Why do other countries spend less on healthcare and have healthier populations if government in the health care is such a bad thing? Is it possible that you've been sold a lie?
Rationing Health Care - it's a lie!
- Thread starter Skeptic Ginger
- Start date
Why do other countries spend less on healthcare and have healthier populations if government in the health care is such a bad thing? Is it possible that you've been sold a lie?
Delscottio
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 810
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,745
No there isn't. There's a certain segment that can't access health insurance, and can't pay for healthcare. But everyone has access to healthcare. Not any healthcare, and possibly not all the healthcare they might need, but everyone has access to healthcare.
Delscottio
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 810
Is it fair to say everyone has access to emergency health care?
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
My ancestors already rebelled against the British system for being too intrusive and taxing too much.
In all seriousness, I prefer the government to stay completely out of peoples lives as much as possible. I think the world would be a better place if people were more independent and self-sufficient. I think government should provide infastructure (legal, corporate, as well as transportation, etc), education, emergency services (police, fire, etc), foreign relations and more or less butt out of everything else to do with individuals. A safety net that helps people get back on their feet after disasters/lay-offs but motivates them to get back to work would be swell.
I think I am what you call a libertarian (little L, Libertarians are wackos).
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Sorry, I include non-life-saving healthcare along with healthcare.
Delscottio
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 810
My ancestors already rebelled against the British system for being too intrusive and taxing too much.
In all seriousness, I prefer the government to stay completely out of peoples lives as much as possible. I think the world would be a better place if people were more independent and self-sufficient. I think government should provide infastructure (legal, corporate, as well as transportation, etc), education, emergency services (police, fire, etc), foreign relations and more or less butt out of everything else to do with individuals. A safety net that helps people get back on their feet after disasters/lay-offs but motivates them to get back to work would be swell.
I think I am what you call a libertarian (little L, Libertarians are wackos).
Ah, the fact it works in practice means very little if the theory doesn't cut the mustard. Fair enough.
NB
Now over on the CT threads I don't think you and I have ever disagreed, so apologies for doing so here, but:
- By any reasonable healthcare indicator, other comparable weatern countries with UHC such as the UK and Canada do better than the US on issues such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and so on. We can look at the figures if you want - BAC is currently trying to claim it's all down to gun crime and RTAs -but the data looks pretty tight.
- Likewise countries such as the UK pay around half the cash per capita that the US does; it's quite clear that UHC need not be expensive or less effective than existing systems.
- In the UK and other countries you still have the option to take out additional private cover if you want, for example on the offchance that you have an elective course of treatment or want to lop a couple of weeks off a waiting list. THis tends to be quite cheap,as anything serious is almost always dealt with by the NHS.
- Now, BAC aside, the key argument being rpesented by those opposed to UHC seems to be that the US couldn't run the proverbial piss-up in a brewery - that, notwithstanding the clear success of the comparable UHC systems, the USG would screw it all up and it would cost a bomb. Given how bad our own politicians can be, I find this rather amusing.
- But UHC may not be the only solution (and there are umpteen kinds of UHC anyway). You could look to heavily reform your existing system, or (and this might be your favourite) go for some sort of closely controlled public-private system. You might bin daft restrictions on drug prices, and get rid of a lot of these un-necessary tests the US medical system is famous for. But few of the anti-UHC mob have progressed this - it's like Truthers "just asking questions" but never offering solutions.
Now over on the CT threads I don't think you and I have ever disagreed, so apologies for doing so here, but:
- By any reasonable healthcare indicator, other comparable weatern countries with UHC such as the UK and Canada do better than the US on issues such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and so on. We can look at the figures if you want - BAC is currently trying to claim it's all down to gun crime and RTAs -but the data looks pretty tight.
- Likewise countries such as the UK pay around half the cash per capita that the US does; it's quite clear that UHC need not be expensive or less effective than existing systems.
- In the UK and other countries you still have the option to take out additional private cover if you want, for example on the offchance that you have an elective course of treatment or want to lop a couple of weeks off a waiting list. THis tends to be quite cheap,as anything serious is almost always dealt with by the NHS.
- Now, BAC aside, the key argument being rpesented by those opposed to UHC seems to be that the US couldn't run the proverbial piss-up in a brewery - that, notwithstanding the clear success of the comparable UHC systems, the USG would screw it all up and it would cost a bomb. Given how bad our own politicians can be, I find this rather amusing.
