Why can't healthcare be free?

[Enadail]

"Yes, I shall charge you TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS for this wonderful course of treatment, would Sir like cashback? :3"
No, fuck off with that.

I want my healthcare affordable, not run strictly for profit and consistent wherever I go.

if you dont want the treatment go to another medic who will do what you want. SIngle payer does not pay for new treatments and methodolgies.

fuck off with you telling medics how to run their business and how much they are entitled to make.

You mean how they're already told to run their business, like "Your operating room cannot be dirty"? Or how we tell companies they can't pour mercury into drinking water? Regulation is necessary to the safety of the general public.

As for how much they make, single payer doesn't affect that any more then private health insurance does. Because single payer is just a government run health insurance company.

And as for single payer doesn't pay for new treatments or methods, do you have any idea what you're talking about? What countries with single payer are using old methods? Where did you even pick up this piece of bull?

[Jewcrew]

"Yes, I shall charge you TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS for this wonderful course of treatment, would Sir like cashback? :3"
No, fuck off with that.

I want my healthcare affordable, not run strictly for profit and consistent wherever I go.

Not to mention, doctors would not be forced to practice medicine "in a certain way" under a single payer system, any more then they currently are with health insurance. In fact, with the current system, they're incentivized to the point where it might as well be forced. A single payer system doesn't mean doctors become government employees. They stay private or hospital practitioners, who get paid by the government instead of by an health insurance company. And a lot can improve: in the UK (or is it Canada? Can't remember), doctors are paid to keep people healthy (in addition to and over just fixing problems), thus pushing them to make sure they don't bloat their bills and keep their patients healthy.

Not Canada, that's for sure.

Canada's health care act explicitly states that maintaining good health is not the realm of Health Canada.

[Enadail]

Not to mention, doctors would not be forced to practice medicine "in a certain way" under a single payer system, any more then they currently are with health insurance. In fact, with the current system, they're incentivized to the point where it might as well be forced. A single payer system doesn't mean doctors become government employees. They stay private or hospital practitioners, who get paid by the government instead of by an health insurance company. And a lot can improve: in the UK (or is it Canada? Can't remember), doctors are paid to keep people healthy (in addition to and over just fixing problems), thus pushing them to make sure they don't bloat their bills and keep their patients healthy.

Not Canada, that's for sure.

Canada's health care act explicitly states that maintaining good health is not the realm of Health Canada.

Interesting, that seems counterproductive. Though I wasn't really all that clear. What I meant by keep people healthy was adequate follow-ups, recommending and instating preventative care, etc. It musta been the UK.

[Calimera I]

It can. Argentina has got one of the best healthcare system in the world. All for free,

Then it has changed a lot since i have been there. The public hospital in cordoba was disgusting, and unsanitary.

Then it has changed indeed.
Even the medical University (also free) is one of the bests in the world.

[Ethel mermania]

if you dont want the treatment go to another medic who will do what you want. SIngle payer does not pay for new treatments and methodolgies.

fuck off with you telling medics how to run their business and how much they are entitled to make.

You mean how they're already told to run their business, like "Your operating room cannot be dirty"? Or how we tell companies they can't pour mercury into drinking water? Regulation is necessary to the safety of the general public.

As for how much they make, single payer doesn't affect that any more then private health insurance does. Because single payer is just a government run health insurance company.

And as for single payer doesn't pay for new treatments or methods, do you have any idea what you're talking about? What countries with single payer are using old methods? Where did you even pick up this piece of bull?

England

[Priory Academy USSR]

I think I'll bring this to the attention of those who think the private sector creates innovation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/profit-pr-enemies-innovation

[Enadail]

You mean how they're already told to run their business, like "Your operating room cannot be dirty"? Or how we tell companies they can't pour mercury into drinking water? Regulation is necessary to the safety of the general public.

As for how much they make, single payer doesn't affect that any more then private health insurance does. Because single payer is just a government run health insurance company.

And as for single payer doesn't pay for new treatments or methods, do you have any idea what you're talking about? What countries with single payer are using old methods? Where did you even pick up this piece of bull?

England

France! I know countries too. Evidence that the UK doesn't use the very latest methods or treatments? Hell, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world is based in the UK. Obviously NHS hasn't hurt them.

[Norsklow]

Not Canada, that's for sure.

Canada's health care act explicitly states that maintaining good health is not the realm of Health Canada.

Interesting, that seems counterproductive. Though I wasn't really all that clear. What I meant by keep people healthy was adequate follow-ups, recommending and instating preventative care, etc. It musta been the UK.

Oh no. Not in the UK. Unfortunately, the only thing that bickering politicians and Nurses Unions can agree upon is that is best ( for them ) to find sneaky little ways for the NHS to refuse serving certain patients in order to get the budgets right without strikes.

[Person012345]

England

France! I know countries too. Evidence that the UK doesn't use the very latest methods or treatments? Hell, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world is based in the UK. Obviously NHS hasn't hurt them.

You're forgetting that socialism is ebil.

[Norsklow]

England

France! I know countries too. Evidence that the UK doesn't use the very latest methods or treatments? Hell, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world is based in the UK. Obviously NHS hasn't hurt them.

