Healthcare: What's your opinion.

[Xsyne]

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.

A reductio ad absurdum is perfectly valid to use in debate. But that wasn't a reductio ad absurdum, so it's not really relevant.

[Hamiltonya]

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...

Yeah, it was for a different debate topic. The other two aren't as recent though if you care to take a look at them.

[Chesnova]

You don't want people to have health care? I think you need to be a bit clearer.

Sorry, I'm against government-regulated healthcare in the US.

exactly, you'd really trust the government with your healthcare? lol Oh, and if people cannot afford healthcare then they're screwed. Its sad I know but we can't all leech off the government.

[Alyakia]

Would you prefer a person be in a waiting list to get healthcare or not in a list with no health insurace?

[Alyakia]

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?

When I googled "i have cancer and" and the first auotcomplete results came up for "and i want to die", "and i have no insurance" and "i need financial help" one of the links I clicked on took me to a site suggesting they go to church and beg for charity. You think this is a good system.

[Unhiding]

Sorry, I'm against government-regulated healthcare in the US.

exactly, you'd really trust the government with your healthcare? lol Oh, and if people cannot afford healthcare then they're screwed. Its sad I know but we can't all leech off the government.

You don't need to trust your goverment. You trust your doctor.

[Xsyne]

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

I was unaware "charity" was a synonym for "not at all".

[Celritannia]

A universal healthcare is cheap and effective. The Government or the body sets regulations and standards for every medical profession should meet.

[Chesnova]

exactly, you'd really trust the government with your healthcare? lol Oh, and if people cannot afford healthcare then they're screwed. Its sad I know but we can't all leech off the government.

You don't need to trust your goverment. You trust your doctor.

I realize this but the government would be my doctor's boss. I would have no problem with nationalized healthcare if it could be managed properly but in the state we're in, it's impossible.

[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?

When I googled "i have cancer and" and the first auotcomplete results came up for "and i want to die", "and i have no insurance" and "i need financial help" one of the links I clicked on took me to a site suggesting they go to church and beg for charity. You think this is a good system.

Doesn't have to be church.

In a free market almost no one will have these problems. The problems will certainly tend towards to mentally ill and physically disabled (Without enough mental ability to get a job with this problem) over time and the charity needed will reduce. Some people simply can't work and need help... or death.

[Xsyne]

You don't need to trust your goverment. You trust your doctor.

I realize this but the government would be my doctor's boss. I would have no problem with nationalized healthcare if it could be managed properly but in the state we're in, it's impossible.

You're perfectly fine with the doctor's boss being someone for who not treating you is in their best financial interest.

[Unhiding]

You don't need to trust your goverment. You trust your doctor.

I realize this but the government would be my doctor's boss. I would have no problem with nationalized healthcare if it could be managed properly but in the state we're in, it's impossible.

So you trust insurance companies more than government?

[Libertarctica]

I realize this but the government would be my doctor's boss. I would have no problem with nationalized healthcare if it could be managed properly but in the state we're in, it's impossible.

You're perfectly fine with the doctor's boss being someone for who not treating you is in their best financial interest.

In other words, the politicians. They don't care as long as they deceive you and can extort you for their salaries and to give money to their rich friends.

Businesses have an incentive to provide good services or customers will think "Hmmm, this business is rubbish, I'll go somewhere else. I hear good things about this one!"

[Alyakia]

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.

Yes, they will. If for some reason they won't, make them.

So you do know about historical tax rates? (And how they're falling.)

A burden at all is wrong, in that there should be no burden because no one should be poor. But I doubt you meant that.

Yes, I do need sources. Reliable ones. Ideally actually from the healthcare system or at least from the actualy country we're talking about. Your first link appears to have been cut short and doesn't work.

The second one isn't a direct lin, but on the page I did find a link to an opinion piece from Robert Tanner, employed by a libertain thinktank called "Universal healthcare's dirty little secret" which I will assume you meant to link to. It does mention a report from the British Department of Health in 2006. It would be nice if they linked to the actual report though. I will go and try to find it.

It says some will "probably" die awaiting surgery. Saying some will "probably" die doesn't cut. "proabably" is just a guess. If they went into a ciritcal state or were at a severe risk of dying during wait, they would be bumped up the waiting list.

In emergencies, hospitals are required to stabilize your condition, not cure you of or treat what caused the condition.

It mentions that the cost of the uninsured are passed onto the insured.

It is worth keeping in mind that attempts at privitization right now are resulting in longer wait times.

I see nothing on that page that suggests India has universal healthcare.

That.... wasn't my source? It just happens to use the same image?

