Health Insurance versus Health Care

I absolutely believe you that the cost per capita is less, I wanted to hear a guess why that is.

As a health service it can be more aggressive in buying pharmaceuticals from the drug companies so reducing the price of drugs.

The drug companies have less power in the british lobbying system.

It has no insurance companies intent on profiting from medical insurance. It does not pay dividends to share holders, this is the main cause of higher costs in America.

It does not spend billions on determining the fitness of its potential customers.

It encourages charitable interests to compensate for certain lack in funding by central office. Those who invest in the charity benefit from it. Something that could not be done in a health service for profit, it would not allow the competition.

Ok, all these are plausible reasons why the free market is less efficient in allocating goods than government is.
Would you say that these reasons apply to the economy at large, i.e. to the distribution of cars, toasters, or wine?

One faculty can work one way and another can work another.

What are you saying? That health care is different? Why so?

Because I think it's a mark of a civilised society to offer decent healthcare to people regardless of whether they are rich or poor. The reasons for this have already been given in this thread plenty of times, but three important ones I would say are:

1) Sick people can't be productive people unless they are treated.

2) It's both cheaper and more effective.

3) It strikes me as fair play.

Decent toasters - not so much. Goods are an incentive to wealth and industry I can conceed as useful and productive - health shouldn't be.

Because I think it's a mark of a civilised society to offer decent healthcare to people regardless of whether they are rich or poor. The reasons for this have already been given in this thread plenty of times, but three important ones I would say are:

1) Sick people can't be productive people unless they are treated.
2) It's both cheaper and more effective.
3) It strikes me as fair play.

Toasters and communism... hehe. :a-ok:

So you are saying that state capitalism is superior to free markets?

---------- Post added 03-27-2010 at 12:30 AM ----------


No shareholders have to be paid, etc. All those were the reasons why communism was supposed to make society richer than under capitalism.
Actually my question to all of you is this: Why would communism work on health care?

Funny...this is exactly the same reason why everyone should be good looking. I'm half way kidding on this one...but half way serious too. I would much rather buy a beer from a hot barbie than any other. If you look good, then you feel good. There are many people that are less efficient or depressed because of their looks. Should we also offer government subsidized face lifts, tummy tucks, and plastic surgery.

I think that all females should be forced to have breast implants

Funny...this is exactly the same reason why everyone should be good looking.

There are many people that are less efficient or depressed because of their looks. Should we also offer government subsidized face lifts, tummy tucks, and plastic surgery.

I think that all females should be forced to have breast implants

Personally I'm not arguing against socialized healthcare. But you're clearly taking too simplistic a view on this particular healthcare bill. We're not in the same economic position as the UK, we don't have the same social environment as the UK. Our proposed version of healthcare is different than your healthcare system. Saying that it works for you is moot. You'd have to show to me why THIS particular bill will work in THIS particular situation. And I'm not convinced it will. That's the issue that most Americans are facing.

I have no idea , it appears half cooked because of your inbuilt reticence to consider helping the less fortunate, for fear of becoming a damned red. Because he had to make so many concessions, it has become its own worse enemy. Too much opposition from self interested companies has turned revolution into a whimpering dog.

I think his worst mistake this past year is to continue to pursue bipartisanship.

He should have realised the right just pays lip service to the concept, and weren't willing to actually try it.

It was naive of him. Now that he's out of it we are seeing some geuine revolutions, standing up to Israel, reducing nuclear arsenals and getting Russia to do likewise, etc...

I think his worst mistake this past year is to continue to pursue bipartisanship.

He should have realised the right just pays lip service to the concept, and weren't willing to actually try it.

It was naive of him. Now that he's out of it we are seeing some geuine revolutions, standing up to Israel, reducing nuclear arsenals and getting Russia to do likewise, etc...

The Americans cant tell a good guy from a bandit. Tax them on tea bags, it might give them reason to revolt.

He is earning his peace prize now.

Wow, it's pretty sweet to judge every single American based on some ridiculous caricature you've developed.

Its been developed from the posts that we see exhibited here. Im not saying all Americans but the vast majority of you are still frightened of the red menace, that inhabits your psyche. I never hear the fear expressed by any other than Americans, about the dangers of social consideration of others less fortunate than them." What will cost me" , not what I might achieve by my helping my fellow Americans. Even when it might help you, the dangers of social reform scare the ship out of you. Here, on this forum, I'm classified as a true red communist in my own community, Im a social democrat. In general Americans are further right than any other nation I can think of. Most Europeans see republican politics as extreme, insular and uncompromising, you even frighten our right wing politicians.