"Free" Healthcare

[LuciferSam]

Here's the problem: I can't quite see how people can say that "free" nationalized healthcare is actually be free.

Medical equipment costs money. Medication costs money. Pretty much everything involved in medical treatment costs money. Doctors have to get paid for their work. The medical practice is going to generate expenses, no matter what. And where do these expenses go? Usually, the government passes them on to the general population via taxes. Note that many European countries have higher tax rates than in the US

Free? I don't think so.

[Walter Powers]

Exactly. And people will take more risks if they know if they get hurt they won't foot the bill.

PS Love your signature. Long live America!

[tubanic]

Well the richer people pay more taxes than the poorer so if you are poor and need surgery for example, then YOU don't have to pay. It's just people helping eachother out. I think the NHS is a brilliant idea as I would not be able to afford treatment for my psychosis without money from other people's taxes.

[Walter Powers]

Well the richer people pay more taxes than the poorer so if you are poor and need surgery for example, then YOU don't have to pay. It's just people helping eachother out. I think the NHS is a brilliant idea as I would not be able to afford treatment for my psychosis without money from other people's taxes.

You couldn't?

If taxes are lower, people will donate more to charity. A charity that somebody in need, like yourself, could use. At least in America, a land full of decent people :) also, have you ever heard of private insurance?

[tubanic]

You couldn't?

If taxes are lower, people will donate more to charity. A charity that somebody in need, like yourself, could use. At least in America, a land full of decent people :) also, have you ever heard of private insurance?

It's about helping people out. So if you are banking on people donating to charity, why not make that money part of the taxes, to make giving money to those in need of health treatment compulsory?

[britishboy]

it comes out of taxes and its good because people wont hesitate to check out that lump or bump they think is nothing but im meny cases its been something like cancer and its cheaper became it doesn't make profit

[Walter Powers]

It's about helping people out. So if you are banking on people donating to charity, why not make that money part of the taxes, to make giving money to those in need of health treatment compulsory?

Because then instead of putting that power in the hands of the people, it's in the power of one of the least trustworthy demographics...politicians. And it adds a lot of beurocracy and administrative expenses. Lastly, if you've been following what's happening with the American IRS scandals, tax collectors are not trustworthy.

If it's a truly good cause and people want to help out, they'll donate, if not, we shouldn't force them to. It's called freedom.

How about some advice from our friend Tom?

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
-Thomas Jefferson

[Gigablue]

The main problem with privatized healthcare is that is creates a huge disparity between the rich and the poor. People who can't afford healthcare either end up with a massive debt or going without treatment, both if these are unacceptable.

With publicly funded healthcare, everyone helps everyone else. No one has to worry about not being able to afford healthcare, and thus everyone can get the treatment they need.

[Walter Powers]

The main problem with privatized healthcare is that is creates a huge disparity between the rich and the poor. People who can't afford healthcare either end up with a massive debt or going without treatment, both if these are unacceptable.

With publicly funded healthcare, everyone helps everyone else. No one has to worry about not being able to afford healthcare, and thus everyone can get the treatment they need.

Ever heard of charity?

[Cygnus]

Nothing is truly free, nothing. The healthcare in socialist countries as you said comes from the elevated tax rates so you are paying for it indirectly.

[Harry Smith]

Free health care saved my life, It seems fair not to make people pay in order to live. Only America would allow people to die because they don't posses green pieces of paper

[Bougainvillea]

Ever heard of charity?
And just how much is charity going to help?

[Walter Powers]

Free health care saved my life, It seems fair not to make people pay in order to live. Only America would allow people to die because they don't posses green pieces of paper

We don't allow people to dies if they can't afford treatment; they just are required to eventually pay the bill. That's a gross exaggeration.

[Gigablue]

Ever heard of charity?

Why should people have to depend on charity for what should be a basic human right?

We don't allow people to dies if they can't afford treatment; they just are required to eventually pay the bill. That's a gross exaggeration.

People don't die, but they end up getting substandard treatment, and they still end up with a massive debt that they can't pay back.

[Walter Powers]

Why should people have to depend on charity for what should be a basic human right?

People don't die, but they end up getting substandard treatment, and they still end up with a massive debt that they can't pay back.

Ever heard of insurance?

[Gigablue]

Ever heard of insurance?

It's not always easy to get insurance, especially for people with preexisting medical conditions. Also, insurance is a poor substitute for publicly funded healthcare. Lastly, what is the advantage of privatized healthcare? All it dies is bankrupt people unnecessarily.

[Southside]

Ever heard of insurance?

Why is it always "charity" with you? Also, what makes you think if we have lower taxes people are automatically going to be dishing out money to "charity"? I'm pretty sure that "charity" wouldnt be evenly spread around either, healthcare is a basic human right that should be publicly funded.

[Stronger]

While its "free" there just a lot more taxes involved, in Economics we did a comparison USA vs. Canada, I'd much rather have our health care, besides higher taxes, their are much longer waiting lists for say organs, etc. Its all about compare and contrast. Our life expectancy is also better pertaining to certain things.

[tovaris]

Those rhat need helthcare dont have to pay extra to have their life saved. Thats free helthcare if everione paies a little noone has to pay extra for free medical serveses.

[Stronk Serb]

It saved me 3 times. I support it.

[Walter Powers]

Why is it always "charity" with you? Also, what makes you think if we have lower taxes people are automatically going to be dishing out money to "charity"? I'm pretty sure that "charity" wouldnt be evenly spread around either, healthcare is a basic human right that should be publicly funded.

Why? Your basic human rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The argument that the best quality healthcare in the world (American Healthcare) is a basic right is crazy!

And yes, I do think that people will be dishing out money to charity. And also lots of people who don't need it will get a job. And ultimately, a charity that wants to help as many people as possible is going to be much much much more efficient then a government beurocracy.

[britishboy]

Why? Your basic human rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The argument that the best quality healthcare in the world (American Healthcare) is a basic right is crazy!

And yes, I do think that people will be dishing out money to charity. And also lots of people who don't need it will get a job. And ultimately, a charity that wants to help as many people as possible is going to be much much much more efficient then a government beurocracy.

wouldn't it be better to better allocate tax payments (who pays what) and have free health care?

[Gigablue]

Why? Your basic human rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The argument that the best quality healthcare in the world (American Healthcare) is a basic right is crazy!

You have an overly America-centric view of things. Those are your basic rights in the US, but other countries are different. Also, here is article 25 section 1 of the universal declaration of human rights, which applies to everyone. It states that medical care is a human rights.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Also, the American healthcare system isn't the best in the world. It isn't even close. According to the world health organization, the US healthcare system is ranked 38th in the world. France is number one. However, the US does have the highest per capita expenditure on healthcare. Basically this proves that publicly funded healthcare is better and cheaper.

And yes, I do think that people will be dishing out money to charity. And also lots of people who don't need it will get a job. And ultimately, a charity that wants to help as many people as possible is going to be much much much more efficient then a government beurocracy.

You assume that people will donate more if taxes are lower. Do you have any evidence of this?

[tovaris]

Today on the 25. June 2013 on one of two biggest holidays of this republic, masive doctor and medical staf protests are going on in the capitam FOR public healthcare...

[britishboy]

Today on the 25. June 2013 on one of two biggest holidays of this republic, masive doctor and medical staf protests are going on in the capitam FOR public healthcare...

yeah im for it, I live in britian (health care is free here) and capitalism can not succeed purely on its own as there will be starving people who may riot, we must look aftet the poor like we do

[Walter Powers]

yeah im for it, I live in britian (health care is free here) and capitalism can not succeed purely on its own as there will be starving people who may riot, we must look aftet the poor like we do

Or else. You sound threatened by them.

If there's a riot, it should only weaken their argument because it shows how uncivil they are. If their is a riot, don't cave in; Bring in the police and control it.

[Southside]

Why? Your basic human rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The argument that the best quality healthcare in the world (American Healthcare) is a basic right is crazy!

And yes, I do think that people will be dishing out money to charity. And also lots of people who don't need it will get a job. And ultimately, a charity that wants to help as many people as possible is going to be much much much more efficient then a government beurocracy.

If taxes are lower you'd see more businesses opening, more people driving new cars, new home sales, that kind of thing. I'm all for charity and all, but the average person isnt going to be dishing out money to fund healthcare or food stamps. I know I wouldnt when I have one of the biggest governments in the world that is more than able to provide these things.

[tovaris]

Or else. You sound threatened by them.

If there's a riot, it should only weaken their argument because it shows how uncivil they are. If their is a riot, don't cave in; Bring in the police and control it.

Because this has worked so good in Turkey so far (and all round the world)?
Are you seriously so afraid of a few doctors on the Square of the Repoblic?

[britishboy]

Or else. You sound threatened by them.

If there's a riot, it should only weaken their argument because it shows how uncivil they are. If their is a riot, don't cave in; Bring in the police and control it.

I believe in capitalism, a rich and a poor will always be needed but British and American citizens can starve to death, extreme capitalism allows this, they must be protected ect ect, anyway we have Africa and China for cheap labor

[britishboy]

Because this has worked so good in Turkey so far (and all round the world)?

the Turkish police force is a joke they are to blame and their useless temper fuled the riots!

[Southside]

I believe in capitalism, a rich and a poor will always be needed but British and American citizens can starve to death, extreme capitalism allows this, they must be protected ect ect, anyway we have Africa and China for cheap labor


So it's right for people in China and Africa to have to work in sweatshops and sickening conditions to produce our coffee,clothing, electronics? A lot of people ask why Africa and other 3rd world countries are so poor, it's due being raped by Western Companies in the UK,US, Europe.. Stealing their resources and ravaging their land.

[jayh]

A lot of people ask why Africa and other 3rd world countries are so poor, it's due being raped by Western Companies in the UK,US, Europe.. Stealing their resources and ravaging their land.

Granted that used to be true but now the west is giving money to Africa so they've ample opportunity to get back on their feet.

The reason Africa is so poor now, today is because they have crap governments who spend their money fighting each other while their people starve.

Why do you think Africa doesn't have any companies?

[britishboy]

So it's right for people in China and Africa to have to work in sweatshops and sickening conditions to produce our coffee,clothing, electronics? A lot of people ask why Africa and other 3rd world countries are so poor, it's due being raped by Western Companies in the UK,US, Europe.. Stealing their resources and ravaging their land.

its one of the evils of the world but its needed, allows companies large taxable profits and you get stuff at a lower price and hand made stuff is cheaper

[Southside]

Granted that used to be true but now the west is giving money to Africa so they've ample opportunity to get back on their feet.

The reason Africa is so poor now, today is because they have crap governments who spend their money fighting each other while their people starve.

Why do you think Africa doesn't have any companies?

