Healthcare - US vs. the rest of the World (hit me)
 

Firstly I don't think Moore is the best person to point at this at his present public (un) acceptance.

BUT as far as I just got involved in a very hectic US healthcare vs. the rest of the world discussion I thought to share something also at the world's utlimate science and philosophy board.

This is what I hear all the time:

- and most of the guys that never had a chance to compare are repeating the same thing as a monkey:

point one:

I am the lucky one who has a chance to pay for the best treatment

- only till you are not too expensive to cure or too predestined to be expensive

point two:

I won't pay for those who are not eligible or willing to pay for their insurance

- there are those who just CAN NOT get insurance or - pay a fortune and no matter how premium their program is they get declined


point three:

I am happy because if it would not be like this I would have to suffer from the horrible medicine level as in the rest of the world

- the quality of the medical treatment - and I mean QUALITY and not LUXURY is actually better or say not worse in the countries with universal healthcare, it's the insurance companies and lobbied goverment that HAVE TO make sure you believe in devil to keep probably more profit from healthcare than the rest of the world makes.


The problem is that noone cares how much you work or how much do you pay or how much do you believe in the rest of the hard working folks.
There are people who believed in their government, their insurance company and in the system, that got crippled or ruined.

If you are too sick and your treatment gets too expensive you are no more a customer of theirs, you are no more a citizen and a human beeing - you better be rich and act fast or you are going to be fucked.

Someone is making a mad coin and a great job to persuade you about the points mentioned above.

The key is to keep the ratio between healthy / happy/ supportive / satisfied vs. crippled / declined people so you will always get enough people that would "never change this because they get the best possible treatment, a great insurance plan and everyone in the hospital smiles at them".

Flame away and add something sensible in between..

http://www.yesmagazine.org/images/is.../us-canada.gif

you are right but the sheep will vote against their interests as they do time and time again.

We spend more per capita than any other country in the world on health care, and still have 47 million people uninsured, and have lower lifespans and higher infant mortality rates.

Even if you worship at the altar of free market capitalism, the hard statistical data alone should convince you that the system needs to be changed.

An employer based system is archaic in a global economy. We need a national system that anyone can use to get coverage.

A. Corporations control the US...
B. The US would rather "help" other countries (if the corps need them to in order to make more money) rather than take care of their own.

By the time mankind realizes that capatalism and the free market are NOT good for mankind, it will be too late.

And by "help" other countries you mean "open up new markets and establish military bases in" :)

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

I guess I am a bad person for believing in a national health care plan...... ESPECIALLY!!!!!! considering how FUCKING RICH our country is :(

you can't take care of people effectively and have to provide shareholder value.

That's a bit too general I would say, actually any theory (including different forms of communism and socialism) look very well on paper, but there always have to be a serious pimphand to make sure noone is fucking around.

But if you can bribe the pimphand, you are on a roll and slowly turning from the capitalism into the oligarchy.

Subtract out the extra deaths from obesity, cigarette smoking and gang shootings and the US life expectancy is longer.

I'm not saying I'm in favor or disfavor, but stats like that are influenced by numerous things like lifestyle. Compare the average American diet to other 1st world countries and it's not surprising that Americans on average may not live as long.

Americans are against universal health care because they are being told taxes will increase well past the cost of insurance. BS or not, it's working.

I'm American, but lived in Canada with a Visa for 2 years. The medical system in Canada was just as fast/slow good/bad as the American one. I never had a single issue or a bill while in Canada, unlike American Ins / Hospitals that charge you a copay or for $50 for an ice pack.

The money the Canadian Gov took from my paycheck was half the amount US insurance companies took

I don't believe it should be the responsibility of government to provide healthcare for its citizens. I don't care if it costs less, more or the same.

One thing that you get with a National system is better health education. Its a great way to reduce the costs.

Smoking and obecity would drop.

The gang shootings are something else altogether.

