Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

[Mitchell314]

I could be wrong (and probably am) but don't they tax the crap out of you in other countries for that coverage. I would like to see the percentages of tax on Americans vs. Euros/Kanucks.

Volatile,
If it came down to your son or daughter, would you rather spend extra money on better health care for them, or spend that money on health care for other peoples kids?

Or?

 

[volatile]

Volatile,
If it came down to your son or daughter, would you rather spend extra money on better health care for them, or spend that money on health care for other peoples kids?

Dan - it doesn't come down to that. That's entirely the point. You're starting your objections to socialised medicine from a flawed premise. I (and my fellow countrymen) pay less as a ercentage of our GDP per capita for our NATIONAL health service than you do for the Medicare you personally cannot access. Your entire premise is flawed.

Get out of the ideology and look at the facts. Socialised medicine is cheaper and more effective than the alternatives. If you want to make this an ethical or moral debate rather than an economic one or one grounded in healtcare outcomes, you're still going to lose: The choice is not "my kids or their kids" but "my kids or my kids and their kids". Given those options, on what possible moral grounds can you support the system that means you have less cash in your pocket and more people suffer?

ETA:

An indication of the percentage claims, as I guess you missed the previous threads on this:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cg...ey=Tjqt6ve3LQZ3I&keytype=ref&siteid=healthaff

http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/000095.html - "Would you be surprised to know that a study shows that we don't even get as good of outcomes as those other countries that do a better job of covering their citizenry while spending half the money per capita?"

 

[Lonewulf]

The other day I saw a morbidly obese woman and all five of her morbidly obese kids standing in line at the grocery store with a cart full of potato chips, soda, pizza rolls, and everything else she could find it the store that would make her fatter AND SHE PAID WITH FOODSTAMPS!!!. So when her fat butt gets diabetes from all that junk food, guess what? I'm going to have to shell over the cash to pay for her food, her kids food, and her medical bills!! You don't see anything wrong with that situation??

Even if you didn't, you'd STILL be paying for her. She doesn't exist in the vacuum; she creates demand from the hospitals, who have limited medical supplies. Either way, you'll have to pay for her. Just that now, instead of shared cost, you're essentially thumbing your nose at the non-obese people that are in poverty and finding it difficult to scrape themselves out, especially with medical bills, because you dislike these obese people so much.

If it came down to your son or daughter, would you rather spend extra money on better health care for them, or spend that money on health care for other peoples kids?

The great thing about liberal altruism is, if properly applied, this is a false dichotomy.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

It's the best solution, proven in terms of efficacy and cost and it just happens to be the most morally sound too. And yet you oppose it on ideological grounds. It's not the only solution, but only an idiot would insist upon something other than the best solution on ideological grounds.

Because you say so? Where is it proven??

I'm glad your morals can beat mine up and tell them what to do.

You know what, Maybe we should start paying for your electric bill too. Then we can pay your rent and groceries too. I mean you need groceries right? You'd die without them so why not TAKE a little money from someone else who earned it? It's a slippery slope my man.

You're a blind ideologue. All the rest of your post is blather. You are attempting to justify a system that is worse in almost every measurable respect because it happens to rankle with your pre-conceived ideology.

Perhaps its time to examine why your ideological pre-suppositions would insist on a system that is proven to be more costly and less effective? Perhaps (whisper it) your ideology is wrong?

My ideology doesn't insist on this system. Quit making all of these assumptions. I already said what we have needs to be fixed. That doesn't mean I want to jump on your socialist bandwagon. Why don't you take a government-supplied chill pill, and stop forcing your ideas on everyone posting.

 

[Cobalt]

It's the best solution, proven in terms of efficacy and cost and it just happens to be the most morally sound too. And yet you oppose it on ideological grounds. It's not the only solution, but only an idiot would insist upon something other than the best solution on ideological grounds.

You're a blind ideologue. All the rest of your post is blather. You are attempting to justify a system that is worse in almost every measurable respect because it happens to rankle with your pre-conceived ideology.

Perhaps its time to examine why your ideological pre-suppositions would insist on a system that is proven to be more costly and less effective? Perhaps (whisper it) your ideology is wrong?

Hm, I notice you didn't respond to several other parts of his post. Did you specifically miss this?

The other day I saw a morbidly obese woman and all five of her morbidly obese kids standing in line at the grocery store with a cart full of potato chips, soda, pizza rolls, and everything else she could find it the store that would make her fatter AND SHE PAID WITH FOODSTAMPS!!!. So when her fat butt gets diabetes from all that junk food, guess what? I'm going to have to shell over the cash to pay for her food, her kids food, and her medical bills!! You don't see anything wrong with that situation??

That's a fair question, methinks.

When I say everyone needs to take better care of themselves, I'm talking about taking personal responsibility for your own life. I don't just mean to pay for your own medical insurance, but also go jogging, eat better, don't smoke, encourage your employers to offer better health care plans. That is the direction I'd like to go. I don't want to just give a free ride to every loaf out there who would rather make less money so they can mooch, than work harder so they can really prosper.

