Conquer Club

Today I was told that the US is the only country in the western world that does not provide universal healthcare to its citizens.
Assuming this is true:
1) Why has there not been a revolution over this?
2) What possible argument - unless you own stock in health insurance companies - could there be against setting up a free, nationalised health service in the US?

heavycola wrote:Today I was told that the US is the only country in the western world that does not provide universal healthcare to its citizens.
Assuming this is true:
1) Why has there not been a revolution over this?
2) What possible argument - unless you own stock in health insurance companies - could there be against setting up a free, nationalised health service in the US?

Our health care was fine until the government started fucking with it in the 60's and 70's. Now we are stuck with what we got with the only hope to returning to where we were before Medicare by means of a Revolution. That is where you are correct, sir. A Revolution is happening, people are slowly waking up, but it will happen, and this is one of the many issues we will be revolting against. Government intervention is not the answer, despite generations of brainwashing! Less government and more freedom is the answer to prosperity, peace, and friendly trade relations.

The insurance companies have gotten too embedded into the political forum and the companies are making money hand over foot. This is normal capitalism at work; however the problem is that the market cannot correct itself as capitalism dictates and medical decisions are actually now money decisions. Unfortunately the only remedy available since the marketplace cannot correct itself is government intervention, and that will require higher taxes, usually on the middle class ($50K to $150K), which are the group which have the highest burden of medical expenses already.

If there was a better alternative than government intervention and control, I would be damn glad to hear about it.

Curmudgeonx wrote:The insurance companies have gotten too embedded into the political forum and the companies are making money hand over foot. This is normal capitalism at work; however the problem is that the market cannot correct itself as capitalism dictates and medical decisions are actually now money decisions. Unfortunately the only remedy available since the marketplace cannot correct itself is government intervention, and that will require higher taxes, usually on the middle class ($50K to $150K), which are the group which have the highest burden of medical expenses already.

If there was a better alternative than government intervention and control, I would be damn glad to hear about it.

I would agree with your assessment, but add that the market has NEVER worked in medicine. For free market to work you have to have the ability to choose. When someone is having an appendix attack most people don't have multiple hospitals from which to choose.

You also need information. When it comes to medicine, we pretty much have to trust our doctors. They go to school for years for good reason.

No one can "opt out" in practical terms. You cannot exactly delay getting your appendix out .. unless you consider death a viable option.


Finally, insurance is almost always chosen by one's employer. These means that the "feedback" one would normally get from a bad product just cannot apply.

________

This is WHY medicine is one of the few things that almost HAS to be government mandated. Personally, I like a system that sets a minimum insurance standard for everyone, requires employers to provide insurance to employees and assistance for those unable to be employed (not the unwilling, just unable)... AND allows complete "portability" so that if my husband loses his job tommorrow, he can get insurance at his new job immediately without any waiting period.

You should never trust your doctor. Always, always do your own research. These same companies run the teaching programs, you know?

I am of the school that thinks that the government should control everything that a body needs to live happily (Roads, Health Care, Utilities, Military, ect.). And after that, they should butt out.

But you are right to asses that our system is so far gone. We could only change it by electing people who DON'T care about money, or through a revolution.

And to answer the original question, I think that Americans don't honestly care. We are a dumbed down society, that doesn't stand up for anything anymore.

Juan_Bottom wrote:You should never trust your doctor. Always, always do your own research. These same companies run the teaching programs, you know?

Well, I am not going to attempt surgary ...

Seriously, yes, you do have to question and think critically about the things your doctor says, but if you cannot find a doctor you trust... you need to look harder.

As for doing your own research. The problem is that so much of what is out there is just plain baloney and most of us just don't ahve the time to wade through it. I mean, if my kid were experiencing symptoms the doctor could not solve or had some disease few new about ... I would spend as much time as needed to find whatever answers are available.

Doctors are people just like everyone else. They are not Gods of perfection, but they ARE better trained than you or I.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I am of the school that thinks that the government should control everything that a body needs to live happily (Roads, Health Care, Utilities, Military, ect.). And after that, they should butt out.

I agree, but health care is one of those things it needs to do, because it just isn't ruled by regular capitalistic market economics.

Juan_Bottom wrote:But you are right to asses that our system is so far gone. We could only change it by electing people who DON'T care about money, or through a revolution.

No, we need to elect people for reasons other than their stance on religious right issues and benefits to big business (at small business and most other's expense). Money is jsut a tool.

And to answer the original question, I think that Americans don't honestly care. We are a dumbed down society, that doesn't stand up for anything anymore.

To a point ... and to a point when you have 2 parents working over 40 hours a week, plus trying to raise kids and maintain a house ... most people just don't have TIME to worry about much outside thier immediate sphere...

I'm sorry. What I mean is, people who aren't corruptable by money. Someone who won't sell out. And you are right about the religious stance. Man that makes me mad.

heavycola wrote:Today I was told that the US is the only country in the western world that does not provide universal healthcare to its citizens.
Assuming this is true:
1) Why has there not been a revolution over this?

