IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Okie, fifty pages in on this thread alone, why are you still mixed up about the difference between universal health care and state-run/managed health care?

I thought I was detecting some irony here, especially after okie's rant here:

Regarding what and how okie writes, he has even no idea at all what universal health care means.

What do you base that on? Show me the quotes that you are using to base that opinion on Walter.

I'm pleased that you ask me to serve you, dear sir, but since you seem to be able to write you might be able to read too.

Try it - 50 pages.

Oh, come on now.

When somebody makes a post in favour of Porsches, and somebody else jumps in and answers "So you think Norwegian cars are just great, don't you?" I would say he doesn't know very much about cars.

Same here.

hamburger made a post in favour of universal health care, and okie jumped in to bash state-run health care.

<shrugs>

Walter, Good on you! It seems they're still confused. It might help them if they re-read the past 50 pages, but I doubt it.

"Universal health care contrasts to the system of health care in the United States."

"Universal health care is provided in all developed countries besides the United States of America."


Well, how could someone from there honestly understand such a system?

I think there is more than a little rather tedious confusion of terms here.

I take it a "Universal Care" system is one that would apply to everyone - or almost everyone -- illegal residents? tourists?

A "single payer" system is one that allows only one payer (usually government or a government chartered agency) to pay for covered services. (This of course usually implies that the single payer contriols the market, setting limits on prices and supply).

A "mandatory insurance" system is one that requires all citizens or residents to participate in some insurance program, drawn from an approved menu, each potentially involving different costs and coverage limits.

As it has been described here Germany uses a mandatory insurance system. The UK uses a single payer system that is, in addition, operated directly by the government - the doctors and staff are employees of government or government chartered entities.

It has been rather blandly asserted here that single payer systems are necessarily far more efficient than others involving multiple payers and providers. In view of the abject economic failure of socialist economic systems in the past century - from the postwar United Kingdom, to the unlamented Soviet Union and even China - I find it amazing that any informed person could make such an assertion.

All monopolies gravitate towards indifference to the quality of goods or services priovided, high prices, and lack of innovation. Government monopolies are usually the worst of a bad lot, requiring substantial oversight and audit just to avoid the worst excesses.

I don't defend the present system in the U.S. In many ways it combines the worst of single payer, insurance and free market systems. However it is folly to suggest that more of the shortsighted regulation that created the mess is the best way to improve it.

I have already and found no instances in which I would get the idea that Okie "has no idea at all what universal health care means".

So, please, you made the assertion, point to me the posts that makes you believe that.

I was backing you in your comments on obesity. Was I stupid and ignorant for doing this?

I came to a different result, sir.

Only according to cicerone imposter, advocate, not according to me. Read what I said.

Okie, what is wrong about my statement?

i will make a simple suggestion and leave it at that :

a health care system that includes EVERY citizen - regardless of current health , health outlook ... you name it - will make for a healthy society .
a healthy society in turn benefits everyone in that society .
i cannot believe that healthy individuals and a healthy society will not also be A BETTER SOCIETY - more productive , just as an example .

of course , not everyone will agree with me on that .
we are living in a relatively free society , so we can all have our own thoughts and ideas .
hbg

Conclusion: When anyone begins with the improper definition for a term such as "universal health care," it follows that anything they may opine about it will be most often wrong.

I swear, are you dense or what? Read what I said. You agreed with me. I have been called stupid and ignorant by imposter for saying the things that you agreed with, so therefore I warned you that you might now be considered to be stupid and ignorant by imposter.

Naw, I will always call a spade a spade. With Advocate, we have many issues in which we agree. With okie, we disagree about 99 percent of the time. Big difference! When I post something, Advocate understands what I write - most of the time. okie misunderstand my posts the majority of the time. Yeah, the difference is HUGE!

CI thinks he is profound, but is often foolish and wrong. Okie is right once in a while, but is entirely closed-minded when it comes to politics.

Gee, I just said I agree with you on many topics, so if I'm wrong, guess who's wrong too? LOL Profound? Nah, I'm a simple man.