Let's take Nigeria for example, in areas of their most fertile region, Shell has spilled thousands of barrels of oil, families are starving and farmers are unable to plant crops due to Shell's neglegence.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejym4mKelhM
That's one example of Western companies raping Africa.

Libya, NATO planes bomb oil infrastructure. Oil is one of the biggest industries in Libya
Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/libya-nato-hits-oil-port-ras-lanouf

Western countries and corperations encourage the fighting by funding these certain governments and groups. Source: http://www.projectpanafrica.org/28941/2/

[jayh]

Western countries and corperations encourage the fighting by funding these certain governments and groups. Source: http://www.projectpanafrica.org/28941/2/

Nobody's denying that. Africa is resource rich so obviously companies want to get at those resources - that's business.

Do you think most African countries have strong, effective governments that serve the best interests of their people?

[Southside]

Nobody's denying that. Africa is resource rich so obviously companies want to get at those resources - that's business.

Do you think most African countries have strong, effective governments that serve the best interests of their people?

No, but even some rich, developed countries dont serve the best interest of their people. My point is, if Africa could say 'No" to these Western companies coming in and stealing their resources, they'd be one of the richest places on Earth. Never call Africa poor, the amount of natural resources they have is enormous, and if they could create their own corperations they'd be just fine

[jayh]

Never call Africa poor, the amount of natural resources they have is enormous, and if they could create their own corperations they'd be just fine

Well that's like saying I won $10m on the lottery last week but lost my ticket - I'm still poor :)
I agree Africa should be rich - why do you think they can't create their own corporations?

[Southside]

Well that's like saying I won $10m on the lottery last week but lost my ticket - I'm still poor :)
I agree Africa should be rich - why do you think they can't create their own corporations?

Simple human greed, nationalism, which runs everywhere, not just in Africa. Africa has so many different ethnic groups, countries, religions it's basically impossible. Still, their should be some type of unity among the countries.

[jayh]

Simple human greed, nationalism, which runs everywhere, not just in Africa. Africa has so many different ethnic groups, countries, religions it's basically impossible. Still, their should be some type of unity among the countries.

Like a United States of Africa? Would make a lot of sense but as you say there's so many warring factions it would never happen.

[Walter Powers]

wouldn't it be better to better allocate tax payments (who pays what) and have free health care?

No. Let me ask you this: Are you going to take more risks when you know that it won't be you footing the bill?
Also, I worry this would come available to illegals.

[LuciferSam]

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/universal-healthcares-dirty-little-secrets

[Walter Powers]

You have an overly America-centric view of things. Those are your basic rights in the US, but other countries are different. Also, here is article 25 section 1 of the universal declaration of human rights, which applies to everyone. It states that medical care is a human rights.



Also, the American healthcare system isn't the best in the world. It isn't even close. According to the world health organization, the US healthcare system is ranked 38th in the world. France is number one. However, the US does have the highest per capita expenditure on healthcare. Basically this proves that publicly funded healthcare is better and cheaper.



You assume that people will donate more if taxes are lower. Do you have any evidence of this?

I'm not talking about what the US constitution says; I'm talking about what I believe, which it so happens to be the same thing the constitution says.

And I'm not sure how in the world the WHO came to that conclusion, maybe they were French? All I know is that an international leader is needing a major surgery, they come to America. Unless of course they are a communist, like Chavez, then they go to Cuba.

[britishboy]

No. Let me ask you this: Are you going to take more risks when you know that it won't be you footing the bill?
Also, I worry this would come available to illegals.

no, no one likes getting hurt lol and its nice because when you feel ill or concerned, you dont have to wurry about costs, only your health however many still go private for luxuries

[Walter Powers]

no, no one likes getting hurt lol and its nice because when you feel ill or concerned, you dont have to wurry about costs, only your health however many still go private for luxuries

What do you mean, for luxuries? Whenever I hear socialize healthcare advocates talking about it, it seems like they want a person making $20 thousand a year to have the same quality care as an investor who's making $20 million.

[Harry Smith]

What do you mean, for luxuries? Whenever I hear socialize healthcare advocates talking about it, it seems like they want a person making $20 thousand a year to have the same quality care as an investor who's making $20 million.

yes that's pretty much how it works, they both pay taxes so they both get the same standard. You shouldn't punish people for being poor

[britishboy]

What do you mean, for luxuries? Whenever I hear socialize healthcare advocates talking about it, it seems like they want a person making $20 thousand a year to have the same quality care as an investor who's making $20 million.

I dont see what your saying? britian has free health care which is great and you get great health care but few have their own room and theyre not eatting lobster lol, private can give you you own room better food stuff like that, you get what you pay for but free health care is needed

[Human]

If you get a free operation worth thousands then you probably get your taxes worth...

[britishboy]

If you get a free operation worth thousands then you probably get your taxes worth...

it dosent work like that, everyone pays tax which funds the NHS its that fund that oays for treatments, it dosent matter how much you pay and most middle and lower class people will get more out of the NHS than they put in because the higher classes go private

[Gigablue]

I'm not talking about what the US constitution says; I'm talking about what I believe, which it so happens to be the same thing the constitution says.

I think healthcare should be a universal human right, and apparently the UN agrees with me. If you disagree, please explain why.

And I'm not sure how in the world the WHO came to that conclusion, maybe they were French? All I know is that an international leader is needing a major surgery, they come to America. Unless of course they are a communist, like Chavez, then they go to Cuba.

This is how they came up with the rankings.

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

Saying that international leaders come to the US for healthcare is irrelevant. I don't disagree that if you have a huge amount of money, like all world leaders, you can get great healthcare in the US. The problem is not everyone is super rich. In general, the average American gets worse healthcare than citizens in most other developed countries, yet they pay the most.

[Human]

it dosent work like that, everyone pays tax which funds the NHS its that fund that oays for treatments, it dosent matter how much you pay and most middle and lower class people will get more out of the NHS than they put in because the higher classes go private

That's what I said... if you get an expensive operation then other people would have paid for most of it

[britishboy]

That's what I said... if you get an expensive operation then other people would have paid for most of it

sorry I thought you ment that we pay more than we get

[Walter Powers]

yes that's pretty much how it works, they both pay taxes so they both get the same standard. You shouldn't punish people for being poor

"You shouldn't punish people for being poor." What the hell? I thought you weren't a communist! If you are more successful, you desearve to have the option to purchase better services.

[Gigablue]

"You shouldn't punish people for being poor." What the hell? I thought you weren't a communist! If you are more successful, you desearve to have the option to purchase better services.

You shouldn't take away basic human rights from the poor. Healthcare is a basic human right.

[Harry Smith]

"You shouldn't punish people for being poor." What the hell? I thought you weren't a communist! If you are more successful, you desearve to have the option to purchase better services.

Having compassion doesn't make me a communist!

I agree that you should have that option but you still need to have a scheme which provides free healthcare to many people

[Southside]

"You shouldn't punish people for being poor." What the hell? I thought you weren't a communist! If you are more successful, you desearve to have the option to purchase better services.

So basically your saying I need to be a CEO or US Senator to get good healthcare? Please clarify..All healthcare should be high quality and equal regardless of how your pay check looks...Healthcare=Human Right

[Walter Powers]

So basically your saying I need to be a CEO or US Senator to get good healthcare? Please clarify..All healthcare should be high quality and equal regardless of how your pay check looks...Healthcare=Human Right

I think that we should reduce taxation so people can afford to buy healthcare out of their own pocket, and your quality of care shouldn't be reduced because the losers in society are taking away from the system. The net outcome of this will be the government decides what kind of surgeries you are allowed to get; that's not right. You'll have the government determining whether you live or die regardless of whether you would have chosen to get more comprehensive private insurance.

Just saying all healthcare should be high quality doesn't mean it can be. Look at the public American school system, you call that high quality? Similar situation.

I'm all for compassion, but it should be privately funded compassion where the intent of the people running the system is to help people out, not win an election.

I believe nothing materail is a human right; you and only you should be responsible for your actions.

Having compassion doesn't make me a communist!

I agree that you should have that option but you still need to have a scheme which provides free healthcare to many people


"Having compassion." That's like the number one point communists make.

FREE healthcare? You mean no duductible or anything? Then people wouldn't care how much it'd cost and would go to the doctor for every little things and take bigger risks.

[Southside]

I think that we should reduce taxation so people can afford to buy healthcare out of their own pocket, and your quality of care shouldn't be reduced because the losers in society are taking away from the system. The net outcome of this will be the government decides what kind of surgeries you are allowed to get; that's not right. You'll have the government determining whether you live or die regardless of whether you would have chosen to get more comprehensive private insurance.

Just saying all healthcare should be high quality doesn't mean it can be. Look at the public American school system, you call that high quality? Similar situation.

I'm all for compassion, but it should be privately funded compassion where the intent of the people running the system is to help people out, not win an election

I believe nothing materail is a human right; you and only you should be responsible for your actions.

Even if "reduced taxation" happens most people still cant afford decent healthcare. Many people in innercity areas such as the one I live in pay little to no taxes at all and they cant afford decent healthcare(nor have access to it). By privately funded do you mean "charity" which your always rooting for?

I've noticed you dont like tax payer money to go to things like healthcare, so what do you like it to go to?

[Gigablue]

I think that we should reduce taxation so people can afford to buy healthcare out of their own pocket, and your quality of care shouldn't be reduced because the losers in society are taking away from the system.

If you reduce taxes and let people pay for their own healthcare, all you do is create more inequality. People who get sick or injured become poor. If you let insurance cover it all, you have a similar result to public healthcare, in that the cost is more spread out, but you have a reduced quality of healthcare.

The net outcome of this will be the government decides what kind of surgeries you are allowed to get; that's not right. You'll have the government determining whether you live or die regardless of whether you would have chosen to get more comprehensive private insurance.

Your premise, that private healthcare is better, is simply wrong. The countries with the best healthcare all have public healthcare. You also assume that governments are more restrictive that insurance companies. Don't you think that a private company, which cares only about profit, would cover less that a government, which has a responsibility of the people.

Just saying all healthcare should be high quality doesn't mean it can be. Look at the public American school system, you call that high quality? Similar situation.

Healthcare should be of the highest quality possible, for all people equally.

I'm all for compassion, but it should be privately funded compassion where the intent of the people running the system is to help people out, not win an election.

What's wrong with having a public safety net. Private compassion isn't as effective as the government at helping people. Also, the intent of the insurance companies, which effectively control the quality of private healthcare, is not to help people, but to make money.

I believe nothing material is a human right; you and only you should be responsible for your actions.

In that case, do you believe in other material human rights such as food, housing and clothing?

[tovaris]

FREE healthcare? You mean no duductible or anything? Then people wouldn't care how much it'd cost and would go to the doctor for every little things and take bigger risks.

