Health Care System

[Canadian Dream]

Hi everyone, just wanted to know what your thoughts on health care systems around the world. I would ask the debate to be mostly specific to privatization. Should all health cares be privatized, or not? Personally, I have seen lots of Micheal Moore documentaries (Micheal Moore is a super-socialist dude) and I just want you guys to know that: 1. I am conscious that he presents information on health care in a very dramatic way 2. I might be just a little biased from watching his documentaries. So, personally, I think health care should be public for all countries around the world, mainly because everyone should have a chance to get help, even if that means more taxes, shouldn't we be a little less selfish sometimes? I've been hearing about the fact insurance companies refusing to approve applications if they had a certain illness in the past. Now, that list is quite long, limiting insurance access to others in the United States, it is in my mind unacceptable. There have also been cases where other people have been crossing the U. S. border to Canada simply because the health care is public and affordable. Adding to my opinion on the health care in the U.S. I've heard of on guy that had sawed off two of his fingers. He didn't have health insurance, and the hospital put a price for each finger. One was 60,000 $, the other 12,000$. In my mind, this is unacceptable. Are we really to the point where we put a price on absolutely everything? I'll leave it to this for now, but on case you didn't get my point I think the health care should be public in every country.

[Tenoka]

For 72k USD he could of moved to another country, got medical help for his hand and lived there for awhile by himself. In my opinion Healthcare should be a universal thing to the whole world. Also I'm pretty sure a lot of healthcare companies denied a lot of mental illnesses at one point.

[Stronk Serb]

That is unacceptable. Everyone should have access.

[JamesSuperBoy]

Its not a perfect world sorry some countries have no health care. or very basic.

[AlexOnToast]

Its not a perfect world sorry some countries have no health care. or very basic.

No, it's not a perfect world. But that's just an even better insentive to struggle to make it better.

[drmindfreak]

I think it should be privatized everywhere, otherwise people would keep taking advantage of the system.
The other option would be to be public everywhere but that could never be possible, no way.

[Harry Smith]

I think it should be privatized everywhere, otherwise people would keep taking advantage of the system.
The other option would be to be public everywhere but that could never be possible, no way.

Wow,

Britain has had public healthcare for the last 50 years, so yeah it's possible

[drmindfreak]

Wow,

Britain has had public healthcare for the last 50 years, so yeah it's possible

Yea, here for like 100. For some countries it can work but i meant everywhere as in every country should have it, then it wouldnt work and otherwise its not fair.

[Romaana]

NHS. No one abuses it, i dont think you really can..

[abc983055235235231a]

I love how people complain about Universal Healthcare by saying "people abuse it". .....how do people abuse it? Do people deliberately get terminal illnesses just to abuse a system? Do people deliberately get into car accidents in order to abuse a system?

Get real.

[drmindfreak]

I love how people complain about Universal Healthcare by saying "people abuse it". .....how do people abuse it? Do people deliberately get terminal illnesses just to abuse a system? Do people deliberately get into car accidents in order to abuse a system?

Get real.

Do people deliberately travel to other countries in order to get expensive surgery for free while they would have to pay for it in their own countries? Yes

[Stronk Serb]

Do people deliberately travel to other countries in order to get expensive surgery for free while they would have to pay for it in their own countries? Yes

One more reason to make healthcare available to all.

[drmindfreak]

One more reason to make healthcare available to all.

But it would only be possible if everybody worked and paid taxes, but that doesnt happen.

[Cygnus]

Public healthcare is the way to go, but that also requires a tax raise.

[AlexOnToast]

I love how people complain about Universal Healthcare by saying "people abuse it". .....how do people abuse it? Do people deliberately get terminal illnesses just to abuse a system? Do people deliberately get into car accidents in order to abuse a system?

Glad I was'nt the only one thinking this...

[Stronk Serb]

But it would only be possible if everybody worked and paid taxes, but that doesnt happen.

Everybody pays taxes. With every transaction you make, a percent goes to the state. Look at the UK and France, not everyone is employed but healthcare is as good as it gets. It should also serve as an insentive for the state to create more jobs.

[drmindfreak]

Everybody pays taxes. With every transaction you make, a percent goes to the state. Look at the UK and France, not everyone is employed but healthcare is as good as it gets. It should also serve as an insentive for the state to create more jobs.
Yea in your fantasy world..

[abc983055235235231a]

Do people deliberately travel to other countries in order to get expensive surgery for free while they would have to pay for it in their own countries? Yes
As someone else stated, that's more reason to make it available to everyone.
But, moreover, how does that even constitute abuse? A person has a medical condition which they cannot afford treatment for in their own country. Why is their death/suffering preferable to treating them?

