Healthcare: What's your opinion.

[Airstrip 100]

Impractical theory is bad theory. People always use "Oh communism was good in theory" against Libertarianism. I say that communism was never good in theory.

There is no reason why free markets would result in no healthcare. Logic backs up the conclusions that free markets would produce cheaper (Tax included in expense) and higher quality healthcare.

I've got to go so I wont be able to explain much at the moment.

I would really like to see this 'logic', which seems to fly in the face of all evidence.

So according to your theory, the real world is refusing to behave 'logically'? (Of course, it can't be the other way around. There's no comprehensible way for your theory to be incorrect, it simply does not compute. Therefore, it must be reality's fault for refusing to conform.)

How else do you explain the fact that nationalised health services (Australia again) are better and cheaper than the American system, which is much more privatised? The appalling state of the America system in comparison does not give any points to a more privatised system. You argue that it's not privatised enough, that there's too much government interfence, but the fact is that privatisation of the healthcare system simply does not work, no matter what your logic may dictate.

[Nimzonia]

A lot of people are mentioning "free healthcare" and citing the NHS. But the NHS isn't free! It costs every person in the UK £1,600/day to pay for it, and when you consider not everybody in the UK is paying taxes (i.e. children, immigrants, other exempts) then the cost per person per day rises.

That's British ingenuity, being able to support a healthcare system that costs about 25 times our entire GDP.

[Sol Bella]

*Needed only to the extent that private companies cannot fill, or for those who have the crudentials and cannot afford private

CAPTAIN CENTRISM, AWAAAYYY!

[Hamiltonya]

Prove the "Well why don't the poor not work spiel" wrong.

I will try. I never said innovation was the problem with universal healthcare in Japan. If you can find one that would do a better job than a privatized healthcare system( obviously the US needs to regulate insurance companies) with regulated insurance companies, I will gladly support it.

Except, regulate the insurance companies to where they aren't making a deficit like in Germany. If you can find a way for the poor to be supported without being a burden on others, go for it. Nice strawman fallacy there. It was understood, by universal healthcare I was discussing government-controlled healthcare. How did everyone else I've talked to on this topic make the connection when you didn't? In fact, you already made this connection when you were arguing with me about taxes. Oh, and please provide an example of your universal healthcare without any public companies.

Yes and there are 20 million who can not afford it, that medicaid does not cover, so on. Do you not understand how high the GDP per capita is in the US?

As long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, yes.

Prove it wrong? How? It's a ridiclous hyperbolic thing that has never happened and never will happen.

There's no reason you can't have privitied insurance companies in a UHC system. As long as they are non-profit.

You're really really into talking about how the poor are a burden and oh the humanity why should I be burdened. People are literally dying and going bankrupt (even middle class people!) and the thing you are most concerned about are how "burdened" people that are infinitely richer than you will be.

Healthcare is not and should not be about whether you make a profit of a defecit. It should be about providing healthcare. But obviously not making a defecit would be better.

Can you show me Germanys public company? I don't want to go through all the UHC countries and check just yet.

Since you mentioned GDP per capita I could talk about how the U.S. spends nearly double per capita than everyone else for a worse system?

http://planetpov.com/wp-content/uploads ... thcare.png

Are there any grey countries that aren't the U.S. you would like to live in? (The orange is very interesting.)

So, your argument is that it's impossible that the poor won't work if the rich provide basic standards of living because it's hyperbolic? Really? This happens in America all of the time. It's not impossible, you're ignorant. I will never say that all or even most welfare recipients do not work because they are provided for by welfare but arguing none work due to this is just as stupid as arguing all do.

Um no. We have systems to prevent people from dying. Bankruptcy happens. That's capitalism for you but often times, during bankruptcy people keep their homes and cars. You're saying, "Oh, the rich are so powerful and eviiilllll!!! We should take all their money and help the poor to prevent them from taking over the world. I mean they have so much and don't deserve any of it!!! Equality only counts if it's for the poor..." There are middle class people starving? Really?

Healthcare should never make a deficit, for reasons like spending cuts of R and D and lower quality of healthcare with less options and long waiting times.

Here the source that talks about Germany's public insurance companies. Plus, German healthcare has a income cap at 65,000 meaning they suffer the consequences of all public healthcare systems with shortages in supplies, a small variety of treatment options, a shortage of doctors, ect.
http://www.globalsurance.com/blog/germany’s-public-health-insurance-premiums-could-rise-356420.html

Really? The US has a worst system?
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... and-cancer
http://www.policynetwork.net/health/med ... room-floor

Are there any blue countries with better healthcare systems either?

[Hamiltonya]

Lol so you're saying that it should be more like this:

Bill's income tax is 20%, he pays $20, leaving him $80 to cover rent, food, and bills.
Ted's income tax is 92%, he pays $920, leaving him $80 to cover rent, food, and bills.

Do you see the problem, or do I have to be more specific?

Obvious strawman is obvious.

