IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

1. Given the near 'universal' affection of the European and Canadian posters here on A2K for government mandated, sponsored, or managed 'universal' health care systems, what explains the reluctance of Americans to adopt such a system? Are they somehow backward, or in the grip of illusions that do not so affect their cousins in other developed countries? Or are there concrete historical factors that explain it. Alternatively (or additionally) , are there economic and social factors that alter the situation here as it might be evaluated by a rational observer?

You appear to be suggesting that the democratic process on this issue does not work in this country - even over long periods of time.

cicerone imposter wrote:

USAF, Your scenario misses one big point. That kind of emergency is taken care of by calling 911. If you call any hospital with symptoms of a heart attack, you don't wait to drive to the hospital; you call 911, and the medics will take you there - while treating you during the transfer.

When anybody calls 911, they don't ask if you have insurance.

No, it is you who is missing the point. The paramedics cannot preform a bypass surgery. And that surgery has to be paid for by someone.

Back to ... waiting time.

Dermatoligists have here in my town a truly long waiting time (if not for emergency cases), between 3 to 6 weeks .... or waiting in the waiting for up to six hours.
....[/URL]

I believe this discussion is persistently missing a couple of essential points that, in my view at least, do bear on the matter.

1. Given the near 'universal' affection of the European and Canadian posters here on A2K for government mandated, sponsored, or managed 'universal' health care systems, what explains the reluctance of Americans to adopt such a system? Are they somehow backward, or in the grip of illusions that do not so affect their cousins in other developed countries? Or are there concrete historical factors that explain it. Alternatively (or additionally) , are there economic and social factors that alter the situation here as it might be evaluated by a rational observer?

I do not believe it has much to do about European and Canadian "affection" to universal health care. After all, most of the immigrants to early America were from Europe.

2. Is it possible that the European experience is itself unique? A population beset by the memory of a century of war; mass destruction and murder; the contest between failed authoritarian political and economic systems (facist & socialist) and liberal democracies that were (mostly) unable to resist them; repeated redrawing of national borders and (after WWII) mass and widespread ethnic cleansing of wide areas - all left their mark on the affected population. The post WWII baby boom and economic explosion, followed by rapid demographic decline accompanied by economic "stagflation" and political unrest, were all symptomatic of these effects, - and it is likely there are other lasting ones as well. Europeans have rather consistently developed and demanded extensive social welfare and labor market regulatory systems from their governments, many of which can no longer be sustained with the evolving population profiles and economic conditions.

But as Walter has pointed out, the idea of universal health care was born some centuries ago. I equate universal health care to a necessary government program similar to our educational system, infrastructure and security. Unless our citizens are healthy, we cannot continue to compete in this world of healthier citizens. The trend in the US on the issue of obesity is a huge problem that will only worsen our health. We need the intervention of health care to benefit all.

The many stresses noted in #2 above hardly touched the United States. It seems obvious to me that these different experiences could lead to lasting differences on many fundamental social, economic and political issues. "Universal truths" that seem "obvious" to one population may well appear very different to another.

But as Thomas has pointed out, the majority of Americans favor universal health care. It's the politicans that are not responding.

The differences in social and economic welfare between Europe and America collectively, and the rest of the world are so great as to make this dispute somewhat laughable. I am reminded of the old adage concerning the way in which academic disputes are fought with tenacity and ferocity -- "Because the stakes are so low" is the punch line.

And third is the lack of a lobby, though I would think that large employers would be clamoring for the government to take their load.

hamburger, your point is valid, and that is the reason health insurance should not be a function of businesses. They don't buy our homeowners insurance, why health insurance? I realize it got started as a perk, but it should be stopped, and if it has to be legislatively, maybe?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

USAF, Your scenario misses one big point. That kind of emergency is taken care of by calling 911. If you call any hospital with symptoms of a heart attack, you don't wait to drive to the hospital; you call 911, and the medics will take you there - while treating you during the transfer.

When anybody calls 911, they don't ask if you have insurance.

No, it is you who is missing the point. The paramedics cannot preform a bypass surgery. And that surgery has to be paid for by someone.

Bypass surgery in an ambulance? Are you seerious?

No, it is you who is missing the point. The paramedics cannot perform a bypass surgery. And that surgery has to be paid for by someone.

okie wrote:

hamburger, your point is valid, and that is the reason health insurance should not be a function of businesses. They don't buy our homeowners insurance, why health insurance? I realize it got started as a perk, but it should be stopped, and if it has to be legislatively, maybe?

No, I think it got started because there was a demand for better access to health care and the government at that time liked the idea of tying everything to a job. That way if you didn't have health care it was because you were too lazy to get a job. (ok, I'm being cynical.)

cicerone imposter wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

USAF, Your scenario misses one big point. That kind of emergency is taken care of by calling 911. If you call any hospital with symptoms of a heart attack, you don't wait to drive to the hospital; you call 911, and the medics will take you there - while treating you during the transfer.

When anybody calls 911, they don't ask if you have insurance.

No, it is you who is missing the point. The paramedics cannot preform a bypass surgery. And that surgery has to be paid for by someone.

Bypass surgery in an ambulance? Are you seerious?

Your response only proves that you're not *actually* reading what I typed. Let me throw in a little XML for you:

usafhokie80 wrote:

No, it is you who is missing the point. The paramedics cannot perform a bypass surgery. And that surgery has to be paid for by someone.

hamburger, your point is valid, and that is the reason health insurance should not be a function of businesses. They don't buy our homeowners insurance, why health insurance? I realize it got started as a perk, but it should be stopped, and if it has to be legislatively, maybe?

They don't buy our homeowners insurance, why health insurance?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

USAF, Your scenario misses one big point. That kind of emergency is taken care of by calling 911. If you call any hospital with symptoms of a heart attack, you don't wait to drive to the hospital; you call 911, and the medics will take you there - while treating you during the transfer.

When anybody calls 911, they don't ask if you have insurance.

No, it is you who is missing the point. The paramedics cannot preform a bypass surgery. And that surgery has to be paid for by someone.

Bypass surgery in an ambulance? Are you seerious?

Your response only proves that you're not *actually* reading what I typed. Let me throw in a little XML for you:

usafhokie80 wrote:

No, it is you who is missing the point. The paramedics cannot perform a bypass surgery. And that surgery has to be paid for by someone.

No shet!

What exactly was your point? Was your statement meant to reveal some new information?

Quote: The paramedics cannot preform a bypass surgery. And that surgery has to be paid for by someone.