Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

[Toke]

You do know where that quote comes from, don't you?

In a free society, government does not consume the majority of everyone's income. If government takes more of your earnings from you than what it lets you keep, then you are not a free citizen; you are a slave.

I don´t care where it comes from, I like it.

I live in a well run democracy where the people have voted for a very high level of goverment service, with corresponding taxes*.

Perhaps because it is the overall most cost effective, perhaps because of the sense of security it provides. Probably both.


Ivor I bow to your goggle-fu.

*We also consider unions essential to a well functioning job marked

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I live in a well run democracy where the people have voted for a very high level of goverment service, with corresponding taxes

You have voted yourselves into slavery.

 

[Rolfe]

There's just no answer to that, is there?

Bob, I think you need to get out more.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

You have voted yourselves into slavery.

Why can't free people decide to organise themselves as they wish?

 

[DC]

You have voted yourselves into slavery.

 

[MRC_Hans]

In my country, we have free healthcare. You have to pay some of the ost of medication, if prescribed by your GP, but hospital treatment is entirely free. The idea, of course, is that your access to health-care should not depend on your income.

This approach has some draw-backs:

First of all, it requires taxation. The tax levels here are (not just for that reason, mind you) enough to give a citizen of most other countries cold sweat. But remember, we need no healt insurance.

Another problem is that our politicians need to try to curb the costs. This means that lately a parallel system of private care, including private hospitals, has sprung up. So now the affluent still have access to, if not better, then faster health-care.

But we still have the great advantage that EVERYONE can get good healtcare, even if you don't own a dime.

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

Actually, I'm still waiting for the posters who think their taxes would have to go up if an NHS-style system was introduced in the Us to tell me what proportion of their monthly income goes on tax at the moment.

Rolfe.

 

[applecorped]

Godot? Godot? Where are you?

 

[Toke]

Actually, I'm still waiting for the posters who think their taxes would have to go up if an NHS-style system was introduced in the Us to tell me what proportion of their monthly income goes on tax at the moment.

Rolfe.

I am curius as to what the cost is of private insurance, and how much the two adds up to.

 

[Earthborn]

As more treatments are developed, there's simply more things to buy, and more shiny, new, expensive stuff to buy.

That's only part of the reason why costs for healthcare are increasing, and it is an important reason why costs in universal healthcare systems are increasing. In a sense you are right, it is something to be celebrated as it means progress. But it is not so great if the burden of that price increasingly has to be carried by the weakest and the sickest.

If someone produces a cure for cancer tomorrow, but wants to charge $10,000 for it, who the flying hell are you to tell them they can't?

A more realistic question would be: "If someone produces a cure for cancer tomorrow that will cost $10 000 (dirt cheap for a cancer treatment) and wants to make sure everyone who has a medical need for it gets it (and not just those who can pay), even if that takes government to pay for it, who the flying hell are you to tell them they can't?"

But if you "fix" it, you will slow the rate of technological development.

You have repeated this claim many times, and I have asked you many times to provide a teensy bit of evidence for it. Never saw any.

Yes, I know "everyone wants it". Yes, I know "everyone in Canada and Europe are pleased with it." Are these arguments skeptics accept?

For all their flaws, these arguments are better than anything you have presented so far, because at the very least they reflect some of reality.

 

[Rolfe]

I am curius as to what the cost is of private insurance, and how much the two adds up to.

Yes, I'm interested in that too. One step at a time. Softly softly catchee monkey....

And in the U.S., if you're critically injured and you show up at an emergency room, you will get treated too, regardless of whether you have health care insurance.

Uh, so we understand. Nobody checks on ability to pay if you're rushed to hospital with a heart attack? Good.

Now, what about afterwards. Supposing said heart attack victim didn't have insurance, or had inadequate insurance. Who's going to pay? How is the hospital going to get its money? Is it OK not to bother taking out insurance for sudden critical injury or illness, because you know you're entitled to treatment anyway?

Please explain.

And others (who can't afford to travel to get them) will continue to suffer.

[This was relating to a point about a few people choosing to access speedier treatment abroad.] Well, only until their NHS appointment comes up. Nobody is left untreated. And people in need of urgent care get it. How is a system where people without means simply have to continue to suffer indefnintely an improvement?

The US health system is so truly awful it beggars belief. To set against the excellent care received by the privileged classes, there is a huge underclass served very badly if at all. How you have the gall to criticise a universal system because some people wait a couple of months for non-emergency surgery, I can't imagine.

Rolfe.

 

[Toke]

Yes, I'm interested in that too. One step at a time. Softly softly catchee monkey....

Sorry

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You have voted yourselves into slavery.

Why can't free people decide to organise themselves as they wish?

I suppose they can, but when it gets to this point, they are no longer free people. They have voted to give up their freedom, and to make themselves slaves to their government. They no longer own themselves. They no longer own the fruits of their labor. They have asked Big Brother to take that from them, in exchange for taking care of them as if they are children incapable of caring for themselves.

This is not freedom by any rational definition of the word.

 

[Darat]

I suppose they can, but when it gets to this point, they are no longer free people. They have voted to give up their freedom, and to make themselves slaves to their government. They no longer own themselves. They no longer own the fruits of their labor. They have asked Big Brother to take that from them, in exchange for taking care of them as if they are children incapable of caring for themselves.

This is not freedom by any rational definition of the word.

Check their system of governance and you will find that you are incorrect. They, that is the free people, could decide to change their health-care system anytime they want, just as you and I can.

 

[DC]

I suppose they can, but when it gets to this point, they are no longer free people. They have voted to give up their freedom, and to make themselves slaves to their government. They no longer own themselves. They no longer own the fruits of their labor. They have asked Big Brother to take that from them, in exchange for taking care of them as if they are children incapable of caring for themselves.

This is not freedom by any rational definition of the word.

We slaves in Switzerland, that have a Direct Democracy, dont have to wait till a politican shows up that will promise to free us from the NHS-Slavery, we have the power to start a referendum and end that slavery.

But aslong we see it as a moral duty, and not as slavery, we are likely to stay in what you call slavery.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Does anyone have any economic arguments why a free market healthcare system should be less expensive and/or provide superior care to the average consumer (and voter) than a single payer/government run system?

A related question for those in favour of a free(ish)-market solution would be how much and what type of government regulation should be in place to ensure such things as quality and fair pricing of services are maintained?

For example, should anyone be able to set themself up as a provider of medical services, or should their be some government enforced standard of ability an individual or company is required to meet before being able to enter the healthcare market as a provider of medical services?

 

[Mitchell314]

Does anyone have any economic arguments why a free market healthcare system should be less expensive and/or provide superior care to the average consumer (and voter) than a single payer/government run system?

A related question for those in favour of a free(ish)-market solution would be how much and what type of government regulation should be in place to ensure such things as quality and fair pricing of services are maintained?

For example, should anyone be able to set themself up as a provider of medical services, or should their be some government enforced standard of ability an individual or company is required to meet before being able to enter the healthcare market as a provider of medical services?

Because the average worker would have a higher COH•Productivity number/index/thingamajig? Which elevates standard of living.

 

[DC]

Because the average worker would have a higher COH•Productivity number/index/thingamajig? Which elevates standard of living.

is there a national ranking for "Standard of living"?

 

[Mitchell314]

is there a national ranking for "Standard of living"?

Probably. I don't know where though.

 

[DC]

Probably. I don't know where though.

no mather where you look, swiss slaves are ranked pretty high