Whats wrong with you yoi think people will start going dangerous stuf because the state covers it? Gues what basic helthcare is aledy free (here) as long as one in enploied (that one of major curent inparfections today) and people dont do extrem sports just because they get pached up for free, and people avoid the doctor at all costs and rather dring galonsbof tee and aspirions before going to see a doctor because its no use to sit there qhel all you have is a cold.
A (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=179419)

[Jasperf]

Here's the problem: I can't quite see how people can say that "free" nationalized healthcare is actually be free.

Medical equipment costs money. Medication costs money. Pretty much everything involved in medical treatment costs money. Doctors have to get paid for their work. The medical practice is going to generate expenses, no matter what. And where do these expenses go? Usually, the government passes them on to the general population via taxes. Note that many European countries have higher tax rates than in the US

Free? I don't think so.

I live in New Zealand and over here we don't pay at all either, all of the expenses are paid my our taxes. If your moaning about taxes, think about what would happen without them. We would have no sewers, roads, medicine would be so expensive, schooling would be out of the possibility for a lot of people, the list could go on.

[Appypollylogges]

You couldn't?

If taxes are lower, people will donate more to charity. A charity that somebody in need, like yourself, could use. At least in America, a land full of decent people :) also, have you ever heard of private insurance?

Really? Relying on charity?
How the heck would that consistently work? You cant rely on something like charity 100 percent of the time.
And of course the rich might as well pay for the less fortunate.
Sorry to trample on your virtues to make as much money as frigging possible (without any regard for others mind you), but it makes total sense in society.

[Capto]

You couldn't?

If taxes are lower, people will donate more to charity. A charity that somebody in need, like yourself, could use. At least in America, a land full of decent people :) also, have you ever heard of private insurance?

lolololololol

Decency. What a joke.

[Walter Powers]

If you reduce taxes and let people pay for their own healthcare, all you do is create more inequality. People who get sick or injured become poor. If you let insurance cover it all, you have a similar result to public healthcare, in that the cost is more spread out, but you have a reduced quality of healthcare.



Your premise, that private healthcare is better, is simply wrong. The countries with the best healthcare all have public healthcare. You also assume that governments are more restrictive that insurance companies. Don't you think that a private company, which cares only about profit, would cover less that a government, which has a responsibility of the people.



Healthcare should be of the highest quality possible, for all people equally.



What's wrong with having a public safety net. Private compassion isn't as effective as the government at helping people. Also, the intent of the insurance companies, which effectively control the quality of private healthcare, is not to help people, but to make money.



In that case, do you believe in other material human rights such as food, housing and clothing?

At least with private insurance, you have a choice of what kind of coverage you want. That's why it's better. You think the Congress best knows what YOUR healthcare needs are?

I trust private compainies to do their job better because they want to make money. They don't get money if they do a bad job, and you can sue them and not hurt the general public if they do something wrong. Politicians, on the other hand, only want to get reelected. Most of them aren' t interested in the public good, either. And bureaucrats don't appear to have any incentive to do a good job. So that's why I trust private industry as a whole more then the United States Congress. Since when have they followed through on their responsibilities? The senate hasn't passed a budget in how many years now?

You don't think that competition makes people provide better services?

Really? Relying on charity?
How the heck would that consistently work? You cant rely on something like charity 100 percent of the time.
And of course the rich might as well pay for the less fortunate.
Sorry to trample on your virtues to make as much money as frigging possible (without any regard for others mind you), but it makes total sense in society.

Yes, you can rely on charity. People running charities actually want to help, not just get paid.

And how am I trying to make as much money as possible? In a few years I'm gonna be receiving thousands in government assistance for college.

[britishboy]

At least with private insurance, you have a choice of what kind of coverage you want. That's why it's better. You think the Congress best knows what YOUR healthcare needs are?

I trust private compainies to do their job better because they want to make money. They don't get money if they do a bad job, and you can sue them and not hurt the general public if they do something wrong. Politicians, on the other hand, only want to get reelected. Most of them aren' t interested in the public good, either. And bureaucrats don't appear to have any incentive to do a good job. So that's why I trust private industry as a whole more then the United States Congress. Since when have they followed through on their responsibilities? The senate hasn't passed a budget in how many years now?

You don't think that competition makes people provide better services?

wouldn't you rather everything be free? that way you dont have to wurry about getting hurt, only the pain off it and recovery time

[Walter Powers]

wouldn't you rather everything be free? that way you dont have to wurry about getting hurt, only the pain off it and recovery time

Yes, but unfortunately nothings free! That's reality.

[britishboy]

Yes, but unfortunately nothings free! That's reality.

in britian everyone pays for it, its this massive amount of money that funds all the operations, for example if I had a very bad car crash and needed artificial hips and my skull rebuilt, I dont have to wurry or stress about the cost, and he would be getting out more than he put in because everyone eles is paying for that security its also cheaper because theres no profits

[Walter Powers]

in britian everyone pays for it, its this massive amount of money that funds all the operations, for example if I had a very bad car crash and needed artificial hips and my skull rebuilt, I dont have to wurry or stress about the cost, and he would be getting out more than he put in because everyone eles is paying for that security its also cheaper because theres no profits

Really. So it costs the government less then, say, the total cost of private American insurance?

[Harry Smith]

Really. So it costs the government less then, say, the total cost of private American insurance?

Why should someone have to pay to stay alive?

[Walter Powers]

Why should someone have to pay to stay alive?

You have an idea on how to make it so that they won't have to pay? If you know how to make doctors and medical equipment appear out of thin air, I'm all for it. So far, the only suggestion I've heard from you would make them pay via taxes.

[foxtrot.12]

i believe that "free" healthcare is a good idea because my dad costs us a lot each year and isnt great but he is lucky enough to have a good job to pay for most of it people deserve to be treated always. but i dont know what it would do to the market and salaries of doctors or quality of healthcare so i just really don't know

cuz the people who are doing the saving went to 8 or more years of college and are frickin amazing

Really? Relying on charity?
How the heck would that consistently work? You cant rely on something like charity 100 percent of the time.
And of course the rich might as well pay for the less fortunate.
Sorry to trample on your virtues to make as much money as frigging possible (without any regard for others mind you), but it makes total sense in society.
forcing successful people to pay for people who dont want to work is stupid and borders socialism it'd be nice if everything was free but there are definitely people who know how to get by on other people without working they are scum

Posts merged ~ Mike/ImCoolBeans

[Walter Powers]

forcing successful people to pay for people who dont want to work is stupid and borders socialism it'd be nice if everything was free but there are definitely people who know how to get by on other people without working they are scum

Exactly.

[britishboy]

Really. So it costs the government less then, say, the total cost of private American insurance?

it will cost the government about the same, but is alot better for the people

[Walter Powers]

it will cost the government about the same, but is alot better for the people

How? I'll have less choices and lower quality care. Nobody will try to compete for my business.

[britishboy]

How? I'll have less choices and lower quality care. Nobody will try to compete for my business.

you can go private and the quality is better ive herd

[Walter Powers]

you can go private and the quality is better ive herd

Exactly. That's why we shouldn't socialize healthcare.

[britishboy]

Exactly. That's why we shouldn't socialize healthcare.

I ment the quality is better in the UK and how would you like it if you were seriously injured and now got piles of dept

[Walter Powers]

I ment the quality is better in the UK and how would you like it if you were seriously injured and now got piles of dept

Really, the quality is better? I'd challenge that. But, regardless, it's not like you can't get better privat insurance here if you want to.

[Harry Smith]

forcing successful people to pay for people who dont want to work is stupid and borders socialism it'd be nice if everything was free but there are definitely people who know how to get by on other people without working they are scum

Well aren't you just lovely? What's wrong with socialism, why are Americans so afraid of it? Socialism saved my life, socialist healthcare in Britain provides so many people with life. How can you deny someone the right to life simply because they don't have insurance.

Do you think it's fair that inmates at Guantanamo bay get free health care yet law abiding Americans have to pay for it?

You have an idea on how to make it so that they won't have to pay? If you know how to make doctors and medical equipment appear out of thin air, I'm all for it. So far, the only suggestion I've heard from you would make them pay via taxes.

I know but you don't directly pay through taxes, I only pay VAT (sales tax) on consumer products yet I've had medical treatment well in excess of 5 thousand pounds. Taxes pay for everything as you know-roads, streetlights, police etc

[steve102998]

i dont see a problem with free helth care

[Southside]

forcing successful people to pay for people who dont want to work is stupid and borders socialism it'd be nice if everything was free but there are definitely people who know how to get by on other people without working they are scum

You are horrible for assuming that all people who have free/government healthcare are lazy, non workers...

What about a family with both working parents with 2 or 3 kids who cant afford it? Their lazy right?

It's nothing wrong with helping those who cant afford healthcare get it, it's a few on this fourm who are always touting "AMERICA WE'RE NUMBER 1" though we cant even help disadvantaged folks get healthcare.

[britishboy]

Really, the quality is better? I'd challenge that. But, regardless, it's not like you can't get better privat insurance here if you want to.

the thing is, you dont have to wurry about money! only getting back to work and the pain of the injury! so its 100% nicer for the people however im not sure on costs so cant really say its cheaper but theres no profit so it should be cheaper, many people still go private however for luxuries

[Mikey8]

The main problem with privatized healthcare is that is creates a huge disparity between the rich and the poor. People who can't afford healthcare either end up with a massive debt or going without treatment, both if these are unacceptable.

With publicly funded healthcare, everyone helps everyone else. No one has to worry about not being able to afford healthcare, and thus everyone can get the treatment they need.

Exactly, could'nt have said it better !

[Walter Powers]

Well aren't you just lovely? What's wrong with socialism, why are Americans so afraid of it? Socialism saved my life, socialist healthcare in Britain provides so many people with life. How can you deny someone the right to life simply because they don't have insurance.

Do you think it's fair that inmates at Guantanamo bay get free health care yet law abiding Americans have to pay for it?



I know but you don't directly pay through taxes, I only pay VAT (sales tax) on consumer products yet I've had medical treatment well in excess of 5 thousand pounds. Taxes pay for everything as you know-roads, streetlights, police etc
So? Your still paying for it. And taxes are even worse because there's little accountability or transparency.


You are horrible for assuming that all people who have free/government healthcare are lazy, non workers...

What about a family with both working parents with 2 or 3 kids who cant afford it? Their lazy right?

It's nothing wrong with helping those who cant afford healthcare get it, it's a few on this fourm who are always touting "AMERICA WE'RE NUMBER 1" though we cant even help disadvantaged folks get healthcare.

Yes we can. Like I said, it's called charity. I believe that Americans aren't so uncaring as to need government to force them to help out people who truly need it. I guess you don't share that same faith in our country.

[Harry Smith]

So? Your still paying for it. And taxes are even worse because there's little accountability or transparency.