But it would only be possible if everybody worked and paid taxes, but that doesnt happen.
How so? If that's true, show the math to back it up. Why is the current amount of taxation in <country of your choosing> insufficient to cover healthcare?

Yea in your fantasy world..
.....you realize that the majority of the developed world does in fact have socialized medicare... right?

[drmindfreak]

As someone else stated, that's more reason to make it available to everyone.
But, moreover, how does that even constitute abuse? A person has a medical condition which they cannot afford treatment for in their own country. Why is their death/suffering preferable to treating them?


Because someone else is paying for them

How so? If that's true, show the math to back it up. Why is the current amount of taxation in <country of your choosing> insufficient to cover healthcare?


You can tell me yourself an example of a <country of your choosing> whose current amount of taxation is sufficient to cover global healthcare

.....you realize that the majority of the developed world does in fact have socialized medicare... right?

you realize that like the 80% of the world's population dont live in a "developed country"... right?



I'm not saying how it should be, I'm just saying that in the real world, public health care in every country would never work, just in your utopian world.

[Canadian Dream]

Because someone else is paying for them

you realize that like the 80% of the world's population dont live in a "developed country"... right?



I'm not saying how it should be, I'm just saying that in the real world, public health care in every country would never work, just in your utopian world.

Why would it never work? It would definitely make the United States a better country. Your country is to the point where the health care is responsible for many deaths in the U.S. You know, there are more pros than cons to public healthcare. And btw, private healthcare would make the world a living hell let me tell you.

[abc983055235235231a]

Because someone else is paying for them

Alright, here's a little experiment we can do here. There is someone lying on the street, bleeding profusely. Only you and one other person are in the area. This other person is a doctor you are familiar with. The doctor says that he has everything he needs in order to stop the bleeding, and save the person's life. But he won't do it unless you give him a dollar. You know that this doctor will keep their word. You have a dollar in your pocket. Do you pay him the dollar?

If your answer to this is "no", then you are just an ethically contemptuous person, and I'm not sure why I'm even talking to you.
If your answer is "yes", then your entire belief system is flawed.

Obviously your immediate reaction will be something to the effect of "but medical treatments cost more than one dollar." And I'll grant you that, and I'm awaiting your determination about what the threshold is for paying for other people's medical treatments. At what point does it become unreasonable? Bear in mind, when you think about this, that healthcare systems do not just involve you personally paying money, but you alongside everyone else. While in this example the dollar comes straight from your pocket, in a formal medicare system, it is everyone chipping in for those treatments; and the fact that I may be healthy my entire life (insofar as I may never need to go to a hospital) does not dissuade me from embracing universal medicare. It does not dissuade me because I would pay the dollar to save the life of the bleeding person on the street.


You can tell me yourself an example of a <country of your choosing> whose current amount of taxation is sufficient to cover global healthcare
Well, actually, I was referring to domestic medicare when I asked that question. But since you brought up a global healthcare system funded by one nation: if this is such an unrealistic idea, show some math to back it up. If it's obvious, the math shouldn't be all that difficult.

Obviously, though, a global healthcare system would require global funding. But this is obviously an insane notion. It's not like countries work together or anything. It's not like postnational bodies exist right now or anything. Having countries band together in this way is clearly absurd. (in case this wasn't clear, the italicized text was sarcastic.)
If this is so absurd, I'm really going to need a reason why it's absurd.


you realize that like the 80% of the world's population dont live in a "developed country"... right?
So what? My point was this: intelligent and able people support universal healthcare. To oppose it is either to be unintelligent or unable.


I'm not saying how it should be, I'm just saying that in the real world, public health care in every country would never work, just in your utopian world.
....
I'll say it again: why not?
What makes it so impossible?

[drmindfreak]

Alright, here's a little experiment we can do here. There is someone lying on the street, bleeding profusely. Only you and one other person are in the area. This other person is a doctor you are familiar with. The doctor says that he has everything he needs in order to stop the bleeding, and save the person's life. But he won't do it unless you give him a dollar. You know that this doctor will keep their word. You have a dollar in your pocket. Do you pay him the dollar?

If your answer to this is "no", then you are just an ethically contemptuous person, and I'm not sure why I'm even talking to you.
If your answer is "yes", then your entire belief system is flawed.

Obviously your immediate reaction will be something to the effect of "but medical treatments cost more than one dollar." And I'll grant you that, and I'm awaiting your determination about what the threshold is for paying for other people's medical treatments. At what point does it become unreasonable? Bear in mind, when you think about this, that healthcare systems do not just involve you personally paying money, but you alongside everyone else. While in this example the dollar comes straight from your pocket, in a formal medicare system, it is everyone chipping in for those treatments; and the fact that I may be healthy my entire life (insofar as I may never need to go to a hospital) does not dissuade me from embracing universal medicare. It does not dissuade me because I would pay the dollar to save the life of the bleeding person on the street.


