different thing. Second, it is a well-known fact that the free-market cannot be relied upon to provide universal and accessible healthcare 100% of the time to those who need it at any stage in their lives. If the market could be relied upon, and I assume that healthcare in America was and is still largely a free-market endeavour, then why do people continue to struggle to pay for their medical bills in the United States? This is because a free-market approach to healthcare ensures (as any business does) that it retains a profit. Because healthcare resources are scarce, and the demand is greater than the supply, the price of healthcare (in a perfect market environment) is going to be very costly. Third, Singapore is an example of a nation that tried to institute a free-market healthcare system, but soon realised that it wasn't actually that universal, and so they implemented regulation to ensure this. I'm assuming that what you're saying is that there should be no regulation at all... I'm saying that the free market can be the number one provider of healthcare in a nation, but there have to regulations to ensure that it is accessible and affordable to anyone and any time.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 4:39:52 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 3:05:25 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/10/2015 2:47:28 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 12/10/2015 2:38:05 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/10/2015 3:36:48 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:22:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
One con would be that there is a longer waiting period for specialists. Instead of waiting a few weeks for a heart surgeon when you're on the verge of death, you'll be waiting a few months.

This statement is incorrect. In single-payer healthcare systems, people who have life-threatening conditions are given treatment almost immediately. This is because the system prioritizes those who are in most need of it. If you opt for elective surgery for non-essential issues, then you will need to wait several months.

On a general point of single-payer healthcare, it works effectively in many countries. Medical services are provided by the Government in the form of public hospitals or in collaboration with private GPs; and hospital staff are employed by the state. Any citizen or eligible resident has access to either affordable or free healthcare. In the case of cancer, a person can receive full treatment for absolutely no charge.

Another system of healthcare that exist is one similar to Switzerland's or the Netherlands'. In these countries healthcare services are mainly provided by the private sector but the Government heavily regulates the industry, such as implementing price controls, etc. For e.g. in the Netherlands, all private insurers offer a single 'Universal Healthcare Package' but all companies must charge the same fee for that package; other packages are available at greater cost and vary between the insurers.

Perhaps the United States could implement this system as opposed to the former, as it would be more in line with the American way of doing things. But one thing to note about universal and affordable healthcare is this: government regulation is necessary, regardless of which system you choose. The free market cannot, in its right, create a system that allows for affordable and universal access to healthcare. This is the economic trade-off between accessibility and efficiency; the more accessible it is, the less efficient it is; the more efficient it is the least accessible (or more expensive it is). You cannot achieve both at the same time.

It's also worth nothing America is a large country with alot more people. Countries like France have smaller populations, and it's easier for them to give quality heatlhcare.

America's GDP per Capita is 11k larger than France. If anything, America is more capable of such a system than France.

https://www.google.com...

https://www.google.com...

Also, the U.S spends more than France, so spending isn't an issue.
--
Yes, you are correct in assuming that the United States is a larger nation with more people. It is reasonable to deduce that public spending is exponential as the population grows. However, to make the argument that the United States could never have the same quality of standards in healthcare as France due to population numbers is a very defeatist attitude that real legitimizes market fundamentalists and their ideology. Because of the US' great population and it's strong economy, one could also argue that it's revenue-generating capacity is also exponential: an increase of $1 on personal incomes in the US compared with France would most likely generate more revenue exponentially in the US than in France. Therefore, the United States can provide social services at the same standard as countries with smaller populations. Also, at what point do we say "this country's population is too large for adequate social services"? 100 million, 200 million?

Second, you're right: public spending is not the issue, the issue is REGULATION. As I have mentioned to other people in this forum, the key aspect of providing universal and affordable healthcare is regulation in order to ensure that resources are distributed so as to ensure accessibility and affordability. Without such regulation, no amount of spending matters.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 4:49:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 5:10:48 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/10/2015 7:14:58 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:31:28 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:42:36 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
should the U.S adopt a National single-payer healthcare? What are the Pro's and Cons?