Even if we say that Sri Lanka, Costa Rica and Oman don't have Universal Health Care that doesn't change the fact that every first world nation but the U.S. does.

Public healthcare helps everyone private healthcare does. If we change to say that it doesn't help everyone, it helps most. Unless you are going to pretend that the rich are a majority.

Things like that are hard to make. (Which is why the WHO gave it up due to the sheer amount of statistics involved.)

[Xsyne]

You're perfectly fine with the doctor's boss being someone for who not treating you is in their best financial interest.

In other words, the politicians. They don't care as long as they deceive you and can extort you for their salaries and to give money to their rich friends.

Businesses have an incentive to provide good services or customers will think "Hmmm, this business is rubbish, I'll go somewhere else. I hear good things about this one!"

Yes, it's clearly in the financial interest of the people who will not get the money if they don't spend it on you to not spend the money on you. The government is not a business. A surplus is not a profit. If they do not spend the money on you, they don't get the money.

[Libertarctica]

Are you insane? The government forces money from you. You have no choice. Taxation if coercive. The government takes it and gives salaries to the people who runs it.

If a business is not providing a good service then you will move to another (In a free market).

[Xsyne]

Are you insane? The government forces money from you. You have no choice. Taxation if coercive. The government takes it and gives salaries to the people who runs it.

If a business is not providing a good service then you will move to another (In a free market).

I'm not entirely sure you understand the concept of a budget. Or how employees of the government get paid.

[North Calaveras]

Are you insane? The government forces money from you. You have no choice. Taxation if coercive. The government takes it and gives salaries to the people who runs it.

If a business is not providing a good service then you will move to another (In a free market).

This ^ all the way

[Grave_n_idle]

Single-payer government healthcare is cheaper, more efficient, and vastly easier to access than the system in the US.

So yes, I am for government healthcare.

Why are people so narrow minded to only consider the systems that exist today, the status quo and not the theoretical alternatives?

People are so narrow minded they thing a corporatist system like in the US is the only alternative to nationalised healthcare?

It's nothing to do with being 'narrow minded'.

The US currently has a system that is rather defective. It needs to be changed.

The best existing model that offers an alternative seems to be something like the UK's NHS model.

It's not that 'a corporatist system' is being offered as an alternative. Think of it as the default.

[Alyakia]

Are you insane? The government forces money from you. You have no choice. Taxation if coercive. The government takes it and gives salaries to the people who runs it.

If a business is not providing a good service then you will move to another (In a free market).

Argurably you have the choice to renounce your citizenship and leave.

[Grave_n_idle]

Are you insane? The government forces money from you. You have no choice. Taxation if coercive. The government takes it and gives salaries to the people who runs it.

If a business is not providing a good service then you will move to another (In a free market).

Unless there is a virtual monopoly, in which case the free market rules don't apply, because market pressure doesn't apply.

Like... for example... in healthcare.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

i stand in my room and don't call me healthcare.

[Grave_n_idle]

You don't need to trust your goverment. You trust your doctor.

I realize this but the government would be my doctor's boss. I would have no problem with nationalized healthcare if it could be managed properly but in the state we're in, it's impossible.

The model we are currently under - your doctor has a 'boss'. The insurance industry owns doctors in America. The insurance industry makes all the decisions.

The difference between the insurance industry making the decisions, and the government making the decisions is that the insurance industry prioritises profit, not people.

[Shaoyuan]

Personally, I'm anti-healthcare.

And here I thought I'd never meet an honest conservative.

[Achiim]

When I googled "i have cancer and" and the first auotcomplete results came up for "and i want to die", "and i have no insurance" and "i need financial help" one of the links I clicked on took me to a site suggesting they go to church and beg for charity. You think this is a good system.

Doesn't have to be church.

In a free market almost no one will have these problems. The problems will certainly tend towards to mentally ill and physically disabled (Without enough mental ability to get a job with this problem) over time and the charity needed will reduce. Some people simply can't work and need help... or death.

Are you seriously that retarded? I can summarize this for you.
"I'm a normal person, and I think that we should let the disabled and unemployed die because I think they're only like that because they are lazy slobs who don't want to work. I think we should trust the free market, yes, the market that actually lacks morality because it's not a person. We should ignore the statistics that free, universal healthcare is cheaper, more efficient and beneficial to society. We should adopt a state where we are effectively ruled by the market, which cares solely SOLELY for profits, and not human well-being." That will turn out well. What about you? What if YOU fall ill, or are injured permanently? On no income, with no job, would you feel it is perfectly acceptable for society to let you die, solely so the markets can have a tiny economic boost?