Because a revolution in 1776 already settled the question of oppressive government taking your money to pay for daft schemes.

2) What possible argument - unless you own stock in health insurance companies - could there be against setting up a free, nationalised health service in the US?

Because universal healthcare is shit.

As I have said many times, the NHS employed the most people in Europe of any organisation ar the Red Army in 1948-and still managed to kill more people.

Another fascinating example of wasteful government bureaucracy: for every 4 doctors, nurses and ambulance drivers, 5 people are employed in "administrative" roles. In other words, for every 4 doctors your tax money pays for, it also pays the slalry of 5 useless, lard-arsed guardian-readers who bounce e-mails off each other all day long adding nothing productive to the system.
In the o-so-demonized private health care system, for every 5 doctors, you get 0.9 people in administrative roles.

Napoleon Ier wrote: As I have said many times, the NHS employed the most people in Europe of any organisation ar the Red Army in 1948-and still managed to kill more people.

Yeah, you've said that many times but haven't actually produced any data supporting that.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: As I have said many times, the NHS employed the most people in Europe of any organisation ar the Red Army in 1948-and still managed to kill more people.

Yeah, you've said that many times but haven't actually produced any data supporting that.

OK, that's because I made it up on the spot, but the NHS has killed about 15.000 people every year, and that I did provide evidence for, using data from the WHO.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: As I have said many times, the NHS employed the most people in Europe of any organisation ar the Red Army in 1948-and still managed to kill more people.

Yeah, you've said that many times but haven't actually produced any data supporting that.

OK, that's because I made it up on the spot, but the NHS has killed about 15.000 people every year, and that I did provide evidence for, using data from the WHO.

So what is the NHS? And where did that evidence go?

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: As I have said many times, the NHS employed the most people in Europe of any organisation ar the Red Army in 1948-and still managed to kill more people.

Yeah, you've said that many times but haven't actually produced any data supporting that.

OK, that's because I made it up on the spot, but the NHS has killed about 15.000 people every year, and that I did provide evidence for, using data from the WHO.

So what is the NHS? And where did that evidence go?

Healthcare thingie in britain.

Snorri1234 wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: As I have said many times, the NHS employed the most people in Europe of any organisation ar the Red Army in 1948-and still managed to kill more people.

Yeah, you've said that many times but haven't actually produced any data supporting that.

OK, that's because I made it up on the spot, but the NHS has killed about 15.000 people every year, and that I did provide evidence for, using data from the WHO.

So what is the NHS? And where did that evidence go?

Healthcare thingie in britain.

Ah, thanks, and did it eat the evidence?

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: As I have said many times, the NHS employed the most people in Europe of any organisation ar the Red Army in 1948-and still managed to kill more people.

Yeah, you've said that many times but haven't actually produced any data supporting that.

OK, that's because I made it up on the spot, but the NHS has killed about 15.000 people every year, and that I did provide evidence for, using data from the WHO.

So what is the NHS? And where did that evidence go?

Into a report filed by Professor Sikhora based on WHO estimates, which James bartholomew later cited in an article and his book, The Welfare State We're In.

But I'm still stuck on what you mean by killing.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: As I have said many times, the NHS employed the most people in Europe of any organisation ar the Red Army in 1948-and still managed to kill more people.

Yeah, you've said that many times but haven't actually produced any data supporting that.

OK, that's because I made it up on the spot, but the NHS has killed about 15.000 people every year, and that I did provide evidence for, using data from the WHO.

So what is the NHS? And where did that evidence go?

Into a report filed by Professor Sikhora based on WHO estimates, which James bartholomew later cited in an article and his book, The Welfare State We're In.

Well, the book does not appear to be at this university, and the closest I came to the name of the author was David J. Bartholomew. Maybe you could link me to the complete WHO studies in question.

Don't have an intraweb link...sorry.

Snorri1234 wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: As I have said many times, the NHS employed the most people in Europe of any organisation ar the Red Army in 1948-and still managed to kill more people.

Yeah, you've said that many times but haven't actually produced any data supporting that.

OK, that's because I made it up on the spot, but the NHS has killed about 15.000 people every year, and that I did provide evidence for, using data from the WHO.

So what is the NHS? And where did that evidence go?

Healthcare thingie in britain.

And in the US, medical mistakes ALSO kill.. and injure seriously. This has more to do with overworked health care workers than government care. ALSO, it has to do with an extremely poor method of correcting and even just tracking medical errors.

A recent study showed that medical mistakes for CHILDREN (only) cost and average of $4000. This is money that many insurance companies and the government -run programs ( yep, we do have them... but only for the very, very sick and the very poor).

The problem in the US is that we DO have government backed, government mandated and government direct insurance. HOWEVER, it applies only to the very sick (rejected by regular insurance companies) the very poor, the elderly and those in immediate risk of dying.

THAT means that the government insures the most expensive folks to insure. The rest of us end up having to support them with our taxes AND the Insurance companies keeps the easiest, cheapest to insure and makes pretty big profits.

