IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, to be honest: none.

What I've heard and seen in the USA and read - especially here by you Americans - about the US health care system makes me feel even better with our system, although I don't think it is really a very good one.

Sorry to hear that. I think we have a very good one here. It has its flaws, but it is still very good overall. Everyone still dies at some point, even the doctors and nurses.

0 Replies

I don't deny that your health system is good.

I do think, however, that a universal health system works better for all.

I've said nothing about the natural end of human beings.

0 Replies

As we have already established here, there are many forms of what are termed "Universal" health care systems. Indeed ours is "universal " too in that care, at some level, is available to anyone who needs it, and at a much higher level to anyone with the money to pay for it. What we are arguing about here is how it is organized, rationed, and paid for.

The points have been made that many government-managed or mandated systems achieve equal or better morbidity and mortality results, at a lower gross cost, than does the system in the United States. The argument about morbidity and mortality doesn't survive careful statistical analysis, given our much higher birth and immigration rates. The cost argument is probably exaggerated based on the likelihood of hidden costs in the various government managed programs to which ours is compared. Still it is likely that our system costs more. To some extent this results in Americans subsidizing the rest of the world by unequally financing the development of new pharmaceuticals and treatments. However, how much this accounts for our greater cost is unclear.

In addition it is alleged that government managed or mandated systems are more "fair" in that a higher level of care is available to those who don't presently take care of themselves, either because they don't choose to buy insurance or don't have the money to pay for it. (In fact too little attention has been given here to the public Medicaid system that does indeed provide substantial medical care for the poor. The "fairness" test really comes down to what applies to the so-called "working poor" i.e. those above the poverty line but still strapped for disposable income.)

Too little attention and acknowledgment has been given here to the adverse effects of the various forms of rationing of care and medicines that are the inevitable result of any government managed or mandated system. In a free market system that rationing is done based on individual ability and willingness to pay. In a government mandated system it is done in less obvious ways through budgets, official lists of approved procedures or medicines, and various controls on the supply of facilities and medical practicioners. The latter do not provide the needed feedback signals for quality and quantity relative to demand and effectiveness. Much depends on the wisdom and adaptability of the government bureaucracies that manage the system.

Another important factor is the cultural willingness of the population to accept this bureaucratic rule of important aspects of their personal lives. So far Americans have exhibited less willingness than their cousins in Canada and Europe to do this. One can view this as a virtue or a fault, depending on the a priori values he/she applies to the judgement.

It is also an observable fact that the experiments we have tried so far with managed care insurance programs, which on an institutional basis mimic many of the attributes of government-managed programs, have delivered decidedly mixed results in the public mind here.

The faults of our present, somewhat hermaphroditic, system are easy enough to see. It would be a mistake to blandly assume that the greed, bureaucratic inefficiency, and occasional lack of responsiveness that we can observe in our present system, will suddenly disappear, simply because the government manages it. Do we want a medical system with all the individual attentiveness and dedication to objectively measured outcome and productivity that characterizes our public schools? I think not.

I acknowledge the faults of our present systems. However, I am intensely skeptical that added government involvement - in any form - will make it better.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

As we have already established here, there are many forms of what are termed "Universal" health care systems. Indeed ours is "universal " too in that care, at some level, is available to anyone who needs it, and at a much higher level to anyone with the money to pay for it. What we are arguing about here is how it is organized, rationed, and paid for.

So this wiki entry is wrong

0 Replies

Yes, it certainly is wrong. Wiki is not an accepted authority on anything, much less the meaning of words.

I was completely correct and clear in both my choice of words and description. The "definition" you used from Wickopedia subtly added the subjective element of "most types of care" - whatever that means. My point was, correctly, that the line drawn between "universal" and free market systems, as it is applied here in this discussion of the system in the United States, is itself arbitrary and not consistent with the real meaning of the words used to describe it. The Wiki cite you reference merely confirms my point.

You are quibbling again. :wink:

0 Replies

As I've said before, I'd like to see a universal health care system in the US that combines the public and private insured programs that provides the best and most coverage. I believe the Canadian system comes closest to what I'd like to see for the US, but I'm sure improvements can be made to increase efficiency.

The way I look at cost, if we can give billions of dollars to other countries, and fund a war that's costing us $2.7 billion every week, cost should be one of the minor problems. I'd like to see our tax money spent on health, and not on the military, bullets and bombs. IMHO, the money spent in Iraq is a total waste. They've lost control of billions of dollars in reconstruction money, and Halliburton has been caught overcharging the DOD on their non-bid contracts.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The argument about morbidity and mortality doesn't survive careful statistical analysis, given our much higher birth and immigration rates.

Infant mortality is measured in a ratio of deaths/live births.

Doesn't seem to make sense that the infant mortality rate would go up merely because a country has a higher fertility rate.

0 Replies

That's not what I was suggesting. In any country infant mortality is higher than the average for all ages. Thus a 25% higher fertility rate here would likely more than account for the relatively very small differences in life expectency.