Yes we can. Like I said, it's called charity. I believe that Americans aren't so uncaring as to need government to force them to help out people who truly need it. I guess you don't share that same faith in our country.

What about a child needing a heart transplant? Do you really think that charity is going to be able to pay for that? No, it's just you trying to find a substitute for it. I don't share much faith in America, you've got an illegal jail in a country you attempted to other-throw? Your intelligence service killed one of your presidents, your country voted in George bush and to sum it up your happy to watch families be forced into crippling debt so they can survive

[foxtrot.12]

Well aren't you just lovely? What's wrong with socialism, why are Americans so afraid of it? Socialism saved my life, socialist healthcare in Britain provides so many people with life. How can you deny someone the right to life simply because they don't have insurance.

Do you think it's fair that inmates at Guantanamo bay get free health care yet law abiding Americans have to pay for it?



I know but you don't directly pay through taxes, I only pay VAT (sales tax) on consumer products yet I've had medical treatment well in excess of 5 thousand pounds. Taxes pay for everything as you know-roads, streetlights, police etc
the problem with socialism is that it places everyone on an even plane which while, yes, bring some up to a certain level, it also brings other down. this is why between 1900 and 1970 many socialist countries failed

[Southside]

So? Your still paying for it. And taxes are even worse because there's little accountability or transparency.




Yes we can. Like I said, it's called charity. I believe that Americans aren't so uncaring as to need government to force them to help out people who truly need it. I guess you don't share that same faith in our country.

Be honest, if you were given 10,000 dollars of tax free money would you automatically go out and give a ton of it to "charity"? I know i'd put most of it in my college savings, take a vacay, and give some to my church.

I cant believe you dont complain about your tax dollars going overseas to Israel or Egypt, but you always complain about helping people afford/have access to healthcare.

[Harry Smith]

the problem with socialism is that it places everyone on an even plane which while, yes, bring some up to a certain level, it also brings other down. this is why between 1900 and 1970 many socialist countries failed

Whats the country called again, I think it was the country that followed you into Iraq. The country was called Britain, which was being ruled by a socialist party and prime minister

[Jean Poutine]

The fact that every civilized, industrialized country (and even some that are neither) boasts some sort of public sector health care while America does not speaks wonder, or is basically every other country worth mentioning in the wrong while the great Americans and their corporate sell-out version of "liberty" are in the vanguard to liberate us from the depths of our ignorance?

There is no argument for not having publicly-funded health care - whatsoever. People with the means to jump the public queues simply drop into the parallel private system (yes, it exists, and almost every country with some sort of public care has one) which does the same job as the US'. All that's happening in the American system is thousands of perfectly preventable deaths due to the lack of health care coverage.

[britishboy]

The fact that every civilized, industrialized country (and even some that are neither) boasts some sort of public sector health care while America does not speaks wonder, or is basically every other country worth mentioning in the wrong while the great Americans and their corporate sell-out version of "liberty" are in the vanguard to liberate us from the depths of our ignorance?

There is no argument for not having publicly-funded health care - whatsoever. People with the means to jump the public queues simply drop into the parallel private system (yes, it exists, and almost every country with some sort of public care has one) which does the same job as the US'. All that's happening in the American system is thousands of perfectly preventable deaths due to the lack of health care coverage.

exactly its also nicer for the injured people, not having to stress about money

[Walter Powers]

The fact that every civilized, industrialized country (and even some that are neither) boasts some sort of public sector health care while America does not speaks wonder, or is basically every other country worth mentioning in the wrong while the great Americans and their corporate sell-out version of "liberty" are in the vanguard to liberate us from the depths of our ignorance?

There is no argument for not having publicly-funded health care - whatsoever. People with the means to jump the public queues simply drop into the parallel private system (yes, it exists, and almost every country with some sort of public care has one) which does the same job as the US'. All that's happening in the American system is thousands of perfectly preventable deaths due to the lack of health care coverage.

There is no argument against it? I think your the ignorant one here. How about the fact that's ugh private healthcare and charity you have people running the system who actually care about it's quality; either because they want to make money and have to compete of they care about other people's health respectively.

[Capto]

There is no argument against it? I think your the ignorant one here. How about the fact that's ugh private healthcare and charity you have people running the system who actually care about it's quality; either because they want to make money and have to compete of they care about other people's health respectively.

A charity for healthcare is one of the most ridiculous, unreasonable, and laughable ideas I've ever heard in my 15 years on this planet.

[Walter Powers]

A charity for healthcare is one of the most ridiculous, unreasonable, and laughable ideas I've ever heard in my 15 years on this planet.

How come so many of them exist then? Just a couple of weeks ago I did a 5k for a charity that helps families of children with cancer pay for their medical treatments.

[Capto]

How come so many of them exist then? Just a couple of weeks ago I did a 5k for a charity that helps families of children with cancer pay for their medical treatments.

Because they operate on a smaller scale.

[Jean Poutine]

There is no argument against it? I think your the ignorant one here. How about the fact that's ugh private healthcare and charity you have people running the system who actually care about it's quality; either because they want to make money and have to compete of they care about other people's health respectively.

No, there is no argument against it.

The quality of health care received in the West is comparable from country to country. Private health care providers do not make it "better". The only downside to a publicly funded system is the long waiting line - again, those with the means can simply elect to pay to receive care in a private hospital, thus making the issue inconsequential.

If I were poor, I would much prefer to wait, say, 6 months to receive treatment for whatever than get nothing at all because I can't afford it.

Next?

PS : the United States actually pays more per capita for health care than Canada does. It's not even economically viable.

How come so many of them exist then? Just a couple of weeks ago I did a 5k for a charity that helps families of children with cancer pay for their medical treatments.

Because there is nothing like, say, publicly funded health care for those poor people who can't afford treatment, maybe?

A charity for health care is unheard of in any country with such a system.

[Walter Powers]

What about a child needing a heart transplant? Do you really think that charity is going to be able to pay for that? No, it's just you trying to find a substitute for it. I don't share much faith in America, you've got an illegal jail in a country you attempted to other-throw? Your intelligence service killed one of your presidents, your country voted in George bush and to sum it up your happy to watch families be forced into crippling debt so they can survive

I'll just have you know my school raised $20,000 for a girl needing cancer treatment. It can be done.

[Capto]

I'll just have you know my school raised $20,000 for a girl needing can we treatment. It can be done.

Like I said. Small scale. Local.

[Walter Powers]

Like I said. Small scale. Local.

So? Local works. In fact, locals best because you can personally interact with people who you might want to help.

[Capto]

So? Local works. In fact, locals best because you can personally interact with people who you might want to help.

It's also an official logistical, accounting, and organizational disaster, precisely because of that.

[Walter Powers]

It's also an official logistical, accounting, and organizational disaster, precisely because of that.

Well, it'd certainly be at least ten times less of a disaster then an IRS enforced national healthcare program. At least with charities and corporations, people care about how well they do their job, to done reason or another, and if they don't, you have somebody else to turn to.

[Capto]

Well, it'd certainly be at least ten times less of a disaster then an IRS enforced national healthcare program. At least with charities and corporations, people care about how well they do their job, to done reason or another, and if they don't, you have somebody else to turn to.

What in the world could possibly make you believe that? lololololol Can you imagine what kind of a nightmare it would be to detail all that?

Probably not.

[Walter Powers]

What in the world could possibly make you believe that? lololololol Can you imagine what kind of a nightmare it would be to detail all that?

Probably not.

I don't understand why you think a bunch of local charities helping people out would be more complicated then a giant national government beurcacrcy.

[Capto]

I don't understand why you think a bunch of local charities helping people out would be more complicated then a giant national government beurcacrcy.

*Bureaucracy

And do I really need to spell it out? A bunch of local charities throughout the entire nation versus a more centralized and better organized system?

[zeebo]

Healthcare is a basic human right, and by having the rich taxed more, it is much more easily obtainable. The US just has so many patriotic idiots that oppose so many progressive ideas.

[Harry Smith]

I don't understand why you think a bunch of local charities helping people out would be more complicated then a giant national government beurcacrcy.

Oh wow, why don't you let charities run the police? or the Prisons? Or the Army?

Your whole idea is baseless, the history of Medicine shows us that we need to have clinical large scale authorities to make reform compared to local based groups, look at all the introductions made by Florence Nightingale, that required high level reform and training.

Also your charity idea lacks so any thought, it would require higher investment from the individuals because unlike tax not every-one would contribute to charity. It just doesn't work

[Southside]

I don't understand why you think a bunch of local charities helping people out would be more complicated then a giant national government beurcacrcy.

"a bunch of local charities" could pay for expensive procedures like heart transplants, cancer treatment? Let's take a city like NYC or Chicago for example, "charity" would be able to keep up with the number of patients coming to hospitals and check ups? Dont give me the "if we lower taxes" speech, because I bet if that happened 90% of people wouldnt give shit to charity.

Most charities have trouble just keeping food banks stocked for the needy, what makes you think they can provide medical care for millions of people?

Your "charity healthcare" theory is pretty wack...I wouldnt mind paying taxes for healthcare because I know I will have guaranteed medical service if I get sick..

You wouldnt want to have guaranteed health service if you get sick?

[Caldwell]

I don't understand why you think a bunch of local charities helping people out would be more complicated then a giant national government beurcacrcy.

You're living in such a fantasy world. It's astounding.

[Jean Poutine]

Well, it'd certainly be at least ten times less of a disaster then an IRS enforced national healthcare program. At least with charities and corporations, people care about how well they do their job, to done reason or another, and if they don't, you have somebody else to turn to.

The United States spent 31% of health care expenditures on administration, while Canada paid 16.7% at the time of this study.

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf

I once went with my ex to a clinic where she spent half at hour at the counter arguing with her insurer because doctor so-and-so wasn't on their list of covered doctors and so on and so forth. Don't you think all that bickering is wasted money? How do you think hospitals keep track of the multitude of health insurance companies out there, how do you think these companies screen people wanting to get insurance, by conjuring admin and health personnel out of nowhere and paying them in love?

When I go to the hospital in my country, I give my provincial health care card and my hospital card, then I go sit and wait. That's it, over and done.

Stop your neo-con bullshit and admit there is no argument against at least a measure of publicly paid health care.

[Walter Powers]

"a bunch of local charities" could pay for expensive procedures like heart transplants, cancer treatment? Let's take a city like NYC or Chicago for example, "charity" would be able to keep up with the number of patients coming to hospitals and check ups? Dont give me the "if we lower taxes" speech, because I bet if that happened 90% of people wouldnt give shit to charity.

Most charities have trouble just keeping food banks stocked for the needy, what makes you think they can provide medical care for millions of people?

Your "charity healthcare" theory is pretty wack...I wouldnt mind paying taxes for healthcare because I know I will have guaranteed medical service if I get sick..