I don't think a fully nationalized system like Britain or Canada are the best. I prefer Germany or Japan's models. In Germany, your employer pays for healthcare (which becomes part of your pay, of course). In Japan, they have an interesting feature. You pay your doctor to keep you well. Then when you get sick, he takes care of you free. (though I think there are some exceptions for the completely unpreventable like traumas).

AND, as per your repeated claim that forcing people to resort to emergency medicine is not the most expensive way to go.... I suggest you ask ANY hospital or doctor. You don't have to go to journals or medical texts to find the information. The Reader's Digest just did an article not so long ago ... as have most popular magazines.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Another fascinating example of wasteful government bureaucracy: for every 4 doctors, nurses and ambulance drivers, 5 people are employed in "administrative" roles. In other words, for every 4 doctors your tax money pays for, it also pays the slalry of 5 useless, lard-arsed guardian-readers who bounce e-mails off each other all day long adding nothing productive to the system.
In the o-so-demonized private health care system, for every 5 doctors, you get 0.9 people in administrative roles.

Then red tape is the problem, not the ideal of public health care, poorly implemented though it may be. I like the fact that if i'm hit by a car on my way to school, I don't have to worry about my own or parents employments ebenfit packages when assessing the seriousness of the damage.

Also do you have any sources? And overgeneralisation is a recognise critical flaw, too.

Although it is true what Nappy said about the useless who get paid for administrative roles I still think that universal healthcare is a good thing. However I wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for universal healthcare and so my opinion may be biased. I just realised the irony. Because the healthcare system in Greece sucks and the doctors couldn't do anything about my case I was sent to US for the operation and my country paid the cost. So I was cured in an american hospital without paying money while an American would have to pay.

Matt Santos had a cool plan for healthcare in The West Wing!
Everyone watch that - it may not cure your health care problems, but everyone will convert to Liberalism, YAY!
Plus, he is fit.

The1exile wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Another fascinating example of wasteful government bureaucracy: for every 4 doctors, nurses and ambulance drivers, 5 people are employed in "administrative" roles. In other words, for every 4 doctors your tax money pays for, it also pays the slalry of 5 useless, lard-arsed guardian-readers who bounce e-mails off each other all day long adding nothing productive to the system.
In the o-so-demonized private health care system, for every 5 doctors, you get 0.9 people in administrative roles.

Then red tape is the problem, not the ideal of public health care, poorly implemented though it may be. I like the fact that if i'm hit by a car on my way to school, I don't have to worry about my own or parents employments ebenfit packages when assessing the seriousness of the damage.

Also do you have any sources? And overgeneralisation is a recognise critical flaw, too.

Red Tape is NOT due to goverment care. In the US, if anything, it is worse. AND, within the US, you also have to add in the entire insurance industry.

Furthermore, I am all for profit, but it definitely makes me extremely uncomfortable when someone tells me my husband cannot have the only drug that kept his knees pain-free because it wasn't "cost effective". OR when we, overnight ended up having to pay $over $1300 , then ANOTHER 1200 the next month... because my husband's employer decided to cut costs and change insurance.

In our case, the worst part is that we were low enough income that we COULD HAVE gotten state-run CHIP, which provides everything, including dental and eye care, BUT since my hisband's employer was so "gracious" as to provide some insurance ... we ended up with over $4000 in bills instead of $84 a month.

My deadbeat, drug-dealing neighbor on the other hand gets everything free for her kids, including rent ... when she got out of jail, that is.

THAT is why we need FULL insurance for EVERYONE.

Right now, the ones who get covered are NOT the ones who work and need care ... its the bums, the very, very sick (who the insurance system considers too unprofitable to insure) and the elderly .... none of which are exactly cheap to insure.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I don't think a fully nationalized system like Britain or Canada are the best. I prefer Germany or Japan's models. In Germany, your employer pays for healthcare (which becomes part of your pay, of course). In Japan, they have an interesting feature. You pay your doctor to keep you well. Then when you get sick, he takes care of you free. (though I think there are some exceptions for the completely unpreventable like traumas).

That Japanese system sounds very interesting, can you tell us more about it?

MeDeFe wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I don't think a fully nationalized system like Britain or Canada are the best. I prefer Germany or Japan's models. In Germany, your employer pays for healthcare (which becomes part of your pay, of course). In Japan, they have an interesting feature. You pay your doctor to keep you well. Then when you get sick, he takes care of you free. (though I think there are some exceptions for the completely unpreventable like traumas).

That Japanese system sounds very interesting, can you tell us more about it?

Unfortunately, no.

NPR just did a comparison of various government systems, but they only covered the basics, the "biggest" issues.

heavycola wrote:Today I was told that the US is the only country in the western world that does not provide universal healthcare to its citizens.
Assuming this is true:
1) Why has there not been a revolution over this?
2) What possible argument - unless you own stock in health insurance companies - could there be against setting up a free, nationalised health service in the US?

1) More importantly, why is there no uprising over gas prices?

2) Because some people believe in capitalism. That the government should remain (actually "become") small and NOT be involved in every aspect of our lives. Universal health care= Socialized health care.