Oh God NO. We need more Healthcare options not fewer.

I honestly cannot believe that you listen to Rand Paul about universal healthcare. You know Republicans don't really believe all the rubbish they propagate; they do it because there's a radical element in American society who adhere to the principles of market fundamentalism. And I guess you're one of them.

The question you need to answer is this: do you believe in universal and affordable access to healthcare? If you don't, then fine. But if you do, then the market cannot be relied on to provide affordable and accessible healthcare: there has to be regulation, whether you like it or not.

I believe in innovation, affordable, and choice when it comes to healthcare. More choices will cause that. It's not a Rand idea, it's a Mitlon Friedman idea.
--
Milton Friedman recanted most of his beliefs toward the end of his life. Also, Friedman's ideology was developed within the context of Soviet Communism and hence totalitarianism. The radicalism of Soviet Communism was a driving factor in the inception of market fundamentalism so as to create a polarization between the two ideologies.

I understand that you believe in choice, but don't be fooled by market fundamentalists. It's not 'freedom' to go bankrupt because one cannot afford healthcare. It's not freedom when companies can revoke insurance because one now has a medical condition that is too risky, etc. And besides, in a single-payer healthcare system there is choice: one can choose which doctor he or she can go to; he or she can choose to take out private health insurance, etc. Rand Paul once described universal healthcare as akin to totalitarianism because the Government goes to the doctor's house and drags them out and forces them to practise medicine. This is far from the truth. If a person wants to be a doctor, they can choose to be a doctor in his or her career. Also, doctors can choose to be employed in the public sector or the private sector. Furthermore, many doctors in single-payer healthcare economies realize that healthcare should be accessible, so they accept the system for its benefit. We have an expectation that public school teachers should 'enjoy their job' because it's rewarding, and therefore use this as a justification for not increasing their salaries; but why don't we have this expectation for medical professionals? Should their jobs be for 'the greater good' so to speak?

Don't let people fool you into thinking that universal healthcare is bad. It's not. Period. Another nations have benefited from universal healthcare.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 10:27:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/11/2015 4:32:41 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/10/2015 10:57:09 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/10/2015 7:14:58 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:31:28 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:42:36 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
should the U.S adopt a National single-payer healthcare? What are the Pro's and Cons?

Oh God NO. We need more Healthcare options not fewer.

I honestly cannot believe that you listen to Rand Paul about universal healthcare. You know Republicans don't really believe all the rubbish they propagate; they do it because there's a radical element in American society who adhere to the principles of market fundamentalism. And I guess you're one of them.

The question you need to answer is this: do you believe in universal and affordable access to healthcare? If you don't, then fine. But if you do, then the market cannot be relied on to provide affordable and accessible healthcare: there has to be regulation, whether you like it or not.

How do you know the market can't be relied on? How come when it comes to cell phones it can? Could it be that cell phones are regulated less?
--
First of all, comparing the cell phone market with the healthcare market is a completely different thing. Second, it is a well-known fact that the free-market cannot be relied upon to provide universal and accessible healthcare 100% of the time to those who need it at any stage in their lives. If the market could be relied upon, and I assume that healthcare in America was and is still largely a free-market endeavour, then why do people continue to struggle to pay for their medical bills in the United States?

Because we don't have a free market. The market is over regulated and you really only have like 4 options for health insurance.

This is because a free-market approach to healthcare ensures (as any business does) that it retains a profit. Because healthcare resources are scarce, and the demand is greater than the supply, the price of healthcare (in a perfect market environment) is going to be very costly. Third, Singapore is an example of a nation that tried to institute a free-market healthcare system, but soon realised that it wasn't actually that universal, and so they implemented regulation to ensure this. I'm assuming that what you're saying is that there should be no regulation at all... I'm saying that the free market can be the number one provider of healthcare in a nation, but there have to regulations to ensure that it is accessible and affordable to anyone and any time.