You wouldnt want to have guaranteed health service if you get sick?



No, because I'd prefer a lower monthly rate. But the joy of the American private system is that you could get a low or in theory zero deductable policy if you want to. You get choices. Don't you like choice?

Charity wouldn't be able to cover every patient, of course, just the needy. And the fact that iy wouldn't cover everything would also incentivize people to get a a job. Everyone would have private insurance. And only the needy who the compassionate people running the charities deem desearve it. If you feel people who desearve it aren't getting care, you are free to form your own charity.


Oh wow, why don't you let charities run the police? or the Prisons? Or the Army?

Your whole idea is baseless, the history of Medicine shows us that we need to have clinical large scale authorities to make reform compared to local based groups, look at all the introductions made by Florence Nightingale, that required high level reform and training.

Also your charity idea lacks so any thought, it would require higher investment from the individuals because unlike tax not every-one would contribute to charity. It just doesn't work

I'm by no means saying that the healthcare system should be totally local. Your right; that'd be crazy. We need a large national if not international network of hospitals and doctors. I'm simply saying that local charities work well to help people pay for healthcare premiums and operations that aren't covered.


You're living in such a fantasy world. It's astounding.

You actually think the federal government is efficient and does a good job in anything it does? Really?

[foxtrot.12]

You are horrible for assuming that all people who have free/government healthcare are lazy, non workers...

What about a family with both working parents with 2 or 3 kids who cant afford it? Their lazy right?

It's nothing wrong with helping those who cant afford healthcare get it, it's a few on this fourm who are always touting "AMERICA WE'RE NUMBER 1" though we cant even help disadvantaged folks get healthcare.
i said i like free health care i dont like welfare! please read everything, and insults are annoying

Healthcare is a basic human right, and by having the rich taxed more, it is much more easily obtainable. The US just has so many patriotic idiots that oppose so many progressive ideas.
taxing the heck out of the rich is not a solution it's a way to prolong a lower economy you have to increase education and industry to bring up the average income of families like i said before your version is socialism which actually kills progression. history has proven it


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Southside]

No, because I'd prefer a lower monthly rate. But the joy of the American private system is that you could get a low or in theory zero deductable policy if you want to. You get choices. Don't you like choice?

Charity wouldn't be able to cover every patient, of course, just the needy. And the fact that iy wouldn't cover everything would also incentivize people to get a a job. Everyone would have private insurance. And only the needy who the compassionate people running the charities deem desearve it. If you feel people who desearve it aren't getting care, you are free to form your own charity.




I'm by no means saying that the healthcare system should be totally local. Your right; that'd be crazy. We need a large national if not international network of hospitals and doctors. I'm simply saying that local charities work well to help people pay for healthcare premiums and operations that aren't covered.




You actually think the federal government is efficient and does a good job in anything it does? Really?

It's about 45 million people under the poverty line in America, not even counting the amount of people who are above the line but just can't afford/have access to healthcare. I'd estimate the amount of people that "charity" would have to take care of at about 100 million(maybe more,maybe less). The reasons I support universal healthcare because it's something that I would pay in to and have guaranteed medical service if I get sicked. It's certain times at doctor's visits I've been turned away due to our BS insurance from my dad's job, that wouldnt happen with a gov. system.

[Harry Smith]

taxing the heck out of the rich is not a solution it's a way to prolong a lower economy you have to increase education and industry to bring up the average income of families like i said before your version is socialism which actually kills progression. history has proven it

That's just plain wrong, as I said before

Britain in 1997 became socialist under new labour, a third way progressive based party, it followed a doctrine similar to Clinton's in office. Socialism shouldn't be feared, it's just because half of you yanks still think the cold war is going on and you just can't shake the propaganda out of your head

[TapDancer]

Free health care will never be a perfect system, but, it is certainly better, as, the health of everyone, matters to everyone. If an untreated poor person has contagious diseases, he or she puts others at risk. Also, it can prevent certain things from happening, for example, here in Australia, rabies literally does not exist. Also, Chicken pox is extremely rare as immunisation occurs early in schools. Our healthcare system is not entirely free, but, is always affordable to those of all social standings. If you can only afford the bare cost, about $7 a day in hospital, that is all you pay. (This is payable even if you are on a pension, as all your food is included). However, there are certain things not covered by our healthcare or PBS (Pharmaceutical benefits scheme, which makes medicines affordable). For example, certain medical treatments will be refused to be publicly funded if you, say, do not quit smoking, as your smoking can have a profound effect. Also, things like Vitamin D, unless you can not absorb it properly, they won't subsidise the cost. Even HIV medications are rather cheap here. However, certain surgery's will not be covered unless medically necessary, because the health system is strained as it is, circumcision for example is no longer offered to newborns for free, or anyone unless it is medically necessary (and in that scenario, they will have tried cheaper alternative methods of fixing that particular problem first). We do have private health insurance, which can provide more comfort in a private hospital, and in a public, will give you choice of your doctor, but, healthcare is given to everyone. It is not the best or most comfortable, but, you are kept alive. The public health care system, which offers emergency (private hospitals here do not), has saved my life, and, despite all it's problems, I will always be thankful.

[zeebo]

taxing the heck out of the rich is not a solution it's a way to prolong a lower economy you have to increase education and industry to bring up the average income of families like i said before your version is socialism which actually kills progression. history has proven it

Not if the socialism is somewhat moderate. By taxing the rich, you have an alternative to paying thousands of dollars in healthcare expenses, which is a huge problem for so many people, who often go into major debt. Even a capitalistic country with socialistic implications like Canada works very well. There is no point in being a blind patriot just to appease what your country has been doing for some time.

taxing the heck out of the rich is not a solution it's a way to prolong a lower economy you have to increase education and industry to bring up the average income of families like i said before your version is socialism which actually kills progression. history has proven it

Also, don't constantly refer to history. The world, even 20 years ago, is not the same world we live in today.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Capto]

That's just plain wrong, as I said before

Britain in 1997 became socialist under new labour, a third way progressive based party, it followed a doctrine similar to Clinton's in office. Socialism shouldn't be feared, it's just because half of you yanks still think the cold war is going on and you just can't shake the propaganda out of your head

I know we disagree often, but I agree with this statement a million times over.

[Jean Poutine]

No, because I'd prefer a lower monthly rate. But the joy of the American private system is that you could get a low or in theory zero deductable policy if you want to. You get choices. Don't you like choice?

Charity wouldn't be able to cover every patient, of course, just the needy. And the fact that iy wouldn't cover everything would also incentivize people to get a a job. Everyone would have private insurance. And only the needy who the compassionate people running the charities deem desearve it. If you feel people who desearve it aren't getting care, you are free to form your own charity.

It's funny how neo-cons think the solution to every problem is to get a job. You are aware that many people have jobs, even two, and are still not able to get insurance (or have a very lackluster coverage plan) because they can't afford the premiums, while they earn too much to be considered for the barebones federal plan, right?

As well, private insurance companies are obviously for-profit. Thus they screen people with "preexisting conditions" to disqualify them from their insurance plans. These can be anything and everything and lots of people are denied coverage because of this. Sicko had a good bit on the subject even though the rest was mostly bullshit.

So what is more important, the profits of some CEO fleecing the population to line his pockets or the general health and welfare of the people?

RE : charities, it doesn't work. The cost is too great and the needy too numerous. Are you even aware of how much money the US spends on health care every year? For less money (by cutting down the administrative costs of running such a stupid and counterproductive system), you could extend coverage to everyone.

I'm by no means saying that the healthcare system should be totally local. Your right; that'd be crazy. We need a large national if not international network of hospitals and doctors. I'm simply saying that local charities work well to help people pay for healthcare premiums and operations that aren't covered.

Oh yeah, it works so well.

That's why 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies in the United States can be attributed to medical debt, with 75% of those owning health insurance. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/05/earlyshow/health/main5064981.shtml)

You actually think the federal government is efficient and does a good job in anything it does? Really?

I work for the federal government in my country. I pull workloads routinely that would make any private sector equivalent green with jealousy and so do many of my colleagues. In fact, most (if not all) of the delays I have encountered during my tenure there could be attributed to the private companies we subcontract not doing their job!

Plus, check one of my other posts. Administrative costs in the US are nearly double what they are in Canada. Who's inefficient and does a bad job now?

[Stronk Serb]

No, because I'd prefer a lower monthly rate. But the joy of the American private system is that you could get a low or in theory zero deductable policy if you want to. You get choices. Don't you like choice?

Charity wouldn't be able to cover every patient, of course, just the needy. And the fact that iy wouldn't cover everything would also incentivize people to get a a job. Everyone would have private insurance. And only the needy who the compassionate people running the charities deem desearve it. If you feel people who desearve it aren't getting care, you are free to form your own charity.




I'm by no means saying that the healthcare system should be totally local. Your right; that'd be crazy. We need a large national if not international network of hospitals and doctors. I'm simply saying that local charities work well to help people pay for healthcare premiums and operations that aren't covered.




You actually think the federal government is efficient and does a good job in anything it does? Really?

Insurance policy? I went to Greece on a holiday with health insurance once and got turned down for some insect bite which messed up my foot. We had to go to a neighbouring town to get the infection thingy removed. In Serbia, I just take my medical card, pass it on the counter and sit down and wait, no turning down, no argying, no surgery denying. If the taxes are lowered, 80% of all largely populated countriesstill wouldn't care about charity which struggles as it is. Health care is a basic human right, not something where you have to get skinned to pay off the debts. My little brother is often ill, but my family did not go bankrupt over him, which proves that free health care, no matter how much bureaucracy there is, is more effective.

[LuciferSam]

I live in New Zealand and over here we don't pay at all either, all of the expenses are paid my our taxes. If your moaning about taxes, think about what would happen without them. We would have no sewers, roads, medicine would be so expensive, schooling would be out of the possibility for a lot of people, the list could go on.

In the US, we have tax money enough to pay for these things. Our health care system is by no means perfect, but we only pay for the care we get, not for anybody else's.

[Harry Smith]

In the US, we have tax money enough to pay for these things. Our health care system is by no means perfect, but we only pay for the care we get, not for anybody else's.

So do you think it's right to charge people to live?

[LuciferSam]

So do you think it's right to charge people to live?

The stuff has to get paid for somehow. Besides, even with national health care, the gov't is charging people to live, the charge is just getting spread around the population.

[Harry Smith]

The stuff has to get paid for somehow. Besides, even with national health care, the gov't is charging people to live, the charge is just getting spread around the population.

It's still essence free health care, income tax is only paid after 11,000 pounds of tax. The Government don't have an NHS tax over here, the government pay the NHS to operate not only out of Tax payers money but through money generated through trade and business meaning I could pay say 40 pounds worth of tax and have a 10,000 pound operation to save my life.