Smoking and obesity actually reduce costs on the medical system. People die much sooner, and quicker from these illnesses. The longer someone lives beyond retirement, and no longer pays into the system, it increases the financial burden on the medical system. The government will actually have incentive to make sure you arent healthy, and die as quickly as possible beyond retirement age. Look at social security and how they like to bump up the age at which you can receive benefits every once in a while.

Not saying our current system isnt a ridiculous mess, so much so that its almost impossible to make any sense of it, but given the US governments track record, I wouldn't trust it to provide UHC.

the US is not capitalist. And not even close to a free market.

Should it be the government's responsibility to provide security to it's citizens in the form of the military, and federal and local law enforcement?

What about fire protection? Should the government provide that or should we all pay a premium to a for profit fire department and if you don't have coverage then your house burns down?

What about education? Should all elementary schools charge tuition and if you can't afford it then your kids don't get an education?

Maybe all of the roads in the country should be privately owned toll roads, and if you can't pay the toll then you can't drive.

Where do you draw the line on your libertarianism?

I draw the line in many arbitrary places just like everyone else. I'm not against government in general. I'm in favor of smaller government. From my point of view the big ticket items like military spending, medicare, social security, health care and employment insurance are the ones most worth scrutinizing.

I live in Florida. I already can't go for a drive without paying a toll. I don't mind paying a toll for driving. Non-drivers are being unfairly taxed for public transportation!

Honestly, I don't spend a lot time thinking about fire service. It's a very small portion of my total tax burden. I'd be completely happy to pay a fire service fee. Hell, my insurance company should pay the fire department a fee for reducting the potential damage from a fire.

Unfortunately you can't subtract any of those as they are all part of American life. Smoking will be gone long before gang shootings and obesity are. These are two huge problems in North America right now. They definitely need to start educating the youth about the dangers of both so that future generations are not doomed to repeat the same mistakes ours has.

Then what is the function of the government if not to care and provide for it's citizens?

Going to war in the name of "National Security" is no different than spending money on health care. In theory both exist to serve the same means. I really don't understand how you can say you need to keep your citizens safe and ignore that people are dying or living a harder life because they didn't get the proper treatment because they couldn't afford it.

Argue as you will, but if you ignore or deny this correlation you are missing something and need to reevaluate the situation and step outside of your own shoes for a minute.

Well put.

That was in reference to the implication that life expectancy is higher in one country than the other due to healthcare. That may or may not be true. It might also be due to differences in lifestyle. It could also be a combination of the two. But if you are comparing the effects of just health care on life expectancy it would only make sense to adjust for differences in lifestyle.

Why do you think that? If you spend 50% less, never pay for pills again, never pay a copay again, you would save unknown amounts of money over the years. Who's responsibility should it be?

I think you feel this way because you have insurance. But if you couldn't get it, at all, how would you then feel?

My wife has epilepsy and is forced to work for larger corps so she can "live". Just to live, enjoy her kids (which we paid for). If she loses her job for whatever reason, she is fucked. They won't take any amount of money to keep her. To add her to my company, all staff costs increase to $3k monthly, she can't get her own at any price. Oh and her meds, with insurance is still $100's a month and we have a $2k per person copay. That's fair?

Now in Canada, Gov provided health care, it's all free, having kids, the pills, the doctor, emergency rooms, the $50k device in her chest to keep her from having seizures... all of it is included in Canada.

Simple logic tells you that the Universal Health care, like several countries have, is far better in every way, than our current health care system.

Where did I say ANYTHING about it being the government's role to keep its citizens safe? Did someone else say that and you mixed us up? or am I going crazy and not remembering what I posted? Quote me, please?

A lot of people with health insurance don't realize once they switch jobs they may not be able to get health insurance.

Health care is right and not a privilege.

Who cares if it costs more or less for most people on average? Say the government taxes everyone in proportion to their income and then provides everyone with a $1200 per month stipend toward rent or toward their mortage. We can call this new system "Universal Rent Coverage". The majority of the country will be better off simply because they won't pay that much in. Governments are modern-day Robin Hoods. Steal from the rich to give to thw poor.