Our infant mortality rates are a bit higher than the Western European average, but that difference does not significantly alter the previous, much larger effect.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote :

Quote:

As I've said before, I'd like to see a universal health care system in the US that combines the public and private insured programs that provides the best and most coverage. I believe the Canadian system comes closest to what I'd like to see for the US, but I'm sure improvements can be made to increase efficiency.

you are right c.i. the canadian system needs a good overhaul .
i'm glad that more resources (MONEY !) are now arriving at hospitals and universities . beds are being added to our local teaching hospital , our cancer centre is being updated and enlarged - some of the most modern equipment has recently been installed and the university has received additional monies for health research .
it was high time !
hbg

The way I look at cost, if we can give billions of dollars to other countries, and fund a war that's costing us $2.7 billion every week, cost should be one of the minor problems. I'd like to see our tax money spent on health, and not on the military, bullets and bombs. IMHO, the money spent in Iraq is a total waste. They've lost control of billions of dollars in reconstruction money, and Halliburton has been caught overcharging the DOD on their non-bid contracts.

i certainly see your point !
i do see from the comments on a2k that there are still plenty of U.S. citizens that seem to think putting more money down the sinkhole (aka iraq) is more important than adequate healthcare for all .
very sorry to read that !
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

....i do see from the comments on a2k that there are still plenty of U.S. citizens that seem to think putting more money down the sinkhole (aka iraq) is more important than adequate healthcare for all .
very sorry to read that !
hbg[/color]

[/quote]

Where did you read here that health care in America is inadequate? What is your basis for this implication? This is merely a sappy and meaningless comparisons of unrelated points, that happens to appeal to your own prejudgements. OK by me if that is your opinion, but don't expect to be taken seriously by those who think for themselves.

0 Replies

george :
did you possible miss the words " FOR ALL " ?

have you read some of the points that were made by a2k'ers about their personal experiences and that of their families ?
you might want to read about them before becoming righteous .
hbg

0 Replies

george wrote :

Quote:

Where did you read here that health care in America is inadequate? What is your basis for this implication? This is merely a sappy and meaningless comparisons of unrelated points, that happens to appeal to your own prejudgements. OK by me if that is your opinion, but don't expect to be taken seriously by those who think for themselves.

here is a "sappy story" for you , george .
it shows how inadequate healthcare and a subprime mortgage loan put a widow into dire straits .
of course , you are free to say : it's her own fault !
you might want to read the full article at the link .
hbg

Quote:

(the complete article can be found at the link)to pay for mounting medical bills.

(why would she need to take out a $50,000 loan if there is an adequate healthcare system available to her ?
hbg)

The initial interest rate was enticingly low. But typical of many subprime loans, the payments shot up after the second year and again this year. Monthly payments of $518 (U.S.) now consume half her meagre fixed income. Unable to pay her taxes, she recently filed for personal bankruptcy. Desperate to renegotiate the loan, she wonders how long she'll be able to keep her home, the value of which sinks ever lower.

COMPLETE ARTICLE :
PUTTING A FACE ON THE HEALTHCARE AND CREDIT CRISIS

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

As I've said before, I'd like to see a universal health care system in the US that combines the public and private insured programs that provides the best and most coverage. I believe the Canadian system comes closest to what I'd like to see for the US, but I'm sure improvements can be made to increase efficiency.

The way I look at cost, if we can give billions of dollars to other countries, and fund a war that's costing us $2.7 billion every week, cost should be one of the minor problems. I'd like to see our tax money spent on health, and not on the military, bullets and bombs. IMHO, the money spent in Iraq is a total waste. They've lost control of billions of dollars in reconstruction money, and Halliburton has been caught overcharging the DOD on their non-bid contracts.

So,the answer to the health care problems here in the US is to throw more money at it?

Can anyone name one single issue here in the US that has been solved by throwing more money at it?

And what happens when that money runs out?
Right now,many states and the fed govt are talking about raising taxes on smokers to provide money for health care for children.

Many of you seem to be ok with that,because you dont smoke and think that smokers should pay more.

Yet at the same time,the states and the fed govt are doing everything they can to get people to stop smoking.
Now,which of these goals should take priority?
If everyone stops smoking,where is the money for health care going to come from?

Answer...everyones taxes will go up,or the healthcare plan will go broke.

If it did go broke,would the program be canvelled?
I dont think so.

0 Replies

Answer those stupid questions yourself, mm. I tire of your ignorance.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Answer those stupid questions yourself, mm. I tire of your ignorance.

In other words,you decide to bury your head in the sand and pretend there isnt a problem.

You are an ass.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

If it did go broke,would the program be canvelled?

I will be the first to admit that the health care problem in this country is one that is beyond my ability to repair in a reasonable fashion, but I have been reading suggestions from the more well-versed and believe I am becoming somewhat of a student in the health care game.

But, all of my reading has yet to uncover the word 'canvelled" and its meaning to the issue at hand.

I would like a brief definition of the word so I can add it to my health care vocabulary.

Thank you, mysteryman, for introducing this exciting new word to me and would you be willing to snuggle later on tonight?

0 Replies

http://www.able2know.com/forums/images/avatars/44098615345cf30fe0ae60.jpg

And what is with that shirt, mysteryman? Do you deliver bottled water?

Nothing wrong with that.

I mean, I shovel capybara **** for a living. But, seriously, are you employed by one of the major purified water companies?

0 Replies

Jesus! When I see us side by side... wow!.... we make a lovely couple.

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

If it did go broke,would the program be canvelled?

I will be the first to admit that the health care problem in this country is one that is beyond my ability to repair in a reasonable fashion, but I have been reading suggestions from the more well-versed and believe I am becoming somewhat of a student in the health care game.

But, all of my reading has yet to uncover the word 'canvelled" and its meaning to the issue at hand.

I would like a brief definition of the word so I can add it to my health care vocabulary.

Thank you, mysteryman, for introducing this exciting new word to me and would you be willing to snuggle later on tonight?

I didn't check my spelling.
The word was supposed to be CANCELLED,not canvelled.

As for the shirt,I am a lieutenant on the local volunteer fire dept and that is one of our shirts.
Sorry if the shirt bothers you.

0 Replies

It doesn't bother me, mysteryman, on the contrary... it excites me.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know