Do you think it's fair that prisoners in Guantanomo bay get free healthcare?

[LuciferSam]

It's still essence free health care, income tax is only paid after 11,000 pounds of tax. The Government don't have an NHS tax over here, the government pay the NHS to operate not only out of Tax payers money but through money generated through trade and business meaning I could pay say 40 pounds worth of tax and have a 10,000 pound operation to save my life.

Do you think it's fair that prisoners in Guantanomo bay get free healthcare?

Still, the Gov't doesn't need to have that burden.

I'm not happy that the prisoners at Gitmo get free care, but what do you propose as an alternative? They sure as hell aren't able to pay for it.

[Harry Smith]

Still, the Gov't doesn't need to have that burden.

I'm not happy that the prisoners at Gitmo get free care, but what do you propose as an alternative? They sure as hell aren't able to pay for it.

I'm just highlighting how ironic it is that American citizens have to pay for it yet terror suspects don't.

So the Government doesn't need the burden of helping the populace, what else could they do then? Sit their and plan what country to invade next?

[Gigablue]

In the US, we have tax money enough to pay for these things. Our health care system is by no means perfect, but we only pay for the care we get, not for anybody else's.

You help pay for other people's roads, you pay for their education, you pay for their police, etc. In return they help pay for yours. Why not add healthcare to that list?

[LuciferSam]

You help pay for other people's roads, you pay for their education, you pay for their police, etc. In return they help pay for yours. Why not add healthcare to that list?

Everybody in an area uses these same services in the same way. Health care needs are different for everybody.

[LuciferSam]

I'm just highlighting how ironic it is that American citizens have to pay for it yet terror suspects don't.

So the Government doesn't need the burden of helping the populace, what else could they do then? Sit their and plan what country to invade next?

So you're implying that the only thing that the government does for it's people is health care? I don't like the thought of my gov't running my health options.

[Gigablue]

Everybody in an area uses these same services in the same way. Health care needs are different for everybody.

Everyone gets the care that they need. Think of it like education. Everyone pays into the system, regardless of whether they have children who use it. Healthcare should be the same way. Everyone pays, and people use it as they need it.

[LuciferSam]

Everyone gets the care that they need. Think of it like education. Everyone pays into the system, regardless of whether they have children who use it. Healthcare should be the same way. Everyone pays, and people use it as they need it.

1: They ought to be using the education system.
2: Why should you pay for something you don't do?

[Harry Smith]

So you're implying that the only thing that the government does for it's people is health care? I don't like the thought of my gov't running my health options.

The Government don't run it, our prime minister doesn't give me a check up or book in my appointment.

You have a separate body which is funded by the Government, just like with schooling

[Walter Powers]

The Government don't run it, our prime minister doesn't give me a check up or book in my appointment.

You have a separate body which is funded by the Government, just like with schooling

Whatever, it's still a government department.

[Harry Smith]

Whatever, it's still a government department.

No it's not, not every country is like America for christ sake, saying whatever is your tell when you've given up on a argument and then return to the weaker arguement.

The National Health Service is funded by the Government but there is no secretary of the NHS.

[Nellerin]

Whatever, it's still a government department.

That is sort of a cop-out. Many countries-yes with Government's as well-have completely different Health Care Systems. To say that "oh well its the Government, what can you do..." is a little silly.

Just because America runs things in this current fashion, does not mean that it has to be like this, because it sure isn't in many other places.

[Gigablue]

1: They ought to be using the education system.
2: Why should you pay for something you don't do?

Suppose you don't have any children. Your taxes still support education, but you make no use of the system. Now, suppose you are healthy. Your taxes still support healthcare, but you make no use of the system. The two situations are analogous. Therefore, unless you think we should abolish public education, publicly funded healthcare makes sense.

[Stronk Serb]

Everybody in an area uses these same services in the same way. Health care needs are different for everybody.

Still, you will pay far less monthly with free healthcare then with insurance, no matter if you need a heart transplant or it is just a minor cold. My parents make 1600 euros a month, 100 goes on taxes, electricity and stuff like that since they are divorced. My father pays 300 euros for alimony for my mother and his second wife which he also divorced. That is already 1350 euros left, then it comes to food, hygiene products and other stuff which is 900 euros. That is already 450 euros left. Paying off the loan for the apartment my mother bought is 75 euros. That is 375 euros left. Health insurance here which would cover my, my mother's and my father's basic needs is 150 euros monthly per person. That is -75 euros left. So without the insurance, my parents can buy me new clothes, take me to a restaurant, give me pocket money etc. since all the healthcare is paid through our taxes. And if I get sick, I just take my medical card, go to the clinic, put it on the counter and wait for the doctor to call my name.

So you're implying that the only thing that the government does for it's people is health care? I don't like the thought of my gov't running my health options.

Not really. There is the police, the armed forces, education, administration and whatnot.

1: They ought to be using the education system.
2: Why should you pay for something you don't do?

Just read my first reply.

Whatever, it's still a government department.

Healthcare here is ran by the government, the Ministry of Health to be precise, when you look at the problems Serbia has, they are doing a nice job since nobody is turned down, and the population at least in Belgrade is getting the necessary healthcare.

[LuciferSam]

I feel like I should have said this a long time ago, but here goes: Health care is not all that matters. The health of the population is dependent on healthy food. Should the government give people free food? Health is dependent on decent housing. Should the government give people free housing? The answer is no. Giving people everything is not an efficient or cost-conscious way to run a country. It stagnates production of wealth, and without money, how are they going to get all of this stuff? It would be great not to have to pay for all of this, but that's just not how things work. As Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

[Harry Smith]

I feel like I should have said this a long time ago, but here goes: Health care is not all that matters. The health of the population is dependent on healthy food. Should the government give people free food? Health is dependent on decent housing. Should the government give people free housing? The answer is no. Giving people everything is not an efficient or cost-conscious way to run a country. It stagnates production of wealth, and without money, how are they going to get all of this stuff? It would be great not to have to pay for all of this, but that's just not how things work. As Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

You do know that Margaret Thatcher was British. Britain has completely free health care, she supported the socialist health care, she didn't get rid of it.Using her quote is like quoting Hitler in a speech praising jews

[Stronk Serb]

I feel like I should have said this a long time ago, but here goes: Health care is not all that matters. The health of the population is dependent on healthy food. Should the government give people free food? Health is dependent on decent housing. Should the government give people free housing? The answer is no. Giving people everything is not an efficient or cost-conscious way to run a country. It stagnates production of wealth, and without money, how are they going to get all of this stuff? It would be great not to have to pay for all of this, but that's just not how things work. As Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."


There are a trillion factors defining the healthiness of the environment. It would save a lot more money to start the free healthcare then to disinfect every inch of the United States. It is not just the food and housing. It is the outside area, the pollution of the air, the general hygiene of the people is also an important factor, so if I only eat healthy food, but have not washed since I was born does not mean I will be healthy.

[Steven1]

It's not 100% free, adults pay for it on their National Insurance. It works out less than a fraction of the price of the US' healthcare and yet is living up, I believe, to be one of the best in the world. Its minuscule cost makes it well worth it if you ever have to go in there. It's saved my life plenty of times, I have no complaints paying for it on my NI.

[LuciferSam]

There are a trillion factors defining the healthiness of the environment. It would save a lot more money to start the free healthcare then to disinfect every inch of the United States. It is not just the food and housing. It is the outside area, the pollution of the air, the general hygiene of the people is also an important factor, so if I only eat healthy food, but have not washed since I was born does not mean I will be healthy.

But isn't the government supposed to ensure the health of the people?

[LuciferSam]

It's not 100% free, adults pay for it on their National Insurance. It works out less than a fraction of the price of the US' healthcare and yet is living up, I believe, to be one of the best in the world. Its minuscule cost makes it well worth it if you ever have to go in there. It's saved my life plenty of times, I have no complaints paying for it on my NI.

That may be true in the UK, but here in the US, ObamaCare appears likely to raise costs for providers. It is also worth noting that politicians are allowed to opt out of ObamaCare, and many plan to do so, including those who supported the plan. What does that tell you?

I also think that the US could have enough tax dollars to support the uninsured, but the gov't is too busy wasting them on "meetings" in Las Vegas, companies that mysteriously go bankrupt not long after recieving this tax money, and high-class congressional bqrber shops. Yes, you read that right: barber shops. There are more examples, but I couldn't fit them all here. (Actually I probably could, but I don't have the time right now.)

[Steven1]

That may be true in the UK, but here in the US, ObamaCare appears likely to raise costs for providers. It is also worth noting that politicians are allowed to opt out of ObamaCare, and many plan to do so, including those who supported the plan. What does that tell you?

I also think that the US could have enough tax dollars to support the uninsured, but the gov't is too busy wasting them on "meetings" in Las Vegas, companies that mysteriously go bankrupt not long after recieving this tax money, and high-class congressional bqrber shops. Yes, you read that right: barber shops. There are more examples, but I couldn't fit them all here. (Actually I probably could, but I don't have the time right now.)

Oh right, you're talking about in the US, I thought you were referring to it in general :/

But no, no healthcare can be truly 'free'.

[Stronk Serb]

But isn't the government supposed to ensure the health of the people?

Yeah. But not force them ti be clean. If they get suck due to unhealthy ways of life and are employed, they and their children should have rights of free healthcare. In Serbia, your employer pays for your healthcare, part of the taxes regarding your pay goes to your healthcare and the healthcare of people you deemed should share it with you, if they are unemployed. There are many problems as it is, but they do a fine job considering the circumstances.

That may be true in the UK, but here in the US, ObamaCare appears likely to raise costs for providers. It is also worth noting that politicians are allowed to opt out of ObamaCare, and many plan to do so, including those who supported the plan. What does that tell you?

I also think that the US could have enough tax dollars to support the uninsured, but the gov't is too busy wasting them on "meetings" in Las Vegas, companies that mysteriously go bankrupt not long after recieving this tax money, and high-class congressional bqrber shops. Yes, you read that right: barber shops. There are more examples, but I couldn't fit them all here. (Actually I probably could, but I don't have the time right now.)

It tells me that the whole government system is breaking and falling apart and needs to be replaced. Not necessarily by communism, but some radical left-oriented move should do. The situation in the US is nearing the one in Imperial Russia when the system collapsed and it got replaced by communism, a left-wing movement.. The sad thing about Russia is that they got Stalin after Lenin. I do not wish the US getting their version of Stalin if a left-wing uprising suceeds.

[Hyper]

For fucks sakes...

Healthcare isn't a question of ''giving people something for nothing'' it's a social question. That doesn't mean it's a moral question either. Rather socio-economics.

A healthy population is ALWAYS more productive and BENEFICIAL (taxes) to a government and societies functions as a whole rather than a non healthy one.