It's not strawman because I'm not attempting to refute his argument about flat taxes. I'm attacking his use of unrealistic examples by showing you can manipulate taxes to make anything look bad.

P.S. nice argument there. Stop trying to appear smart through attacking the debate when you're too stupid to provide an argument.

[Seperate Vermont]

Public option systems should be determined by local governments based on their economic and societal conditions.

[Libertarctica]

What has ruined the US health care system? Is it markets? No. Is it crony, corporatist, centrally controlled, state capitalism? Yes.

So according to your theory, the real world is refusing to behave 'logically'? (Of course, it can't be the other way around. There's no comprehensible way for your theory to be incorrect, it simply does not compute. Therefore, it must be reality's fault for refusing to conform.)

I didn't understand this but it is true people aren't very logical on this planet. Why do we still have religious fanatics?

How else do you explain the fact that nationalised health services (Australia again) are better and cheaper than the American system

US crony, corporatist, centrally controlled, state capitalism. Surely I don't need to give examples of this though? It should be obvious and you can easily research this.

The appalling state of the America system in comparison does not give any points to a more privatised system

Of-course not. It shows the evils of big fascist governments.

You argue that it's not privatised enough, that there's too much government interfence, but the fact is that privatisation of the healthcare system simply does not work

Not always. It doesn't work when you include the law which restricts competition and freedom in markets in favour of special interest groups and the best lobbyists.

Why, for example, are drugs so expensive in the US. Is it because of markets? No. Is it because of patents and government regulation which allows big corporations to dictate the market? Yes.

in the face of all evidence.

Evidence? You might like how things are now but there is no reason why things can't be sooooo much better. Give evidence against free markets and prove with logic why this definitely means free markets cannot work better than your nationalisation alternative.

[Hamiltonya]

Or national healthcare: feel ill> have to wait 3 weeks for treatment > infect others, then die

Except you don't. I've never, EVER, waited more than a couple of weeks (that wait was due to me being busy and unable to go earlier). The average is hours, maybe days.

privatized: Feel ill> state of emergency declared > state hospitals set up to take care of those who can't afford healthcare...

Have you read a single thing I've posted, like, at all? Infectious disease != pandemic.

You're talking about projects that benefit everyone.... I already said that about 8 times....

Whereas you are talking about projects that benefit a tiny proportion of the world. Therefore, mine is the superior solution.

Neo art is talking about the wrong subject. He is talking about government regulations of an industry. That is the government's job and the government does a pretty good job of it. regulation =/= complete control over..... It is not the job of the government to run an entire industry. I don't need to provide examples of failures in the government to run industries... just look at the Soviet Union.

Providing a free service != complete control. The government provides free education, but private schools still operate. The UK has an NHS, but BUPA still exists. Invalid point.

Here's one that says 1,000,000 and 100,000.http://www.policynetwork.net/health/med ... room-floor
Here's another source which states 900,000 and 50,000 operations. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/05 ... oe-tanner5
Another that shows more wait times is here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... mes-longer

Seeing a GP takes less than a day, usually. Being referred to specialists can take a little longer, but not problematically so, and only if it's a non-serious issue.

As these sources show. Universal Healthcare doesn't treat everybody therefore a pandemic would be just as prevalent.

Yes, it does. Those statistics are for non-emergencies.

LOL Medicaid and Medicare not being enough does not mean we should screw over the majority of people and get universal healthcare. It means we need to fix and revamp medicare and medicaid.

Fix and revamp medicare/medicaid == universal healthcare, if you want it to work.

Seriously? You're arguing everybody's wealth came from someone taking it from someone else? Um no. Agriculture? As far as I know taking from plants is okay. Starting a business is taking from people? Don't you usually give them something in exchange though?

Yes, absolutely. How did you get the land to plant on? How did the initial investment for the business get there? Yes, the money comes from exploitation, in (almost) every situation.

Um no those statements are not equivalent. My house =/= someone's life. My ability to own property and protect it > than someone's life.

Yes, they are. If you have the right to defend something in preference to someone's life, that is saying that the thing you are protecting is more important than their life.

]quote]Really? The fact you allow abortion is the most ridiculous thing you've read today? Interesting.... I think the most ridiculous thing I've read today is how my ancestors stole everything they own by being farmers.... Congratulations.... [/quote]

Now go back and read what I said. I said that your suggestion that no opinion = disagrees with you is ridiculous.

Um no. Source would be the Spanish Influenza. Universal Healthcare is too slow to react. Check the 3 above sources. That's in a country with 1/5 the population of the US so you can only imagine how many people would wait here. Really? treatment first questions later equals universal healthcare? Does that make our emergency rooms universal healthcare?

Source? The Spanish Flu was during WWI. No more at all, since a) that's non-urgent treatment (in the US, most people will wait longer off the books, the rich will get fast treatment) and b) 5*population = 5*available funding. No, treatment first, questions never = universal healthcare. They are a small step on the way to it, but nowhere near a decent start.