Well, actually, I was referring to domestic medicare when I asked that question. But since you brought up a global healthcare system funded by one nation: if this is such an unrealistic idea, show some math to back it up. If it's obvious, the math shouldn't be all that difficult.

Obviously, though, a global healthcare system would require global funding. But this is obviously an insane notion. It's not like countries work together or anything. It's not like postnational bodies exist right now or anything. Having countries band together in this way is clearly absurd. (in case this wasn't clear, the italicized text was sarcastic.)
If this is so absurd, I'm really going to need a reason why it's absurd.


So what? My point was this: intelligent and able people support universal healthcare. To oppose it is either to be unintelligent or unable.


....
I'll say it again: why not?
What makes it so impossible?

I shouldn't answer to you in the first place because 1) im stupid and unable and 2) the example you give is absurd because it's an example of a privatized system, but still i will.

I would indeed pay the doctor but it makes no sense because as you say it won't be one person and one dollar. Imagine that instead of one person is one thousand people and you don't have one thousand dollars, so now you just became an ethically contemptuous person? (In any case it wouldn't be you, it would be the doctor, but thats another issue)
Now imagine that you actually paid for that but now it gets even worse because you are bleeding too, not only you but there is still another one thousand people that keep bleeding profusely because that's a street where people like to throw stuff from the balcony or whatever. So now, if they didnt have money to pay for their own stuff, do you think they are going to pay for you? You'd be so dead already.

Look, I give you the example of the country I live in, that by the way it had one of those utopian systems you are so fond of, where only the 0.8% (percentage varies in the last decade between 1.1 and 0%) of the population didn't have completely free healthcare (they only have to pay a low percentage for the medicines) and it had universal health coverage for everybody: kids, students, retired people, unemployed people (those who cant and those who want too), inmigrants (the legal and the illegal ones too), people on holidays (the real ones and medical tourism too)...
So i talk in past because it happened that they received a dose of reality a couple of years ago. The whole system was working well, and it wasnt apparently expensive. The average would be that they were paying 1500€/year each person to cover everything. The reality is that only the 45% of the population were paying those taxes, so there's more than half the population that is taking advantage of the system, most of them involuntarily but still. Now add to those people all the people from other countries (with privatized systems or not) that could freely get the things for free here and indeed they did.

They have to have enough funds, so the thing failed because then when the 45% that did pay starts bleeding profusely, the people that didnt pay (the 55% and the rest, inmigrants and travellers that i dont know how many were there but they cost 450million € per year) have used those funds and there is no one else to keep paying.


But anyway, if it's that easy why it doesnt happen? Too much reality?

Shoud it be like that? Probably yes, as much as there shouldn't be uneducated people, wars, starving children... In your utopian world.

[Harry Smith]

Shoud it be like that? Probably yes, as much as there shouldn't be uneducated people, wars, starving children... In your utopian world.

''Some people look at world as ask why-I ask why not''

This tripe that your coming out with doesn't really make sense, your whole argument is that universal healthcare is unrealistic and that since bad things happen in the world it's fine for another to happen.

Your argument above could be used to justify slavery,genocide and praise to Godwin the Holocaust.

Universal healthcare isn't a Utopian idea-it's a reality which has worked in countries ranging from Cuba to Britain. It's also nice to see that you bash immigrants as well in your argument- the moment an immigrant steps into a country they should have the same rights as the people who were born there. When a baby is born you don't question a midwife looking after it despite the fact said baby has never paid any tax. People convinced of tax avoidance are given free medical care.

I don't believe people should have to pay to get medical treatment- it's simple as that

[abc983055235235231a]

I shouldn't answer to you in the first place because 1) im stupid and unable and 2) the example you give is absurd because it's an example of a privatized system, but still i will.

I would indeed pay the doctor but it makes no sense because as you say it won't be one person and one dollar. Imagine that instead of one person is one thousand people and you don't have one thousand dollars, so now you just became an ethically contemptuous person? (In any case it wouldn't be you, it would be the doctor, but thats another issue)
Now imagine that you actually paid for that but now it gets even worse because you are bleeding too, not only you but there is still another one thousand people that keep bleeding profusely because that's a street where people like to throw stuff from the balcony or whatever. So now, if they didnt have money to pay for their own stuff, do you think they are going to pay for you? You'd be so dead already.