Wow, that'd make sense. So naturally, no, we can't do it.

I'm not cold. I don't want people to die. I do think Americans believing other Americans owe them the responsibility of holding their hands from cradle to grave is sad.

I concur, so naturally I'm an evil, evil person.

And I love how you call him an ideologue when he even said this:

I didn't make the system we have and I admit it suck. So lets fix it.

 

[Toke]

What taxes you do have still have a higher amount for healthcare than ours, and less cover.

Now, why do americans have this unique inabillity to run a healthcare system?


Then you can start wonder what the rest of our taxes are spend on, and why we think of it as such a great deal compared to your privat systems.

 

[volatile]

Because you say so? Where is it proven??

Almost every country in the world that has a universal healthcare system costs less per head of population than the USA spends on its current systems, which cover a fraction of the population.

You pay more than I do, and get less. Why is that better?

You know what, Maybe we should start paying for your electric bill too. Then we can pay your rent and groceries too. I mean you need groceries right? You'd die without them so why not TAKE a little money from someone else who earned it? It's a slippery slope my man.

Well, the UK does pay pensioners a fuel allowance so they don't freeze to death in winter. Is pennies per annum from my wage bill to stop old people dying of cold disgusting socialism, or the cost of a fair and pleasant society?

I'm not sure. What do you think?

You hate socialism for some as yet unspecified reason. Even though the socialised system is cheaper and more effective. You're really not helping your case by spouting rhetoric entirely at odds with the facts, my friend. In fact, I'd say you were looking like an angry ideologue.

Why don't you look up the per capita government spending on healthcare in the USA and the UK, and compare healthcare outcome indicators and get back to me. They're right here on this forum.

 

[volatile]

Hm, I notice you didn't respond to several other parts of his post. Did you specifically miss this?

No. I quite specifically dismissed it as ideological bluster.

On ideological grounds, you and Dan want me to see the merits of a system of healthcare delivery that is more expensive and less successful.(another set of stats: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php)

I'm not as stupid as the guys you go drinking with, buddy.

 

[Mitchell314]

Because you say so? Where is it proven??

I'm glad your morals can beat mine up and tell them what to do.

You know what, Maybe we should start paying for your electric bill too. Then we can pay your rent and groceries too. I mean you need groceries right? You'd die without them so why not TAKE a little money from someone else who earned it? It's a slippery slope my man.

Slippery_slope_(fallacy)^WP

 

[Cobalt]

No. I quite specifically dismissed it as ideological bluster.

On ideological grounds, you and Dan want me to see the merits of a system of healthcare delivery that is more expensive and less successful.

I'm not as stupid as the guys you go drinking with, buddy.

No, I personally think there might be a better way than the one you're saying is the only way. I'd rather see people actually take care of themselves than depend on everyone else for their problems.

I'm not a regular drinker, but thanks for the pointless assumption and insult. But if I was, how on earth could you back that claim up with some evidence?

 

[Toke]

I'm not a regular drinker, but thanks for the pointless assumption and insult. But if I was, how on earth could you back that claim up with some evidence?

He is just guessing from the strength of your arguments

 

[volatile]

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...ECD&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

Quite a comprehensive study, this. The conlusions are mixed (hey, you guys do have quicker wait times!) but:

"The United States has the third-highest percentage of the population that reports their health status as being “good,” “very good,” or “excellent” (Figure 23). However, the United States has below-average life expectancy (Figure 24) and mortality rates (Table 5). The United States has the third-highest rate of deaths from medical errors (Figure 25) and the highest infant mortality rate among the eight countries that report this metric similarly(Figure 26)"

"Total Spending. In 2004, the United States spent more than twice as much
on health care as the average OECD country, at $6,102 per person (compared with
the OECD average of $2,560). Health care spending comprised 15.3% of the U.S.
GDP in 2004, compared with an average of 8.9% for the average OECD country
(Figure 1). Although a country’s health expenditures are highly correlated with GDP
(Figure 2), U.S. health spending is nevertheless 60% greater than its GDP alone
would predict."

But hey, you do have more MRI scanners. Go USA!

 

[Mitchell314]

No, I personally think there might be a better way than the one you're saying is the only way. I'd rather see people actually take care of themselves than depend on everyone else for their problems.

Part of being in a society means contributing to it and getting contributions from it. There are different methods of doing it. Usually, either the free market, through the government, or a mixture of the two. But "I'd rather see people actually take care of themselves than depend on everyone else for their problems" is ultimately futile.

 

[volatile]

No, I personally think there might be a better way than the one you're saying is the only way.

Like what?

I'd rather see people actually take care of themselves than depend on everyone else for their problems.

Even if that costs you more, and means more people suffer / die / face financial ruin? That's what I mean about being an ideologue - this dogged commitment to the tenets of ideological individualism means you're championing a system that makes you worse off (and so is everyone else), even if it makes you feel and rugged and cowboy-like inside.