[Zach4110]

Why is no one proposing a free market solution? I can't think of a single country that has it, and no one has really tried it.

[Capto]

Because it'd turn out to be a disaster.

[Zach4110]

The market has brought prosperity to many sectors of the economy, why can't it the medical sector? Is it somehow excluded from the laws of economics?

[Capto]

The market has brought prosperity to many sectors of the economy, why can't it the medical sector? Is it somehow excluded from the laws of economics?

The free market is antithetical to the demands and ideals of medical doctrine.

[Zach4110]

The profit motive doesn't produce a better and cheaper product in the medical industry? In some of the unregulated fringes of the industry, the market is working great.

[Capto]

The profit motive doesn't produce a better and cheaper product in the medical industry? In some of the unregulated fringes of the industry, the market is working great.

Of course not. The profit motive outlines a perfect avenue for the formation of unregulated cartels that can charge exorbitant rates for unreliable and unknown treatments and procedures.

Yes, the market is working fine, but that's irrelevant.

[Zach4110]

How could a hospital get away with charging a high rate in an unregulated industry? Another composition of the market is competition. And companies tend to do something called "testing" before submitting a product to the public.

[Capto]

How could a hospital get away with charging a high rate in an unregulated industry? Another composition of the market is competition. And companies tend to do something called "testing" before submitting a product to the public.

Because it's unregulated. That's the whole point of cartels. A singular corporation alone cannot charge high rates. Nonetheless, why would any company test any of their products? That is, in such an unregulated market, irrelevant, unnecessary, and wasteful.

[Zach4110]

Why would it be unnecessary? Consumers demand the best product at the lowest price. Testing would help insure the former.

[Capto]

Why would it be unnecessary? Consumers demand the best product at the lowest price. Testing would help insure the former.

That's what consumers demand. Supply-side, on the other hand, is unregulated, and a coalition of corporations [a cartel] can take quick advantage for large profit corp-side with little regard for the consumer.

[Zach4110]

Why doesn't this happen in any other industry?

[Capto]

Why doesn't this happen in any other industry?

Because the US has taken control of some markets in particular by instituting anti-trust and anti-cartel measures.

It does happen. Especially in the PC and cellular industries, monopolies or even just companies with a firm grasp on the market do still exist, contrary to your belief.

EDIT:

Also, Apple. That's all I need to say.

[Zach4110]

Monopolies form because of barriers to entry, which are usually produced by governments. If you're concerned anyways, go ahead and implement anti-trust laws, even though it won't do much.

It clearly doesn't happen in PC and cellular industries. Go to any store selling those products and you can see that. Unless you're referring to companies with a large market share. But that doesn't prevent competition.

[Walter Powers]

I'd like to elaborate on Zach's point. We see tons of advertisements for Apple and Microsoft products on TV. If they weren't competing, they wouldn't bother spending millions on advertising!

[Hyper]

How could a hospital get away with charging a high rate in an unregulated industry? Another composition of the market is competition. And companies tend to do something called "testing" before submitting a product to the public.

Because every hospital would follow suit and charge whatever the majority of the customers can bear to pay.

Just like EVERY OTHER industry does in the ''Free Market''

[Zach4110]

Because every hospital would follow suit and charge whatever the majority of the customers can bear to pay.

Just like EVERY OTHER industry does in the ''Free Market''

The hospital that charged a high rate would be forced to lower their prices or face lowered or no business. It's a race to the bottom with the prices of goods.

[Capto]

Monopolies form because of barriers to entry, which are usually produced by governments. If you're concerned anyways, go ahead and implement anti-trust laws, even though it won't do much.

It clearly doesn't happen in PC and cellular industries. Go to any store selling those products and you can see that. Unless you're referring to companies with a large market share. But that doesn't prevent competition.

My face is buried ridiculously far in my palm right now.

I'll answer correctly once I can get it out.

[Hyper]

The hospital that charged a high rate would be forced to lower their prices or face lowered or no business. It's a race to the bottom with the prices of goods.

What part of ''every hospital would follow suit'' do you not understand?

The history of the free market is riddled with exposed price fixing schemes. Considering the huge profits involved anything exposed is just the tip of the iceberg.

Forcing prices upwards on essential goods and services is the easiest way for companies to make a profit if there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

The magical free market theory only applies to goods that people can opt not to buy. In otherwords shit you can do without.

Healthcare, food, water, heating etc are things you can not do without so the free market will set the price to whatever the consumer can bear. Never any less.

[Zach4110]

What part of ''every hospital would follow suit'' do you not understand?

The history of the free market is riddled with exposed price fixing schemes. Considering the huge profits involved anything exposed is just the tip of the iceberg.

Forcing prices upwards on essential goods and services is the easiest way for companies to make a profit if there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

The magical free market theory only applies to goods that people can opt not to buy. In otherwords shit you can do without.

Healthcare, food, water, heating etc are things you can not do without so the free market will set the price to whatever the consumer can bear. Never any less.

It doesn't matter if the goods are mandatory or not. Competition still exists. Look at food prices over the last few decades.

[Hyper]

It doesn't matter if the goods are mandatory or not. Competition still exists. Look at food prices over the last few decades.

It matters a lot.

If you can not understand that then there is no point in talking to you.

[Walter Powers]

It matters a lot.

If you can not understand that then there is no point in talking to you.

I agree with Zach. You are sounding very arrogant.

The private sector produces all the food in America, the most basic of necessities, and there's plenty of competition. Ever picked up a newspaper and seen it filled with grocery coupons? They wouldn't need coupons if their wasn't competition.

And for Pete's sake, what do you want us to do, nationalize all the industries that produce "necessities"? That would do nothing to combat price fixing or monopolist tatics, the only difference is the monopolists would be in Congress!

[Hyper]

I agree with Zach. You are sounding very arrogant.

The private sector produces all the food in America, the most basic of necessities, and there's plenty of competition. Ever picked up a newspaper and seen it filled with grocery coupons? They wouldn't need coupons if their wasn't competition.

And for Pete's sake, what do you want us to do, nationalize all the industries that produce "necessities"? That would do nothing to combat price fixing or monopolist tatics, the only difference is the monopolists would be in Congress!

Jesus you free market kids think I'm arrogant while you've been living with your head up your arse.

In the last year alone two price fixing schemes that involve markets worth in the hundreds of trillions came out: Libor & ISDA. Two schemes that specifically manipulated interest rates & interest-rate swaps.

As for the food market the only big price fixing scandal, that was proven, that I can recall off the top of my head was ADM + 4-5 other international companies in the late 90s fixing the price of lysine. In case you don't know lysine is used in most animal feeds and when that price got jacked up the meat products people bought also rise in price as a result.

Ohh and as for scale ADM at the time was the largest producer in the world.

When you take big business the ''free market'' doesn't work for shit.

Small business maybe but seeing as how small business slowly keeps shrinking everywhere...

As for ''NATIONALIZING EVERYTHING OMG!'' yes that in my mind is a very sensible option. The government is supposed to exist by the people for the people. Meaning the government is there to provide essential services that if provided by private companies would be more expensive and less reliable because the private companies are interested in profit because they are businesses not public service providers.

The government can afford a small financial loss on providing certain services to the public if and when that loss is recouped by overall positive benefits to society.

In healthcare that means keeping chronic diseases to a minimum in society thus preventing future healthcare costs from soaring. Just FYI in the US 75% of the expenditure is due to chronic illnesses a massive portion which are due to the obesity pandemic.

Now what is the SPECIFIC reason why the government couldn't or shouldn't provide certain services that are necessary for the population? (Like it already does for most services, healthcare being one of them in pretty much every other developed country besides the US)

Ohh and while digging I found this article might be pretty enlightening to you as how the ''free market'' works in the medical sector for the US

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

[Zach4110]

Jesus you free market kids think I'm arrogant while you've been living with your head up your arse.

In the last year alone two price fixing schemes that involve markets worth in the hundreds of trillions came out: Libor & ISDA. Two schemes that specifically manipulated interest rates & interest-rate swaps.

As for the food market the only big price fixing scandal, that was proven, that I can recall off the top of my head was ADM + 4-5 other international companies in the late 90s fixing the price of lysine. In case you don't know lysine is used in most animal feeds and when that price got jacked up the meat products people bought also rise in price as a result.

Ohh and as for scale ADM at the time was the largest producer in the world.

When you take big business the ''free market'' doesn't work for shit.

Small business maybe but seeing as how small business slowly keeps shrinking everywhere...

In a free market, inefficient businesses and marketing tactics are purged from society. Big business only has a competitive advantage because of corporate welfare endorsed by government. And besides, government officials knew about Libor, and decided to do nothing. It was only when the public found out that anything was done.

As for ''NATIONALIZING EVERYTHING OMG!'' yes that in my mind is a very sensible option. The government is supposed to exist by the people for the people. Meaning the government is there to provide essential services that if provided by private companies would be more expensive and less reliable because the private companies are interested in profit because they are businesses not public service providers.

The government can afford a small financial loss on providing certain services to the public if and when that loss is recouped by overall positive benefits to society.

Governments have no profit motive and competition. Those two things drive innovation in an economy.


In healthcare that means keeping chronic diseases to a minimum in society thus preventing future healthcare costs from soaring. Just FYI in the US 75% of the expenditure is due to chronic illnesses a massive portion which are due to the obesity pandemic.

Now what is the SPECIFIC reason why the government couldn't or shouldn't provide certain services that are necessary for the population? (Like it already does for most services, healthcare being one of them in pretty much every other developed country besides the US)

Ohh and while digging I found this article might be pretty enlightening to you as how the ''free market'' works in the medical sector for the US

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
The reason governments shouldn't is what I just said. And the large majority of the US medical sector doesn't have a free market, bounded by overregulation, Medicare, Medicaid, and the PPACA.

[Hyper]

In a free market, inefficient businesses and marketing tactics are purged from society. Big business only has a competitive advantage because of corporate welfare endorsed by government. And besides, government officials knew about Libor, and decided to do nothing. It was only when the public found out that anything was done.



Governments have no profit motive and competition. Those two things drive innovation in an economy.


The reason governments shouldn't is what I just said. And the large majority of the US medical sector doesn't have a free market, bounded by overregulation, Medicare, Medicaid, and the PPACA.

Yet the US medical sector doesn't really have any regulations on pricing.

So again how is this competition working to lower prices?

[britishboy]

free health care dozent mean less quality, they get all the money then need just no profit

[Zach4110]

Yet the US medical sector doesn't really have any regulations on pricing.

So again how is this competition working to lower prices?

Subsidization and overregulation increase prices.

free health care dozent mean less quality, they get all the money then need just no profit

Yes, it does mean a lower quality. The government is a monopoly.

[britishboy]

Subsidization and overregulation increase prices.



