Hello! I am back, and once again I am bringing up health care.
Rather than create a huge debate, I merely want to understand why everyone believes in their own system. Please link sources such as articles and videos as to why you believe in a particular health care system.
Rather than march onto a battlefield of debate, I want us to share our ideas and to challenge them.
Personally, I see no problem in having private medical procedures. I think insurance and national health care are both horrible systems.
I support Universal coverage because I believe in benfitting everyone regardless of their condition. I believe that we have an obligation to help each other, no matter how we do it. Privately funded systems just run patients into a lot of debt unless they're of the wealthy class. Of course I'm regarding a more serious long term medical problem such as cancer.
I read the pros and cons, and it states one of the cons as poor people taking advantage of the system. I'd rather have the poor taking advantage that the rich (insurance companies).
I support Universal coverage because I believe in benfitting everyone regardless of their condition. I believe that we have an obligation to help each other, no matter how we do it. Privately funded systems just run patients into a lot of debt unless they're of the wealthy class. Of course I'm regarding a more serious long term medical problem such as cancer.
And how do you propose that this is properly funded in order to ensure that not only everyone has universal coverage, but quality coverage as well?
I'm sorry Avorne but your source is heavily biased.
The free market creates conditions under which, between employer-provided plans, individually purchased plans, and charity, everyone is covered (neo-con ideal).
Employer-provided plans are often the result of government intervention i.e. not free market.
Efficiency of scale and simplicity.
It is not efficient. Just watch my video.
Doctors' main goal is to get you healthy/save your life. The current system in the US can encourage unnecessary, expensive testing and extended care.
This is a false assumption that capitalism causes greed and without it there wouldn't be any. Doctors in the private sector compete with each other by LOWERING their prices where doctors in the universal health care plan simply take what is given to them - provided they still make a profit for themselves. Basically, doctors are always going to work to make money while also trying to help people. What I quoted is sickening and anyone who believes this is very mislead.
It is often held that the government cannot do anything as efficiently as the private sector (although this is unproven and often the result of the private sector cutting corners to save on cost).
There's plenty of evidence. Just watch the video I linked. The government has their own researches, yet they only came out with 4% of today's medicine.
Higher taxes, which may be levied "unfairly"(i.e. taxing the rich people more).
This feeds off of the belief that rich people are the devil and that they deserve to be taxed.
"Creeping socialism."
Sarcasm.
The costs of maintaining universal healthcare, or financial limitations in its implementation, tend to increase substantially over time.
For example, the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) was founded way back in the 1940s. There have been huge advances in pretty much every branch of medical treatment during the decades that followed, including, for example, the development of effective cancer treatments, intensive care and life support technology, and vastly improved pharmacology. With these improvements in medicine comes the ability to treat more conditions and keep people alive for longer, and with universal healthcare comes the obligation to do so. Many of these treatments are highly expensive, and some rely on corporations such as those of the pharmaceutical industry, resulting in NHS money being routed back into the private sector.
Source?
In fact, there has recently been a bit of controversy in Canada about the introduction of private health care; supporters claim that it will improve access; detractors claim it will create a two-tiered system that gives better service to the wealthy.
There they go again, claiming that the wealthy are evil because they want to buy better treatment. We need to get off this "wealthy people are the devil" bull.
Michael Moore made a documentary, Sicko, in his inimitable style, about the current "system" in the United States, comparing people's experiences with it to those in Canada, France and Great Britain. He also pointed out that detainees at Guantanamo Bay receive free health services on par with, or better than, that which the average American must work or pay for. He then pulled an illegal stunt by bringing several ill first responders from the 9/11 cleanup to Cuba and obtaining free care for them (see above, Cuba). Which isn't so unusual since more than 5000 foreign patients traveled to Cuba in 2006 for a wide range of treatments including eye-surgery, neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's' disease, and orthopedics.
The film is filled with many misconceptions and lies.
Sean Hannity thinks the film is a pack of lies and misrepresentations even through there's a site that gives backup information and cites sources.
Just because the movie has sources does not mean it is not manipulating them and picking apart truths and turning them into lies.
Sorry, I had to skip to the bottom of the site because what you linked is insanely heavily biased. Please find something that actually takes a REALISTIC and FAIR approach that does not use the "eople fear change" approach. People don't fear change, they fear a failing system.
People in the US spend the most money on health compared to any other country in the world, but we still don't have the results to justify private insurance.
If you want proof that Universal Health Care works, look at Cuba. Their life expectancy was 30 years behind us before Castro took over, but they surpassed the US this year.
Sorry for the double post, but the US government spends more than twice as much on health care than any other country in the world, yet we are lagging behind big time in overall health. Our infant mortality rate is double that of European countries. Our life expectancy is about 5-10 years less.