I'm pretty sure I've heard every argument you guys could possibly use. Really, is someone gonna say something new? same old arguments, You are ignoring one big thing here. Once you have an understanding of the basic argument it's SOLELY a question of what kind of world you would like to live in. I would prefer to live in a state where the government doesn't provide for its citizen's healthcare by taxing its citizens.

I would say this to people that are against "universal healthcare" they argue they don't want socialized medicine in the US. Well guess what we already have it. It;s called medicaid and medicare. Anyone that fails to at least understand that point doesn't even need to continue with the argument. They say they don't want their tax dollars going to socialized medicine. Well it already does. WTF do you think you FICA taxes pay for?

Those against "government healthcare" also need to realize medicaid and medicare ARE NOT going away no matter good an idea that may be or not. now I personally think social security is an outdated program that needs to be done away with. I however understand REALITY and know it's not going away anytime soon. So I can sit here and bitch and moan about the need to get rid of it or I can accept REALITY and at least try to find the best way to deal with the situation as it exists.

So since we already have a quasi socialized medicine system, and we already admit it's fucked up and we already admit it's not going away, hey let's make it work BETTER.

Well since I own my house, I wouldn't need this. However I support low cost gov housing too, like Canada has. You pay that personally, not as a tax. You are playing the 'what if' game, what if we all had the same equal rights, even the most basic, like heath care?

You clearly do not have a clue, if you did.. You would know the tax rate is the same for everyone, you can opt out of it if you choose, and you can apply corp level insurance on top of it.


I think I saw your argument on Fox News.

Has a totally free market ever existed anywhere at any time?

even in israel healthcare is free or just a basic fee nothing much compared to US prices.

Read back just a few posts. I already mentioned medicare and medicaid. Duh, I know we already have these. I was against Bush' Medicare D proposal ever since he made it during the election. So there is no way I would have added Med D a few years back when it passed.

That being said I wouldn't take these services away from anyone already receiving them. There is the rub. Once you introduce such a service it is hard as hell to take them away. You are 100% right. "It is NOT going away anytime soon". I believe these "services" should have never been introduced. That doesn't mean I would eliminate them once they have been introduced. It would make sense to reduce the scope over time though. Pretty sure social security is going to have to be reduced one way or another.

So what do we do with the poor? The people who can't work? Who can't get insurance, or older people?

You are quick to say no to universal health care, so what is your alternative solution to this massive problem?

You do realize that if people are sick and can't go to the doctor then they miss work and then that hurt productivity and then hurts the economy. They also earn less money which gives them less money to spend which also hurts the economy. People like you fail to see the big long term picture. Which is surprising sicne you supposedly run a business.

well good luck to any politican whose "solution" to the healthcare crisis is to reduce benefits over time. He'll never get elected and if you aren't in power you can't change shit.

And you're right SS is one big fuck-up and they are going to fuck around until something drastic has to be done and then NO ONE will be happy.
And the reason nothing gets done is because the people for keeping it as is and the people that want to get rid of it completele will never see eye to eye until the shit hits the fan. This is also a reason why minimum wage get raised only once every 10 years, when common sense would dictate an annual raise based on inflation would be less stressful on business than $2.10 over 2 years. And within that 10 year people people are earning more money instead of seeing stagnant wages.

Say you net $10 million per year and that 15% of the budget goes toward healthcare expenses. Then you paid $1.5 million per year for healthcare. That sounds a little too expensive to me.

So your problem is a philosophical one. That's fine....but there are millions of us who would rather pay less money to get more healthcare, regardless of whether or not it offends your philosophy about what government should and shouldn't do.

Ideals are fine, but for issues like these it's in everyone's best interest to be practical.

Why stop there?

Subtract out cancer, car accidents and any other cause of premature death and hell yeah, the life expectancy will be longer! US is #1!!!

People who can't afford automobiles are hurting the economy by not having the full range of job opportunities available to them that they would with better transportation. Do you think we should increase taxes in order to provide "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage"?

We already went over this point, Stuart. You probably haven't read the whole thread yet though.

That's exactly it. No more, no less.