Look, I give you the example of the country I live in, that by the way it had one of those utopian systems you are so fond of, where only the 0.8% (percentage varies in the last decade between 1.1 and 0%) of the population didn't have completely free healthcare (they only have to pay a low percentage for the medicines) and it had universal health coverage for everybody: kids, students, retired people, unemployed people (those who cant and those who want too), inmigrants (the legal and the illegal ones too), people on holidays (the real ones and medical tourism too)...
So i talk in past because it happened that they received a dose of reality a couple of years ago. The whole system was working well, and it wasnt apparently expensive. The average would be that they were paying 1500€/year each person to cover everything. The reality is that only the 45% of the population were paying those taxes, so there's more than half the population that is taking advantage of the system, most of them involuntarily but still. Now add to those people all the people from other countries (with privatized systems or not) that could freely get the things for free here and indeed they did.

They have to have enough funds, so the thing failed because then when the 45% that did pay starts bleeding profusely, the people that didnt pay (the 55% and the rest, inmigrants and travellers that i dont know how many were there but they cost 450million € per year) have used those funds and there is no one else to keep paying.


But anyway, if it's that easy why it doesnt happen? Too much reality?

Shoud it be like that? Probably yes, as much as there shouldn't be uneducated people, wars, starving children... In your utopian world.

To quote myself "unable". If you don't have the money to pay the $1000 for the person dying on the street (, etc), then you aren't ethically contemptuous because you are unable to pay. Obviously if people don't have money to pay for themselves, they aren't going to pay for me; they aren't able to pay for me. I'm talking about people who are able.

Ultimately, to be honest, I think the issue here is just that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxation works. It's not like there only exist 450 million €, and that's it. Moreover, 450 million € is actually a tiny amount of money, when we think about the scale we are dealing with in national economics.

Also I'm not sure if you mean "45% of the population" or "45% of the working population" or "45% of the population about the age of majority" or "45% of the population above the minimum working age", all of which would mean different things. I'm assuming you mean the first thing I wrote. If that's the case, I would like to ask you how much money the government collects from you personally each year in the form of income tax. That might shed some light on where the other 55% is at....

[drmindfreak]

To quote myself "unable". If you don't have the money to pay the $1000 for the person dying on the street (, etc), then you aren't ethically contemptuous because you are unable to pay. Obviously if people don't have money to pay for themselves, they aren't going to pay for me; they aren't able to pay for me. I'm talking about people who are able.

Ultimately, to be honest, I think the issue here is just that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxation works. It's not like there only exist 450 million €, and that's it. Moreover, 450 million € is actually a tiny amount of money, when we think about the scale we are dealing with in national economics.

Also I'm not sure if you mean "45% of the population" or "45% of the working population" or "45% of the population about the age of majority" or "45% of the population above the minimum working age", all of which would mean different things. I'm assuming you mean the first thing I wrote. If that's the case, I would like to ask you how much money the government collects from you personally each year in the form of income tax. That might shed some light on where the other 55% is at....

Read again

But answering your question, personally to me nothing because im an inmigrant and underage so i dont pay. I'd be from the ones that abuse the system if it wasnt that I have always had private insurance, of course

[Harry Smith]

Read again

But answering your question, personally to me nothing because im an inmigrant and underage so i dont pay. I'd be from the ones that abuse the system if it wasnt that I have always had private insurance, of course

You can't abuse it....

When you buy any product you pay VAT in Britain or as it's called in Europe service tax. When you buy products you contribute to the economy and you pay tax which would cover your healthcare

[tovaris]

We usedto have alll public helth care, than came the 90s and they started privatization... first extra insurance the republic covering only the most necesary prosegures... and now there ie even talk of privatizing the hospitals. this has turned into a disaster

NO! NO!

Helthcare shoukd be ALL public!

[Stronk Serb]

We usedto have alll public helth care, than came the 90s and they started privatization... first extra insurance the republic covering only the most necesary prosegures... and now there ie even talk of privatizing the hospitals. this has turned into a disaster

NO! NO!

Helthcare shoukd be ALL public!

What? That's bad. We still have public healthcare, but it will slowly get privatized. If that happens in the near future, a large part of the population would fall to disease.

Read again

But answering your question, personally to me nothing because im an inmigrant and underage so i dont pay. I'd be from the ones that abuse the system if it wasnt that I have always had private insurance, of course

By buying anything you pay a special tax on the product. Alcohol and tobacco tax, luxury goods tax, food tax... every country does that.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Radike]

In the UK our health system is fudged due to insanely long waiting times - had to wait 3 months to see a specialist - but at least everyone is covered. If it weren't for the NHS I wouldn't have any health care at all as it would be far too expensive. Americas just seems properly fudged - to much of a business. this is one of the reasons I don't think I could ever move to America but could so Canada as the health system is much fairer

:)