So maybe it would be best to expand medicaid.....

... into a universal healthcare system. Absolutely.

How does the profit motive exist for every individual involved when you don't own a private practice and you're paid regulated wages?

Work well, keep job, get paid. Don't work well, get fired, don't get paid. Work well, get pay rise. For the last and final fucking time, universal healthcare != regulated wages. It works well enough in the education system, why not healthcare? You can still own a private practice, you'll just have to be good enough that people will choose to pay you in preference to using the free version.

Clearly not. If you check the 3 sources, all of the one's above say the number of people having to wait is increasing...

Yup. Roughly in line with the increase in population, in fact.

Other people in the post already talked with me about the reasons people in the US pay more. Feel free to actually read the arguments. It was decided it would be better for heavier regulation on insurance companies.

I've read every post in this thread. Have you? There's not a lot that'll force them to drop their prices to reasonable levels and boost quality faster than a universal healthcare service.

Yeah I definitely didn't saying hospitals did research and development. I said R and D would be the first thing cut. Governments tend to choose the cheapest ways possibly to treat illness to help lower costs. Even if R and D is not part of universal healthcare it still suffers.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... and-cancer

For fucks sake. Universal. Healthcare. Does. Not. Imply. That. The. Government. Does. Research. How is this fucking difficult?

So the poor get to pay a tiny bit of their healthcare while everyone else is forced to pick up the rest of the bill? Really? How will they pay for the rise in taxes if they can't afford healthcare now? You're walking around the question saying it would be cheaper but cheaper doesn't equal affordable.

So the poor get to pay a tiny bit of their education while everyone else is forced to pick up the rest of the bill? Really? How did they pay for the rise in taxes if they couldn't afford education before? You're walking around the question by saying it would be cheaper but cheaper doesn't equal affordable.

They are logically identical (besides a shift in dates).

There wouldn't be a rise in taxes if we adopted universal healthcare? Really?

As I have demonstrated, repeatedly, universal healthcare costs the government less than the current system.

I know several people that have gone to the doctor with a headache because they get severe migraines. You've never met someone that gets severe migraines?

Note: you know them in the US. I am not aware of anyone in the UK that does. They mostly get a repeat prescription for some form of painkillers, then the problem is fixed. You just defeated your own argument.

How are doctors with a regulated salary that don't own their own practice going to be able to pay for mal-practice suits?

Fire them. Easy. Or just fix the ridiculous culture of suing people who haven't done anything particularly wrong.

Who would want to be a doctor if one mistake means you'll be millions in debt for the rest of your life because the government doesn't protect you form mal-practice suits? There's a shortage of doctors right now. How are we going to fire the incompetents without increasing waiting lists to incredibly long amounts of time?

Because the UK is entirely running out of doctors, whereas the US has them coming out of its ears. Because Cuba doesn't have many, many doctors per capita than the US. OH WAIT.

Here's a source that talks about how the US beats out everyone in cancer treatment statistics. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... and-cancer

And a source that isn't off a propaganda website and/or that actually backs up its claims, please.

Here's a source that proves you wrong about switzerland. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/18 ... -mcmanus18

Try reading your source:

Here's how the Swiss system works: Everyone is required to buy basic health insurance from one of several private companies; the government subsidizes the cost for low-income families. Consumers can choose any insurer and go to any doctor -- more choice than most Americans now enjoy.

It agrees with me.

Why should everyone else have to pay for the healthcare of the poor when the poor do not have to pay for anyone's including their own?

Covered so many times it isn't even funny any more. The same reasons you pay for their education, and more besides. It's to everyone's benefit.

Seriously? What country do most people who purchase products from glaxosmithklein live in?

No given country, they sell things all over the world. Their products:

Advair
Albenza
Alli
Amerge
Amoxil
Aquafresh
Arixtra
Arranon
Augmentin
Avandia
Avodart
BC Powder
Beano
Beconase
Biotene
Boniva
Boost
Ceftin
Coreg
Coreg CR
Dexedrine
Flixonase
Geritol
Gly-Oxide
Goody's Powder
Horlicks
Imitrex
Keppra
Lamictal
Lanoxin
Levitra(Bayer healthcare)
Lovaza
Lucozade
Macleans (toothpaste)
Nicoderm
Nicorette
NiQuitin
Pandemrix
Panadol
Panadol night
Parnate
Parodontax
Paxil
Promacta
Ralgex
Relenza
Requip
Ribena
Sensodyne
Serlipet
Setlers
Tagamet
Treximet
Tums
Trizivir
Twinrix
Tykerb
Valtrex
Ventolin HFA
Veramyst
Vesicare
Wellbutrin
Zantac
Zofran
Zovirax

Bolded a few that are of particular interest.

I'm not sure what that second section is talking about. Is it addressed to me?