You're really not being very persuasive, in other words.

 

[Cobalt]

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...ECD&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

Quite a comprehensive study, this. The conlusions are mixed (hey, you guys do have quicker wait times!) but:

"The United States has the third-highest percentage of the population that reports their health status as being “good,” “very good,” or “excellent” (Figure 23). However, the United States has below-average life expectancy (Figure 24) and mortality rates (Table 5). The United States has the third-highest rate of deaths from medical errors (Figure 25) and the highest infant mortality rate among the eight countries that report this metric similarly(Figure 26)"

"Total Spending. In 2004, the United States spent more than twice as much
on health care as the average OECD country, at $6,102 per person (compared with
the OECD average of $2,560). Health care spending comprised 15.3% of the U.S.
GDP in 2004, compared with an average of 8.9% for the average OECD country
(Figure 1). Although a country’s health expenditures are highly correlated with GDP
(Figure 2), U.S. health spending is nevertheless 60% greater than its GDP alone
would predict."

But hey, you do have more MRI scanners. Go USA!

Why is your only argument for this the cost? I get it. It isn't as costly. That shouldn't mean that it is the only option available. That's the point I make that you refuse to hear.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Almost every country in the world that has a universal healthcare system costs less per head of population than the USA spends on its current systems, which cover a fraction of the population.

Almost.

You pay more than I do, and get less. Why is that better?

Where did I say it was?

Well, the UK does pay pensioners a fuel allowance so they don't freeze to death in winter. Is pennies per annum from my wage bill to stop old people dying of cold disgusting socialism, or the cost of a fair and pleasant society?

Are you assuming that these people wouldn't be taken care of with private money? Some countrymen. I'm glad to see you people will be moral, if the government makes them, LOL!

You hate socialism for some as yet unspecified reason. Even though the socialised system is cheaper and more effective. You're really not helping your case by spouting rhetoric entirely at odds with the facts, my friend. In fact, I'd say you were looking like an angry ideologue.

Again, I said I hate socialism where? All you have to do is read the posts above and you'll see who gets attacked by who on the thread. I came in here, commented, and got this immediately:

Yeah! Why don't those people with insurance and chronic or terminal illnesses just harden the hell up, hey?

and

It's the best solution, proven in terms of efficacy and cost and it just happens to be the most morally sound too. And yet you oppose it on ideological grounds. It's not the only solution, but only an idiot would insist upon something other than the best solution on ideological grounds.

Yeah, I'm the angry one. Pfffft!

 

[Cobalt]

Part of being in a society means contributing to it and getting contributions from it. There are different methods of doing it. Usually, either the free market, through the government, or a mixture of the two. But "I'd rather see people actually take care of themselves than depend on everyone else for their problems" is ultimately futile.

Yes, maybe so.

Like what?

I don't know, and it isn't my place to come up with it. It's more than possible that there is another option, even if I don't know it.

Even if that costs you more, and means more people suffer / die / face financial ruin? That's what I mean about being an ideologue - this dogged commitment to the tenets of ideological individualism means you're championing a system that makes you worse off (and so is everyone else), even if it makes you feel and rugged and cowboy-like inside.

Don't assume you know my motives, thanks. What is there that doesn't have the risk of suffering/death/financial ruin? Get in a car, someone slams into you, you might suffer, or die, or financial ruin being unable to afford repairs.

You're really not being very persuasive, in other words.

You aren't either, you're just sitting there throwing insults going, "It's cheaper! You're wrong!" I am personally just not convinced that it's the best plan. Call me whatever you want, if it makes you feel angelic and savior like.

 

[Toke]

Why is your only argument for this the cost? I get it. It isn't as costly. That shouldn't mean that it is the only option available. That's the point I make that you refuse to hear.

What is your objective?

Isn´t the only option for what?

 

[Lonewulf]

Hm, I notice you didn't respond to several other parts of his post. Did you specifically miss this?

That's a fair question, methinks.

He'd be paying for them anyways. The obese people don't disappear in the free market system; no matter what, they'll be using up medical supplies. They'll drive up insurance rates (if they can get any kind of insurance, which I doubt, which essentially states that the children "deserve" any ill health that could potentially be treated), and they'll certainly take up medical supplies, which drives up demand. Simple economics; it's impossible to not be touched by people like that. If the cost isn't distributed amongst the bulk of the population, it would still be distributed to those that need medical aid, as prices would be going up from such patients.

Besides, "Just the other day, I saw *extreme example*" isn't exactly a very convincing argument. I know of people that find it very difficult to survive with very debilitating ailments, manytimes life-threatening, that drive them into debt and requiring food stamps (the food stamps that people are so angry about). The underlying assumption seems to be that they "deserve" it for their own faults, which given ailments that one does not "choose", seems to be a very harsh over-generalization.

 

[Toke]

Cobalt
What do YOU want a healthcare system to achieve?

Really expensive treatment for only a few, or something else?