Yes, it does mean a lower quality. The government is a monopoly.

your confused, it costs the exact same to run a hospital, and they get all that money and probably more, just no profit

[Zach4110]

your confused, it costs the exact same to run a hospital, and they get all that money and probably more, just no profit
The cost decreases as competition brings higher productivity and higher quality services.

[Hyper]

Subsidization and overregulation increase prices.



Yes, it does mean a lower quality. The government is a monopoly.


Please explain to me exactly how the government overregulates healthcare prices in the United States.

[Walter Powers]

Please explain to me exactly how the government overregulates healthcare prices in the United States.

I'll respond for ya Zach.

One word: OBAMACARE.

[Zach4110]

Correct, but that inflates the price of health insurance, technically not the price of health care itself. There are thousands of regulations that doctors must comply with, and the government asks tons of details on what happens.

And this quote from the Cato Insitute shows how disturbing it is (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-527es.html):
The high cost of health services regulation is responsible for more than seven million Americans lacking health insurance, or one in six of the average daily uninsured. Moreover, 4,000 more Americans die every year from costs associated with health services regulation (22,000) than from lack of health insurance (18,000).

[Hyper]

I'll respond for ya Zach.

One word: OBAMACARE.

That isn't explaining shit

Explain WHAT method of regulation does the government impose that specifically raises prices in the US healthcare system.

[Zach4110]

That isn't explaining shit

Explain WHAT method of regulation does the government impose that specifically raises prices in the US healthcare system.

You may not have seen it, but it was explained.



Correct, but that inflates the price of health insurance, technically not the price of health care itself. There are thousands of regulations that doctors must comply with, and the government asks tons of details on what happens.

And this quote from the Cato Insitute shows how disturbing it is (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-527es.html):
The high cost of health services regulation is responsible for more than seven million Americans lacking health insurance, or one in six of the average daily uninsured. Moreover, 4,000 more Americans die every year from costs associated with health services regulation (22,000) than from lack of health insurance (18,000).

[Hyper]

You may not have seen it, but it was explained.

That isn't an explanation it is a general statement

One that you do not understand. As regulation can mean a myriad of things from adminstrative costs to all forms of bureocratic non-sense or just the running costs of the CMS, though that would fall under administrative cost.

The ''regulation'' you are trying to use as an explanation to the rate of prices for healthcare procedures is something completely different.

So again what does the government actually do that ''overregulates'' and thus raises, according to you, the prices for healthcare services and procedures in the US???

[Zach4110]

That isn't an explanation it is a general statement

One that you do not understand. As regulation can mean a myriad of things from adminstrative costs to all forms of bureocratic non-sense or just the running costs of the CMS, though that would fall under administrative cost.

The ''regulation'' you are trying to use as an explanation to the rate of prices for healthcare procedures is something completely different.

So again what does the government actually do that ''overregulates'' and thus raises, according to you, the prices for healthcare services and procedures in the US???
Here's a breakdown by our pals at the Cato Institute:
http://i.share.pho.to/2f4d22ec_l.png
http://i.share.pho.to/51e62b82_l.png
http://i.share.pho.to/c48f98ba_l.png
http://i.share.pho.to/f3a82295_l.png

[Stronk Serb]

Subsidization and overregulation increase prices.



Yes, it does mean a lower quality. The government is a monopoly.


As I reccal, a healthy society is a working society. By poviding healthcare services to those who cannot affird it (there are dozens of millions of them in the US), you can make more money. So if those 80-100 million people get the healthcare, they can start spending their money on anything else except stupid insurance policies. The quality wouldn't drop. It would change for better, hospitals would get more money due to taxes for free healthcare. You think the clinic I go to when I am sick is in it's same state like it was since it was built in the '70s? No. It was renovated recently, old equipment was replaced by new, faulty instalations were fixed or replaced, all of that from my parents' taxes.

[britishboy]

The cost decreases as competition brings higher productivity and higher quality services.

but theres still profit? and when you have lost your arm you dont care what hospital you go to and get this into your head, there is boards in the NHS to ensure the highest service, which is paid for, however please not I think it will not work for America

[Zach4110]

As I reccal, a healthy society is a working society. By poviding healthcare services to those who cannot affird it (there are dozens of millions of them in the US), you can make more money. So if those 80-100 million people get the healthcare, they can start spending their money on anything else except stupid insurance policies. The quality wouldn't drop. It would change for better, hospitals would get more money due to taxes for free healthcare. You think the clinic I go to when I am sick is in it's same state like it was since it was built in the '70s? No. It was renovated recently, old equipment was replaced by new, faulty instalations were fixed or replaced, all of that from my parents' taxes.
Quality wouldn't drop, it just would increase at a slower rate. Before the advent of capitalism, innovation and progress of technology existed. However, this progress was much slower because free markets didn't exist and there wasn't as much competition. During the Industrial Revolution, something known as accelerating change came along. Our technologies and economies grew at an exponential rate instead of a more linear rate.

but theres still profit? and when you have lost your arm you dont care what hospital you go to and get this into your head, there is boards in the NHS to ensure the highest service, which is paid for, however please not I think it will not work for America
A board cannot decide the highest service. Only a consumer can do that through a voluntary transfer of wealth to whatever company is producing the most desirable product.

[britishboy]

Quality wouldn't drop, it just would increase at a slower rate. Before the advent of capitalism, innovation and progress of technology existed. However, this progress was much slower because free markets didn't exist and there wasn't as much competition. During the Industrial Revolution, something known as accelerating change came along. Our technologies and economies grew at an exponential rate instead of a more linear rate.


A board cannot decide the highest service. Only a consumer can do that through a voluntary transfer of wealth to whatever company is producing the most desirable product.

everything and more is paid for, and you still can go private

how would you like it if your children are ill, maybe deadly ill but your avoiding the doctors because you cant afford them

[Zach4110]

everything and more is paid for, and you still can go private

how would you like it if your children are ill, maybe deadly ill but your avoiding the doctors because you cant afford them
What do you mean by "everything and more is paid for"? Nationalized health care is funded through extortion.

I wouldn't let my child avoid a doctor. Hospitals don't turn down patients simply because they don't have all the money at the time. And you do realize charity hospitals exist, correct?

[Harry Smith]

What do you mean by "everything and more is paid for"? Nationalized health care is funded through extortion.

I wouldn't let my child avoid a doctor. Hospitals don't turn down patients simply because they don't have all the money at the time. And you do realize charity hospitals exist, correct?

Yes, and these charity hospitals are of very poor quality and not at all on a large scale to ensure complete care

[britishboy]

I wouldn't let my child avoid a doctor. Hospitals don't turn down patients simply because they don't have all the money at the time. And you do realize charity hospitals exist, correct?

really? even if you was head high in dept? and charity hospitals are crap! they have a tiny budget and the facilities to do fuck all

[Stronk Serb]

Quality wouldn't drop, it just would increase at a slower rate. Before the advent of capitalism, innovation and progress of technology existed. However, this progress was much slower because free markets didn't exist and there wasn't as much competition. During the Industrial Revolution, something known as accelerating change came along. Our technologies and economies grew at an exponential rate instead of a more linear rate.


A board cannot decide the highest service. Only a consumer can do that through a voluntary transfer of wealth to whatever company is producing the most desirable product.


No. There was no growth because of the boundaries set by religion. If there was no boundaries made, we would probably go to space 500 years ago and today we would be having colonies or stations on every planet or Moon in our solar system except Jupiter and Saturn.

[Walter Powers]

really? even if you was head high in dept? and charity hospitals are crap! they have a tiny budget and the facilities to do fuck all

Legally, in the US a hospital can't turn you away because of finances. They have to give a dirt poor homeless person the same care as they would a billionaire, you just get billed for it later.

[britishboy]

Legally, in the US a hospital can't turn you away because of finances. They have to give a dirt poor homeless person the same care as they would a billionaire, you just get billed for it later.

a small clinic may try and push you away

[Walter Powers]

a small clinic may try and push you away

They could, but then they'd risk having criminal charges filed. And why would you go to a small clinic for a major life saving operation?

[tovaris]

Legally, in the US a hospital can't turn you away because of finances. They have to give a dirt poor homeless person the same care as they would a billionaire, you just get billed for it later.

how can you bill a homeless man?
How can a moral person even think of charging for helthcare?

[Walter Powers]

how can you bill a homeless man?
How can a moral person even think of charging for helthcare?

I guess you'll have to ask your doctor on your next check up. He's charging taxpayers every time you go see him.

[Stronk Serb]

I guess you'll have to ask your doctor on your next check up. He's charging taxpayers every time you go see him.

As a matter of fact, I pay far less for universal healthcare, but do not go bankrupt due to insurance policies. And if I am ill, I just take my medical card and go to my clinic. If something worse happens, I go to the hospital.

[tovaris]

I guess you'll have to ask your doctor on your next check up. He's charging taxpayers every time you go see him.

Doctors get paied by the republic (exept those peivet ones) and therefore arent biling anyone.

[Walter Powers]

Doctors get paied by the republic (exept those peivet ones) and therefore arent biling anyone.

No, they are essentially billing the republic the employs them.so, based off what you said, they are immoral.

[tovaris]

No, they are essentially billing the republic the employs them.so, based off what you said, they are immoral.

what about doctors slawing avay in a disintagreting half cover helth sistem gor low wages is imoral?

[Walter Powers]

what about doctors slawing avay in a disintagreting half cover helth sistem gor low wages is imoral?

Your country may have low wages because it tried to be communist. But the system works fine here in America, where virtually everyone is wealthy by international standards.

[tovaris]

Your country may have low wages because it tried to be communist. But the system works fine here in America, where virtually everyone is wealthy by international standards.

The Republic of Slovenia NEVER atempted socialist or communist reforms, threw its history it has stried to become more and more capitalist, and look where it got us we are almost as bad as tze USA, the state has returned to that of Kingdom SHS.
The USA sistem is often used as an example of WRONG, I am not making this up camerad, more and more people roung the world know about the mases of poor, homeless, those without enouth money to pay for their helth, people leving in carbord and sheet wood houses, people living in tzwir cars... That is the mighty USA in the eies of the world.
And stil people cant fing money to pay for their broken arm to be fixed of their finger reatached.


A bancropped city now rhat is new www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=186061,

[Bougainvillea]

Legally, in the US a hospital can't turn you away because of finances. They have to give a dirt poor homeless person the same care as they would a billionaire, you just get billed for it later.

Actually, they can. The law applies to emergency care, and that has very strict mandates. Also, even if you can't afford it, and the minimum treatment is provided (which is what it is) you're still legally responsible for the cost of treatment.

A lot of people get denied serious treatment all the time because of inability to pay and lack of insurance coverage. And emergencies aren't the only life threatening things in a person's life. I interned, and have worked for multiple facilities where I've seen it happen.