Sorry, the quotes went wrong. My responses got mixed up, the double-quoted section is a series of my points, everything else managed to get cropped out. That was a response to your point about healthcare costs rising with development.[/quote]

I never said you had to wait or that the average was over a few hours. I simply provided sources that show an incredible amount of people do have to wait and that's merely for regular sickness, much less a pandemic. If that many people are waiting, they're not getting treatment and they're spreading the pandemic.

No, an infectious disease only equals a pandemic in your world and as I've already shown you, having roughly a million people wait will still lead to the pandemic spreading.

What are you talking about? How does my argument support only a tiny portion? I'm fighting for healthcare for the majority. Your fighting for 20 million people in a country of 335 million.

Nope. Your logic is invalid. Providing a service has nothing to due with this argument. I was talking about regulation. The government does not provide those services, it only regulates them. Yet, which school would you rather have your children go to? Private or public? Why would we want our healthcare to be as bad as our education system?

These sources say your wrong when it comes to nearly a million people.

Exactly. If in a non-emergency a million people are waiting can you imagine if there was an emergency? There wouldn't be more doctors so why would the waits be shorter? In reality the waits would grow exponentially.

Except that medicaid and medicare wouldn't mess with the healthcare of everyone.

Are you kidding me? No one occupied the land when they started growing on it and investors receive dividends. Most businesses don't start off with the owner robbing a bank to get the initial investment. You're so crazy! Do you really believe that all money is taken from another person? That's incredible!

No, it's not. That's like saying my freedom of speech equals me calling someone an ass. Someone's life does not equal my right to call them an ass but my freedom of speech is worth someone's life.

I never said silence equals disagreeing with me. I said it equals support for abortion. Watching an abortion and not stopping it is silence. Though you're not supporting abortion, you're allowing it to happen and that's just as awful. This isn't related but it's an example of silence. If you watch someone get murdered and don't call the police or contact the authorities, you will go to prison as an accessory to murder. Silence isn't support?

Where's your source the rich will get treated faster? Not if one of the 5 can't pay. Bull crap. Universal healthcare asks questions too. In fact, in Canada people are often forced to pay for treatments not covered by the healthcare system. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/canada.asp

Sure, as long as the system is still private.

How are they going to fire doctors without creating ridiculously long waiting lists when there is already a shortage of doctors? Well why is it fair that some patients get doctors who are paid more, and paid by everyone mind you not just their patients, while other patients get doctors who can barely keep their job? Yet, most public systems have regulated wages. Wouldn't all the good doctors leave for private practices then? Doesn't that screw over the public side considering they get all the crappy doctors? Like I said earlier, why would we want our healthcare system anything like our education system?

Nope. The waiting lists are growing exponentially compared to the population increases.

No. A public healthcare system is extreme if it's only reason is to lower the cost of insurance. Clearly you haven't read them all if you asked already answered questions. It would be much simpler to regulate insurance companies and receive the same effect without losing quality in healthcare. How will regulation not work? That doesn't even make sense. The government says have these prices or you can't sell in the US... How will the insurance companies not drop their prices?

Are you kidding me? I never said that the government would do R and D. Get it through your thick skull!!!!!! If the hospitals purchase the products R and D companies invent, and the hospitals are controlled by the government, in order to cut costs in the hospitals, the government will stop buying new products and simply use old treatment methods!!!!!!! It's not that hard to understand. R and D companies will suffer because no one will buy their products.

Exactly and education is in the shithole. Why would we want our healthcare as bad as our education? Plus, education is paid for by property taxes, so the rich don't have to pay for schools their children wouldn't go to. They're not logically identifiable unless you simplify them to an extreme.

Yes, it would cut costs but at what price, but when you transfer from private to public taxes are going to rise.....

Um no, you just defeated your own. People don't go to the doctor in the UK because they know they will merely get prescribed medication. They won't receive treatment for the actual cause of their pain. That's not healthcare. That's a delay of healthcare.

Fire doctors in the middle of a shortage? You can't get rid of mal-practice suits. Though it may be an accident, it still may have left the patient unable to work or in constant pain.

There's a shortage in both. That still leaves your "fire 'em" argument invalid. Lol Cuba counts as an argument. Cuba has so many doctors because Castro made it a priority. These countries take responsibility for mal-practice suits not leaving the responsibility on the doctor. You can't use countries that take responsibility for mal-practice suits as examples for a system that doesn't take the responsibility for the doctors... http://www.slate.com/id/2158866/

Eh, I guess you're right. The swiss does not have a public, universal healthcare system. They have a fantastic private one that beats out most other European countries. I guess you're right. Win for public healthcare.....

You have yet to cover it. It is not for everyone's benefits, just those of the poor. The rich don't pay for the education of the poor because school systems are paid for by property taxes.

Their products sell all over the world does not answer the question I've asked 3 times now. It's not important to this argument that they sell products to many different countries. It's more important to see who buys the majority. So I ask again, what country buys MOST of their products. Showing me their products doesn't answer the question either.

[Dazchan]

Obvious strawman is obvious.