- But UHC may not be the only solution (and there are umpteen kinds of UHC anyway). You could look to heavily reform your existing system, or (and this might be your favourite) go for some sort of closely controlled public-private system. You might bin daft restrictions on drug prices, and get rid of a lot of these un-necessary tests the US medical system is famous for. But few of the anti-UHC mob have progressed this - it's like Truthers "just asking questions" but never offering solutions.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
One of the big issues is that government run healthcare can bully corporations that develop medical technology.
Have you ever asked yourself why prescription drugs are so expensive in the US but not in France, the UK, Canada, etc? Those governments told the developers of those drugs that they can only charge a fixed amount for their drugs, this doesn't include massive R&D costs. So who pays for the the R&D? The USA does. What do you think would happen if the USA removed the ban on importing prescription drugs from Canada? Canadian prices would skyrocket and USA prices would go down slightly. It would be more fair, the Canadians would have to pick up more of the R&D costs.
This same system also applies new imaging technology and all of the other fun gizmos we have. The USA generally gets these things first (since we can afford them) but we also get overcharged compared to socialist health systems.
We also have an overmedicated population, which is in part due to drugs marketed directly to people (seriously, wtf???) and doctors practicing medicine defensively so they don't get sued.
My ancestors already rebelled against the British system for being too intrusive and taxing too much.
I'm sure the Canadians will just applaud that decision, what with them living in poverty after years under unjust tyrants.....ah, no, wait a mo, they seem to have a comparable standard of living. Well, what about the Aussies, or the New Zealanders....ah, no, never mind.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
You think I disagree with these points, I don't. I just don't trust my government. Don't get me wrong, I love my country and the people in it, but I don't want the government controlling this aspect of my life.
Evidence that the US unfairly subsidises other countries? Or is it just that you guys are getting ripped off?
Evidence that you invest a disproportionate amount to R&D?
Evidence that this is funded from the private healthcare sector anyway, as opposed to separate central government bodies?
Erm, so you admit you're being overcharged? How is this a good thing?
Which would be a bad thing and thus ripe for reform.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
I'm sure the Canadians will just applaud that decision, what with them living in poverty after years under unjust tyrants.....ah, no, wait a mo, they seem to have a comparable standard of living. Well, what about the Aussies, or the New Zealanders....ah, no, never mind.
Hey, we turned out pretty darn well, thank you very much.
Delscottio
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 810
Can I just check, are you arguing for or against a UHC? They seem pretty solid reasons to adopt a UHC - p.s have a look at the Research thread on here, may be of interest.
I'm huge fan of our (Westminster) Government, but that's an emotional response.
At the end of the day, we're living longer and paying a lot - hell, an awful lot - less than you. Is freedom from government "control" really worth a couple of years off your life? Greater infant mortality rates? People forced into bankrupcy by medical bills?
My ancestors already rebelled against the British system for being too intrusive and taxing too much.
...snip...
Sorry I thought you were an USA citizen - which ex-colony are you from?
Last edited:
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
I'm at work at the moment (and lunch break is almost over), I look up the stats on prescription drugs when I get a chance. This stuff was all over the news a number of years ago when people found a loophole (or maybe they were just doing it illegally) to import Canadian drugs.
I don't know if this applies to all health systems, but the British government regulates the cost of prescription drugs, doesn't it?
Of course we're being overcharged. That's obvious. There's a number of different reasons why though.
The NHS (there are actually 4 in the UK, one for each home nation, but that's another story) have the power to negotiate purchases in exactly the same way as any large customer does. That's the market. None of us stop Tesco negotiating with Kellogs, do we?
In fact if you're not negotiating, as with Medicare, how daft is that? Hell, would you buy a new car at the first price the salesman mentioned?
In fact if you're not negotiating, as with Medicare, how daft is that? Hell, would you buy a new car at the first price the salesman mentioned?
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Sorry I thought you were an USA citizen - which ex-colony are you from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_WarI think I stirred up a hornets nest.
But the government is elected by the people. It's accountable to the people.
An insurance company is accountable to it's shareholders.
How do you trust a profit driven private insurance company over a not-for-profit democratically (and accountable every four years) government?