Nor their profits for that matter.

[Priory Academy USSR]

As for how much they make, single payer doesn't affect that any more then private health insurance does. Because single payer is just a government run health insurance company.

In the case of the NHS, it's an entire system of hospitals and GP places (forgot what they're called), which the taxpayer funds. Healthcare insurance companies merely pay healthcare providers to provide treatment to their clients. I admit that this is starting to happen in the UK, but it's going to make things a hell of a lot worse.

[Person012345]

Interesting, that seems counterproductive. Though I wasn't really all that clear. What I meant by keep people healthy was adequate follow-ups, recommending and instating preventative care, etc. It musta been the UK.

Oh no. Not in the UK. Unfortunately, the only thing that bickering politicians and Nurses Unions can agree upon is that is best ( for them ) to find sneaky little ways for the NHS to refuse serving certain patients in order to get the budgets right without strikes.

You actually don't know what you're talking about do you?

Either way, with regards to the discussion, I don't think it's the governments remit to provide great healthcare per se. So long as what they provide is adequate then it covers the basic necessity and anything more is a luxury.

[The United Nations of Earth Alliance]

Free Healthcare?

What are you, a Socialist?

[Enadail]

Interesting, that seems counterproductive. Though I wasn't really all that clear. What I meant by keep people healthy was adequate follow-ups, recommending and instating preventative care, etc. It musta been the UK.

Oh no. Not in the UK. Unfortunately, the only thing that bickering politicians and Nurses Unions can agree upon is that is best ( for them ) to find sneaky little ways for the NHS to refuse serving certain patients in order to get the budgets right without strikes.

I'm sure the article was either from the UK or Canada. I'll see if I can find it. It was an article interviewing a doctor who was talking about his life before and after the installment of NHS. He explicitly said he gets paid about 2/3 the amount as before, but has more time with patients, less stress, etc, and that he much prefers it.

[Blessed Proloterian Isle]

Because.... Oh wait I have an NHS and free healthcare services that are renowned around the world.

[Divair]

Free Healthcare?

What are you, a Socialist?

Obviously.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Because.... Oh wait I have an NHS and free healthcare services that are renowned around the world.

Not since the Conservatives (Americans, read right-wingers) got a hold of it, though.

[ArghNeedAName]

As for how much they make, single payer doesn't affect that any more then private health insurance does. Because single payer is just a government run health insurance company.

In the case of the NHS, it's an entire system of hospitals and GP places (forgot what they're called), which the taxpayer funds. Healthcare insurance companies merely pay healthcare providers to provide treatment to their clients. I admit that this is starting to happen in the UK, but it's going to make things a hell of a lot worse.

GPs work in "surgeries".

[Norsklow]

Oh no. Not in the UK. Unfortunately, the only thing that bickering politicians and Nurses Unions can agree upon is that is best ( for them ) to find sneaky little ways for the NHS to refuse serving certain patients in order to get the budgets right without strikes.

I'm sure the article was either from the UK or Canada. I'll see if I can find it. It was an article interviewing a doctor who was talking about his life before and after the installment of NHS. He explicitly said he gets paid about 2/3 the amount as before, but has more time with patients, less stress, etc, and that he much prefers it.

He'd certainly be happy with the reduced stress. it's the follow-ups and instating-stuff that possibly leads me astray, although oh,yes,they do recommend the impossible or unobtainable.
*chants* 5 pieces of fruit for those whose benefits are not exactly large enough to pay for that...

[Ethel mermania]

England

France! I know countries too. Evidence that the UK doesn't use the very latest methods or treatments? Hell, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world is based in the UK. Obviously NHS hasn't hurt them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-saving-treatment-elderly-mans-chilling-story-reveals.html

[Sevco 5508]

Running healthcare for profit rather than people's health sounds like no-brainer to me.

[Divair]

Running healthcare for profit rather than people's health sounds like no-brainer to me.

You mean running it to save people is a no-brainer.

[Priory Academy USSR]

France! I know countries too. Evidence that the UK doesn't use the very latest methods or treatments? Hell, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world is based in the UK. Obviously NHS hasn't hurt them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-saving-treatment-elderly-mans-chilling-story-reveals.html

I didn't read past Daily Mail. Honestly, that paper is crazy-I'd give you examples, but I don't dare look into the pits of Angband.

[Sibirsky]

Running healthcare for profit rather than people's health sounds like no-brainer to me.

Without an explanation, this sounds evil.

Running healthcare for profit rather than people's health sounds like no-brainer to me.

You mean running it to save people is a no-brainer.

This sounds like a charity. Not that the goal is not admirable.

[Jewcrew]

I think I'll bring this to the attention of those who think the private sector creates innovation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/profit-pr-enemies-innovation

Crap like that is hilarious.

Tell me, when bronze was invented, how long until iron?

Steel?

Stainless steel?

Each new incarnation of technology, when you look back, brought about rapid (for the time period) advancement to do with such technology.

We went through the rapid advancement in the last century. Things will stagnate for a while. Now that some corporations have enough money, they're getting into space exploration and rapidly outpacing government efforts in that theatre.

Different sectors of technology will advance at different rates at different times. It has little to do with whether this is publicly or privately funded.