It's not strawman because I'm not attempting to refute his argument about flat taxes.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Lol so you're saying that it should be more like this:

Bill's income tax is 20%, he pays $20, leaving him $80 to cover rent, food, and bills.
Ted's income tax is 92%, he pays $920, leaving him $80 to cover rent, food, and bills.

Do you see the problem, or do I have to be more specific?

You constructed my opinion in a way that misrepresents what I was saying. Thus, it is a strawman.

I'm attacking his use of unrealistic examples by showing you can manipulate taxes to make anything look bad.

What was unrealistic about it? People do earn amounts as small as $100 per week. People do earn amounts as large as $1000 per week. 20% is a realistic tax rate. I fail to see how I've manipulated anything.

P.S. nice argument there. Stop trying to appear smart through attacking the debate when you're too stupid to provide an argument.

[/quote]

So we've moved on from fallacies to ad hominem attacks. What's next, "Yo mama" jokes?

[Libertarctica]

People who buy private health care plans in the UK have to also pay for the NHS.

Often these people will have quite a bit of earnings which means they have to pay more than other people for the NHS.

The NHS is not free. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I've been looking for UK government spending data and all I can find is budgeted figures. No actual spending data anywhere.

I want to see the real spending on the NHS.

[Hamiltonya]

It's not strawman because I'm not attempting to refute his argument about flat taxes.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Lol so you're saying that it should be more like this:

Bill's income tax is 20%, he pays $20, leaving him $80 to cover rent, food, and bills.
Ted's income tax is 92%, he pays $920, leaving him $80 to cover rent, food, and bills.

Do you see the problem, or do I have to be more specific?

You constructed my opinion in a way that misrepresents what I was saying. Thus, it is a strawman.

I'm attacking his use of unrealistic examples by showing you can manipulate taxes to make anything look bad.

What was unrealistic about it? People do earn amounts as small as $100 per week. People do earn amounts as large as $1000 per week. 20% is a realistic tax rate. I fail to see how I've manipulated anything.

P.S. nice argument there. Stop trying to appear smart through attacking the debate when you're too stupid to provide an argument.

So we've moved on from fallacies to ad hominem attacks. What's next, "Yo mama" jokes? [/quote]

It doesn't misrepresent what you're saying because my comment isn't even about flat tax rates. What's unrealistic about my example? I used the same amounts. 92% is a realistic tax rate as well. An unrealistic rate would be like 105% or 1,5i4,923%. I was simply showing how stupid your logic was by providing an extreme. I was not attempting to make any assumption about your position.

Nice try troll.

[Alyakia]

Prove it wrong? How? It's a ridiclous hyperbolic thing that has never happened and never will happen.

There's no reason you can't have privitied insurance companies in a UHC system. As long as they are non-profit.

You're really really into talking about how the poor are a burden and oh the humanity why should I be burdened. People are literally dying and going bankrupt (even middle class people!) and the thing you are most concerned about are how "burdened" people that are infinitely richer than you will be.

Healthcare is not and should not be about whether you make a profit of a defecit. It should be about providing healthcare. But obviously not making a defecit would be better.

Can you show me Germanys public company? I don't want to go through all the UHC countries and check just yet.

Since you mentioned GDP per capita I could talk about how the U.S. spends nearly double per capita than everyone else for a worse system?

http://planetpov.com/wp-content/uploads ... thcare.png

Are there any grey countries that aren't the U.S. you would like to live in? (The orange is very interesting.)

So, your argument is that it's impossible that the poor won't work if the rich provide basic standards of living because it's hyperbolic? Really? This happens in America all of the time. It's not impossible, you're ignorant. I will never say that all or even most welfare recipients do not work because they are provided for by welfare but arguing none work due to this is just as stupid as arguing all do.

Um no. We have systems to prevent people from dying. Bankruptcy happens. That's capitalism for you but often times, during bankruptcy people keep their homes and cars. You're saying, "Oh, the rich are so powerful and eviiilllll!!! We should take all their money and help the poor to prevent them from taking over the world. I mean they have so much and don't deserve any of it!!! Equality only counts if it's for the poor..." There are middle class people starving? Really?

Healthcare should never make a deficit, for reasons like spending cuts of R and D and lower quality of healthcare with less options and long waiting times.

Here the source that talks about Germany's public insurance companies. Plus, German healthcare has a income cap at 65,000 meaning they suffer the consequences of all public healthcare systems with shortages in supplies, a small variety of treatment options, a shortage of doctors, ect.
http://www.globalsurance.com/blog/germany’s-public-health-insurance-premiums-could-rise-356420.html

Really? The US has a worst system?
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... and-cancer
http://www.policynetwork.net/health/med ... room-floor

Are there any blue countries with better healthcare systems either?

No, it doesn't happen in America all the time. It is impossible. People who are able to work and will recievable a livable wage will always work.

We have systems to prevent people from dying. They don't work. Bankruptcy is a pre-existing condition. I'm saying that people who are able to give more should give more. Oh no, the plight of the rich. Now an extra 1% of thier millions of dollars will go to helping people. What a huge burden. Think of all the luxury goods they cannot afford now. The burden. THE BURDEN.