Look at the chart and graph in this link. I know it's Wikipedia, but the information is accurate:
And how do you propose that this is properly funded in order to ensure that not only everyone has universal coverage, but quality coverage as well?
You allow doctors to compete with each other so prices are lowered so that even the poor can afford the medical treatment without having to be "covered". People may also open up a Health Savings Account.
Come on people, watch what I linked and find some stuff to support your own ideas.
Wolf, I will no longer reply to the morality argument as the whole "we need to help all the people we can," argument does not cover practicality. Same goes for everyone else.
Sorry for the double post, but the US government spends more than twice as much on health care than any other country in the world, yet we are lagging behind big time in overall health.
1. This does not mean universal health care is the answer.
2. The lower life expectancy argument is a straw man AND it is also unreliable.
The information provided by the UN is gathered from each country's own information that they provided. Basically, each country may have their own criteria to determine life expectancy than the other. Any scientist should understand that the criteria must be consistent to gain reliable data.
Even if the data is accurate, it does not mean those countries have better health care. In America, you are more likely to get into car accidents, get murdered, or have more health issues related to obesity. This means the whole "American's don't live as long" argument is too vague in determining the effectiveness of health care.
I'm so sorry that you are a teabagger who likes oppressing poor people - have fun you ****ing *od** of a ****ramming brush*******.
On topic, what about this article - it does seem to have a fair amount less bias.
Sorry to pull the mod card on you Avorne, but I have every right to ban you.
I give you two options.
1. Do not post in this thread again. 2. Your next post in this thread must be a response to the video I posted. You must watch it, then point out the part of the video you disagree with, then you have to provide evidence of how the video I posted is incorrect.
This way, you can prove to me that you aren't being biased by looking into your own sources while ignoring anything that conflicts your ideas.
A slightly unfair compromise but close enough given the sarcastic and jocular outburst of mine. Anyway, do I have to respond to the video or could I simply respond to your point:
This does not mean universal health care is the answer.
I certainly agree that Universal Health Care is flawed - but is it truly more flawed than any other system? Is there no good compromise between the current system and a Universal one? I struggle to find the link at the moment but I remember reading an article about a number of 'hybrid' systems that seemed to work quite well in theory.
Personally I am in favour of a mixed system, although one that is heavily leaning towards public funding. This is for both pragmatic and moral reasons.
Firstly, and most importantly, my moral convictions on the topic lend me to believe that health care should be a human right, or at least supplementary to the right to live. It is never someone's fault they become sick, and it just seems too selfish to say 'sorry mate, I'm afraid you're going to die because you can't afford insurance/medication!'. Also, on a personal level, I came from a fairly poor background, and developed BCC (a form of skin cancer). Thankfully I was able to get preventatvie treatment free on the NHS. I never really think much of it, because provided I wear sunscreen when it's hot, it doesn't really have much effect on my life. However, after meeting an American medical student and being informed of the cost of the initial medication in the US, I realised that given my social circumstances, it is very likely I would never have received treatment had I lived in the US due to financial constraints, and could quite possibly be dead. So there is a personal dimension to my moral conviction UHC is right, not just a more altruistic one. In this I am certainly not alone. Even admist the worst recession since 1929 the NHS is still ringfenced from cuts. It really is that popular.
The second reason I prefer an NHS is that it seems more pragmatic. I have yet to see any evidence from a reliable source that proves otherwise (sorry but youtube videos don't count), and although it has its problems, the US could undoubtedly learn some lessons from it (for those not in the know, the NewStatesman is the magazine of the trendy left. Regardless of the conjecture, they provide some interesting stats).
I could go on, but I think that'll do for now. All you really have to do is compare America's ranking as a healthy nation with other comparable industrialised countries to see how public systems work better on average. What I do think needs to be tweaked in Britain is waiting lines. Let people who want to be treated faster pay a little more, and reinvest that money to make treatment better for all. Just a tweak, but I think it would go a long way. Plenty of very rich people don't bother using private companies here in the UK since they're not that much better than the NHS to warrant the high cost. Queue charges could be a way of giving them the treatment they want and benefitting everyone else in the process.
You allow doctors to compete with each other so prices are lowered so that even the poor can afford the medical treatment without having to be "covered". People may also open up a Health Savings Account.
Prices don't magically get low enough for the lowest income level in a free market. That's one of the main reason the public systems have worked so much better in the real world - because healthcare gets to more people. The expenses are high for running a good medical office, so the price is naturally going to be high as well. For completely private, free-market healthcare to be good quality and available to enough people to place us at a high rank, the entire medicine business would have to change a lot. Downsize a lot. And that's not very good for the economy either. So we are at an impasse.