Actually regulations are what makes it unaffordable and inaccessible. Massive competition would drive a pricing war
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 11:37:37 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 5:58:26 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:42:36 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
should the U.S adopt a National single-payer healthcare? What are the Pro's and Cons?

Paying for your neighbor's healthcare will make you feel better.

Ha, lol
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 11:08:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/11/2015 10:27:40 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/11/2015 4:32:41 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/10/2015 10:57:09 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/10/2015 7:14:58 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/10/2015 4:31:28 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 1:42:36 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
should the U.S adopt a National single-payer healthcare? What are the Pro's and Cons?

Oh God NO. We need more Healthcare options not fewer.

I honestly cannot believe that you listen to Rand Paul about universal healthcare. You know Republicans don't really believe all the rubbish they propagate; they do it because there's a radical element in American society who adhere to the principles of market fundamentalism. And I guess you're one of them.

The question you need to answer is this: do you believe in universal and affordable access to healthcare? If you don't, then fine. But if you do, then the market cannot be relied on to provide affordable and accessible healthcare: there has to be regulation, whether you like it or not.

How do you know the market can't be relied on? How come when it comes to cell phones it can? Could it be that cell phones are regulated less?
--
First of all, comparing the cell phone market with the healthcare market is a completely different thing. Second, it is a well-known fact that the free-market cannot be relied upon to provide universal and accessible healthcare 100% of the time to those who need it at any stage in their lives. If the market could be relied upon, and I assume that healthcare in America was and is still largely a free-market endeavour, then why do people continue to struggle to pay for their medical bills in the United States?

Because we don't have a free market. The market is over regulated and you really only have like 4 options for health insurance.

This is because a free-market approach to healthcare ensures (as any business does) that it retains a profit. Because healthcare resources are scarce, and the demand is greater than the supply, the price of healthcare (in a perfect market environment) is going to be very costly. Third, Singapore is an example of a nation that tried to institute a free-market healthcare system, but soon realised that it wasn't actually that universal, and so they implemented regulation to ensure this. I'm assuming that what you're saying is that there should be no regulation at all... I'm saying that the free market can be the number one provider of healthcare in a nation, but there have to regulations to ensure that it is accessible and affordable to anyone and any time.

Actually regulations are what makes it unaffordable and inaccessible. Massive competition would drive a pricing war
--
If that's the case, and I don't believe it is; I mean, from you perspective, the US healthcare market has too much regulation, but from the perspective of other nations, the regulation is probably a smidgen by comparison.

But, even if it is the case that the US has too much regulation, then the regulation is poor: you can regulate as much as you want, but if the regulation is poor, you're not going to achieve your outcomes.

All you need to do is look at other countries and see what they do: I know this is difficult for an American because you all like to think that America is perfect and it knows best. But, it doesn't.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,601
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:36:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/8/2015 1:42:36 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
should the U.S adopt a National single-payer healthcare? What are the Pro's and Cons?

Despite what you Yanks hear about the Canadian system, it's worked very well for me and millions of others. Firstly, we don't have a national program. Each province has its own. I can get a doctor's appointment sometimes the same day with my own GP or I can go into a multitude of professional clinics any time. If I want another doctor I can find one. They advertise. Our doctors are as well trained as any in the world. Americans come up and steal Canadian doctors and nurses all the time . Many of these come back to our system, probably after they're financially set.

Where the system falls down is the waiting time for some types of elective and sometimes even mandatory surgery. This is shameful because it doesn't have to happen. The reason behind this is incompetent government with bloated administrations and incompetent spending practices. I am speaking only for the Province of Ontario. The highest rate of taxation for this plan, where all residents are covered is $900.00/year. In conclusion, the system is pretty good but you will hear some horror stories. these are the ones that get reported in the U.S. when they make our system an example. The downside is it's administered by government and being government, well.....you know.