Do you think that it acceptable that there are companies that enter healthcare solely to generate and maximie profit for themselves at every level?

"That is to say, Americans don't have better cancer care, just better cancer statistics, results inflated by excessive screening of some cancers (like prostate) that have good outcomes because of the nature of the cancer (slow growing). "

Did you read this part of the first article?

The second article mentions many things. Like infections and poor standards of care, mainly due to the fact that hospitals are allowed to audit themselves and the disaster resulting from the privitization and out souring of hospital sanition. And wait times, caused by the fact that when you treat everybody, uh, you treat everybody. And you can't buy your way to the front. Like you could in the U.S. if the U.S. had waiting lists which they don't because their system is so awesome. Not that I've ever seen a reputable source that has patients waiting years for "routine" surgeries or they say what these surgeries are. I've never had a problem getting an appointment. Or in short, it's complete and utter crap. An opinion article with no sources. Just another 70 or systems to go until we can prove once and for all UHC doesn't work.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 1rank.html

Is there any reason why the United States superior healthcare system has a larger infant morality rate than hellholes like Cuba? (Yes, these statistics are adjusted for differences in reporting.)

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk12 ... kornee.gif

If we ask the WHO, yes. But you never answered the question. What grey countries that aren't the U.S. would you like to live in?

There's one thing I don't get. You are endlessly weeping over the BURDEN of the rich paying slightly more of their fortune and are against governement healthcare and love private companies but you openly admit that healthcare needs large government intervention and regulation in order to make it work.

[Alyakia]

What has ruined the US health care system? Is it markets? No. Is it crony, corporatist, centrally controlled, state capitalism? Yes.

So according to your theory, the real world is refusing to behave 'logically'? (Of course, it can't be the other way around. There's no comprehensible way for your theory to be incorrect, it simply does not compute. Therefore, it must be reality's fault for refusing to conform.)

I didn't understand this but it is true people aren't very logical on this planet. Why do we still have religious fanatics?

How else do you explain the fact that nationalised health services (Australia again) are better and cheaper than the American system

US crony, corporatist, centrally controlled, state capitalism. Surely I don't need to give examples of this though? It should be obvious and you can easily research this.

The appalling state of the America system in comparison does not give any points to a more privatised system

Of-course not. It shows the evils of big fascist governments.

You argue that it's not privatised enough, that there's too much government interfence, but the fact is that privatisation of the healthcare system simply does not work

Not always. It doesn't work when you include the law which restricts competition and freedom in markets in favour of special interest groups and the best lobbyists.

Why, for example, are drugs so expensive in the US. Is it because of markets? No. Is it because of patents and government regulation which allows big corporations to dictate the market? Yes.

in the face of all evidence.

Evidence? You might like how things are now but there is no reason why things can't be sooooo much better. Give evidence against free markets and prove with logic why this definitely means free markets cannot work better than your nationalisation alternative.

Why are drug costs lower in our government controlled cartel than the U.S. crony capitalist landd?

[Alyakia]

Impractical theory is bad theory. People always use "Oh communism was good in theory" against Libertarianism. I say that communism was never good in theory.

There is no reason why free markets would result in no healthcare. Logic backs up the conclusions that free markets would produce cheaper (Tax included in expense) and higher quality healthcare.

I've got to go so I wont be able to explain much at the moment.

I love this theory. We should implement a system based upon this flawed, childish and untested theory as opposed to the stable and proved to work models of every nation worth living in that may result in intense human suffering and death because

[Dazchan]

It doesn't misrepresent what you're saying because my comment isn't even about flat tax rates.

No, we were talking about unicorns and teapots.

What's unrealistic about my example? I used the same amounts. 92% is a realistic tax rate as well.

No, it really isn't. It is demonstrably unrealistic from the fact that no developed nation has a tax rate of 92%.

I was simply showing how stupid your logic was by providing an extreme.

And that is a really dumb thing to do in a debate.

I was not attempting to make any assumption about your position.

And yet, when you proposed your ridiculous scenario, you made a conscious effort to paint it as my position.

Nice try troll.

Right back at ya, champ.

[Alyakia]

The very reason health insurance exists is because the costs of healthcare are too expensive for the average man to pay up front. Your money and other peoples money are pooled and then used when needed. Richer people pay higher premiums for thier plans even if they are not any better than the ones you get. How is private insurance not paying for other peoples healthcare and public insurance is?

Both are paid from collective funds.

[Kongra]

How is private insurance not paying for other peoples healthcare and public insurance is?

To play devil's advocate, those who are the biggest burden on a private insurance fund pay higher premiums which is perceived as being "fairer".

[Libertarctica]

I'm going to use this to try and find the actual NHS spending between 2008-09: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pesa_2010_complete.pdf

Please correct me if it is wrong. It says budget but also says outturn so I guess it is the real spending

In Millions of GBP (Not inflation adjusted so it would be more in real terms but inflation adjustment wont be perfect)

Resource Expenditure (DEL): 90,278
Resource Expenditure (AME): 14,984
Admin Expenditure: 273
Capital Expenditure (DEL): 4,370
Capital Expenditure (AME): 14

Total = £109,919,000,000 (Nearest million) or one hundred and nine billion, nine hundred and nineteen million.

Is this wrong or is it right? It might be the budgeted figures and not the actual but it's still £1801.95 per capita.

BTW £4,350,000,000, 4.35 billion was spent on administration for "Chancellor’s Department"?!?!

Take a look at the bank bailouts figures and also the subsidies. The subsidies are in many billions but I bet it is actually more than they put down.

Remember it is 2008-09.

[Unhiding]

Sicknesses, illnesses, cancers, broken bones and all that are mostly random stuff that can happen to anyone. Therefore the only reasonable way is the public healthcare which works by taxes. Private healthcare should only exists for those who want it faster and are willing to pay extra. Plus with goverment paid health and medicine people can keep working longer and pay more taxes because their diseases get treated and cured without bankrupting them.

To me it is just plain disgusting that perfectly treatable diseases could still kill people. To have parents of children, children of parents, husbands, wives, friends and relatives die to mostly harmless diseases simply because not being not rich enough to be able to pay his appendix removal or diabetes medication is just disgusting.

Imagine having your child born with a heart problem requiring expensive medication. Living in the american system you have insurance through your work. But then later you lose your job (recession or whatever reason). So being the perfect example of private healthcare you lose your child too...?

It is about sharing the costs. I'd be pro public healthcare even if it was more expensive than some private healthcare options simply because it is just totally inhumane to kill people to save little money. But there is really no choise as the public healthcare seems to win just about every way. It's cheaper, it's more humane, it's more effective, it's more equal, it allows more choise and there are less middlemen taking a cut when you pay for your healthcare.

[Alyakia]

How is private insurance not paying for other peoples healthcare and public insurance is?

To play devil's advocate, those who are the biggest burden on a private insurance fund pay higher premiums which is perceived as being "fairer".

Often times this makes healthcare and insurance unaffordable for the people that need it most.

Even with higher premiums the care is still paid for from a collective fund.

If we consider smokers a burden, in a private and public system that would seek to reduce this burden, the private system would do it by increasing the cost of insurance, perhaps making it too expensive for some and denying them healthcare. The public system would do it with the increasing taxes on cigarettes we see today. In essence, both would reciecve more money as a result of smokers. One would do it by increasing the cost of healthcare, the other would do it by increasing the cost of cigarettes. (Or the money they gain as a result of cigarettes being traded.) Of course, cigarette prices haven't went up by 1000/10,000s.

[Hamiltonya]

So, your argument is that it's impossible that the poor won't work if the rich provide basic standards of living because it's hyperbolic? Really? This happens in America all of the time. It's not impossible, you're ignorant. I will never say that all or even most welfare recipients do not work because they are provided for by welfare but arguing none work due to this is just as stupid as arguing all do.

Um no. We have systems to prevent people from dying. Bankruptcy happens. That's capitalism for you but often times, during bankruptcy people keep their homes and cars. You're saying, "Oh, the rich are so powerful and eviiilllll!!! We should take all their money and help the poor to prevent them from taking over the world. I mean they have so much and don't deserve any of it!!! Equality only counts if it's for the poor..." There are middle class people starving? Really?

Healthcare should never make a deficit, for reasons like spending cuts of R and D and lower quality of healthcare with less options and long waiting times.

Here the source that talks about Germany's public insurance companies. Plus, German healthcare has a income cap at 65,000 meaning they suffer the consequences of all public healthcare systems with shortages in supplies, a small variety of treatment options, a shortage of doctors, ect.
http://www.globalsurance.com/blog/germany’s-public-health-insurance-premiums-could-rise-356420.html

Really? The US has a worst system?
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... and-cancer
http://www.policynetwork.net/health/med ... room-floor

Are there any blue countries with better healthcare systems either?

No, it doesn't happen in America all the time. It is impossible. People who are able to work and will recievable a livable wage will always work.

We have systems to prevent people from dying. They don't work. Bankruptcy is a pre-existing condition. I'm saying that people who are able to give more should give more. Oh no, the plight of the rich. Now an extra 1% of thier millions of dollars will go to helping people. What a huge burden. Think of all the luxury goods they cannot afford now. The burden. THE BURDEN.

Do you think that it acceptable that there are companies that enter healthcare solely to generate and maximie profit for themselves at every level?

"That is to say, Americans don't have better cancer care, just better cancer statistics, results inflated by excessive screening of some cancers (like prostate) that have good outcomes because of the nature of the cancer (slow growing). "

Did you read this part of the first article?

The second article mentions many things. Like infections and poor standards of care, mainly due to the fact that hospitals are allowed to audit themselves and the disaster resulting from the privitization and out souring of hospital sanition. And wait times, caused by the fact that when you treat everybody, uh, you treat everybody. And you can't buy your way to the front. Like you could in the U.S. if the U.S. had waiting lists which they don't because their system is so awesome. Not that I've ever seen a reputable source that has patients waiting years for "routine" surgeries or they say what these surgeries are. I've never had a problem getting an appointment. Or in short, it's complete and utter crap. An opinion article with no sources. Just another 70 or systems to go until we can prove once and for all UHC doesn't work.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 1rank.html

Is there any reason why the United States superior healthcare system has a larger infant morality rate than hellholes like Cuba? (Yes, these statistics are adjusted for differences in reporting.)

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk12 ... kornee.gif

If we ask the WHO, yes. But you never answered the question. What grey countries that aren't the U.S. would you like to live in?

There's one thing I don't get. You are endlessly weeping over the BURDEN of the rich paying slightly more of their fortune and are against governement healthcare and love private companies but you openly admit that healthcare needs large government intervention and regulation in order to make it work.

That's probably the most naive statement I've ever read. No they won't.....

First off, your fairy-tale, magical world is unpractical. How do the systems right now let people die? Are you so ignorant you think people will stop at 1%? Do you forget when the rich used to pay 70%? I'm not arguing the burden is a huge amount. I'm arguing a burden at all is wrong. It doesn't matter if it's 1% or 100%. P.S. Social welfare has been getting better and taxes on the rich have been dropping over the past decades. WWAAHHHH??!!!?!!?! How is this possible? We should be taxing the rich so that social progress continues!!!! Oh wait.....

Nope. I see no problem with this at all. That tends to be the reason most people enter healthcare.

Did you read the rest of the article? "So in the final analysis, Cohn and other critics are right that prostate cancer skews the statistics—but not nearly enough to account for the superiority of American cancer survival rates."

Lol really? You don't need sources to know there are waits. I thought I already showed you 3 but I can show you these same 3 again.

Here's one that says 1,000,000 and 100,000.http://www.policynetwork.net/health/med ... room-floor
Here's another source which states 900,000 and 50,000 operations. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/05 ... oe-tanner5
Another that shows more wait times is here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... mes-longer

Canada and the EU are also below Cuba and Cuba has one of the highest doctor per person ratios of any country.

Yeah... First, I'd like to see sources that proves those green countries are adopting healthcare. Second, your map is wrong. http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/coun ... e-by-date/
China does not have universal healthcare.
Chile does not have universal healthcare.
Costa Rica does not have universal healthcare.
Oman does not have universal healthcare.
India DOES have universal healthcare.
So on.

Oh, and your own source says these countries do not have universal healthcare it says, "Keep in mind: this is a simple list of countries that have some sort of publicly sponsored health care system. For instance, Sri Lanka may be far from having a true, working universal health care system like France, but prescription drugs are provided by a government-owned drug manufacturer. This qualifies as "some sort of publicly sponsored, universal health care system."

http://www.gadling.com/2007/07/05/what- ... alth-care/

So, next time you try to forward ignorance, don't.

Really? If we ask the WHO? Yeah, because they're so successful at health rankings.... http://www.yalemedlaw.com/2011/04/metho ... -rankings/

I completely support regulation of the insurance companies because it benefits everyone. Public healthcare helps roughly 20 million people. You keep on pretending public healthcare will help everyone.

[Alyakia]

Before I go to the rest of your post I would point out your third link for waits is recent. Very recent. You know, while the Conservative government is cutting NHS funding and attempting the privitize the system? I wonder...

[Hamiltonya]

No, we were talking about unicorns and teapots.

Yeah, it's okay. I won't ask you to admit you're wrong.

No, it really isn't. It is demonstrably unrealistic from the fact that no developed nation has a tax rate of 92%.

So? because it doesn't currently exist doesn't mean it can't.

And that is a really dumb thing to do in a debate.

I thought I was strawmanning? Lol. Do you have any other debating fallacy you can find that doesn't relate to the current situation, as well?

And yet, when you proposed your ridiculous scenario, you made a conscious effort to paint it as my position.

Of course I painted it as your situation. I was showing you how stupid your example was, not arguing against your example.

Right back at ya, champ.

HEY THAT'S REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM!!!!! Lol.

[Libertarctica]

How were the poorest parts of society cared for before the nationalised health services... Charity. People heard of this?

If £1801.95 is the costs of the NHS per person, what did people in the US pay for health care on average in 08-09?

[Libertarctica]

The very reason health insurance exists is because the costs of healthcare are too expensive for the average man to pay up front. Your money and other peoples money are pooled and then used when needed. Richer people pay higher premiums for thier plans even if they are not any better than the ones you get. How is private insurance not paying for other peoples healthcare and public insurance is?

Both are paid from collective funds.

Price discrimination. Indeed, there is no reason why it wont happen with private insurance.