Universal Health System is Doomed to Failure

[_JS]

I like these comparisons with countries that have maybe about 1/6th of our population, and most of it concentrated in certain areas. How about comparing us to a country with a similar population and demographics, and see how we stack up?

Actually, on a state by state basis, if you look at the states that border Canada, that is, those where the living conditions and demographics are similar, most of them have health care statistics comparable to or better than those of Canada. I believe I've posted that data here before.

What demographics change the overall money savings from universal healthcare?

Why can Sweden, Canada, and Britain pull this off at a savings compared to the United States? More population shouldn't make a difference if you understand statistics.

[Amianthus]

They aren't.

I think part of BT's question involved the semantics (and assumption) that all government revenue is from income taxes; it's not.

[_JS]

I think part of BT's question involved the semantics (and assumption) that all government revenue is from income taxes; it's not.

Erm...so?

[Universe Prince]

However, you have to admit that the attitude of some isn't the reasonable one that you've just described - they DO scrape for information to discredit other systems and use those findings as a reason to dismiss the idea that we could come up with anything better here.

I think I'd say they do look for information to discredit socialized health care, but it seems to me there is plenty of that information out there. Though I will say that yes, many of them do seek excuses to do nothing about the U.S. health care system. Personally, I think that very much needs to be done and soon, but I also don't believe that socialized health care is going to be the solution that is going to solve our problem. I see report after report after report about other countries with socialized health care having to ration care to manage costs that are constantly rising. The reason people end up waiting for operations in Canada and Britain is not because people don't care, but because the governments have attempted to artificially keep prices down with regulations. Apparently, while the upfront price for the individual is nil, the actual costs of the health care have not changed.

If you want to talk about scraping, try looking for the articles about doctors who have lowered their costs by refusing to accept Medicare payments and have started charging patients according to what the patients can afford to pay. Finding information about that is difficult. But it does happen. And as I understand it some physicians who still accept Medicare have found that charging anything other the rate set by Medicare, and that includes not charging at all, can result in legal trouble. The government tends to call it fraud. So we've got wealthy people using Medicare who cannot be charged more, and poor people who cannot be charged less or given free care at the discretion of the physician. The government is trying to artificially set prices, and that doesn't solve the problem. And from what I've read about socialized health care in other countries, socialized health care doesn't solve the problem either.

What we need is a way to address the costs. One way would be to cut back on the length of drug patents. But even drug companies are offering drug discounts. There are also drug discount prescription plans available. And there are charity hospitals. We have a foundation upon which to build a private network of health care in this country that would be the equivalent of universal health care, and could reduce overall costs over time while allowing people with no insurance access to health care. So why are we not pushing for that? I'll tell you why I think we are not. I think that the populace in general would rather have the government do something so that they, the populace, don't have to do anything. Having the government take money and use it to whatever end requires no compassion and no action on the part of the individual whose money is taken. And that is what we want, isn't it? Well, we may just get it, but I think it will cost us more in the long run than most are willing to admit.

[BT]

so?

So percentage of revenue spent is not the same as taxpayer burden.

What is that burden in this "free" system?

Why is that number hidden or at best so difficult to find?

[Religious Dick]

I like these comparisons with countries that have maybe about 1/6th of our population, and most of it concentrated in certain areas. How about comparing us to a country with a similar population and demographics, and see how we stack up?

Actually, on a state by state basis, if you look at the states that border Canada, that is, those where the living conditions and demographics are similar, most of them have health care statistics comparable to or better than those of Canada. I believe I've posted that data here before.

What demographics change the overall money savings from universal healthcare?

Why can Sweden, Canada, and Britain pull this off at a savings compared to the United States? More population shouldn't make a difference if you understand statistics.

I was replying to Michael Tee's statement that Canadians live longer than Americans, not the comparative financial costs of the health care systems. And given that our larger population embraces a greater variety of living conditions, life-styles, and genetic diversity, I'd say it's very much relevant to the evaluation of our health as a nation. As I pointed out, in areas of the U.S. where we have similar living conditions, and a similar demographic to Canada, we also have similar health statistics, socialized health care notwithstanding.

Further, the savings are going to be realized by whom? Having only visited a doctor exactly once in the last 5 years, I can assure you a national health care system is going to cost me more than the present one. I'd be really interested in knowing what, if anything, you "for-the-good-of-society" types are contributing to my experience as an American, and to your beloved "society" at large, that gives you standing to demand the rest of us pay into a national health care system because it will cost *you* less money?

[_JS]

so?

So percentage of revenue spent is not the same as taxpayer burden.

What is that burden in this "free" system?

Why is that number hidden or at best so difficult to find?

No one considers it "free." It is not "hidden" and I've explained why it might be difficult to find, though I really don't know. Have you actually tried?

[Christians4LessGvt]

re: I think I've spotted your problem.

No I think reality has "spotted the problem" and Canadians are attempting to flee that problem and that is why private care is growing so fast in Canada.

[_JS]

I was replying to Michael Tee's statement that Canadians live longer than Americans, not the comparative financial costs of the health care systems. And given that our larger population embraces a greater variety of living conditions, life-styles, and genetic diversity, I'd say it's very much relevant to the evaluation of our health as a nation. As I pointed out, in areas of the U.S. where we have similar living conditions, and a similar demographic to Canada, we also have similar health statistics, socialized health care notwithstanding.

"A greater variety of living conditions?" What does that even mean?

Genetic diversity? I disagree. Show me a city in the United States with more "genetic diversity" than Toronto.

Further, the savings are going to be realized by whom? Having only visited a doctor exactly once in the last 5 years, I can assure you a national health care system is going to cost me more than the present one. I'd be really interested in knowing what, if anything, you "for-the-good-of-society" types are contributing to my experience as an American, and to your beloved "society" at large, that gives you standing to demand the rest of us pay into a national health care system because it will cost *you* less money?

Oh no, I'm a "for-the-good-of-society type."

I don't know that it will cost me less money. It may cost me more. I don't care how often you go to the doctor. The cost savings is on a national level. You're individualism is quite frankly, not my concern.

[_JS]

Having the government take money and use it to whatever end requires no compassion

I was under the impression that the Government represents the people. Or at least that is theoretically how this democracy thing is supposed to work. As individuals we haven't much of a say, but as a large group represented by our elected officials, we are supposed to have a great deal of influence.

No, it doesn't require compassion, but neither does it require compassion for a pharmaceutical to offer a discount on its drugs. I suggest that compassion has a definition that far exceeds elementary dictionaries, and goes right to the root Latin (passio - to suffer; cum - with). In that context I don't think that compassion plays much of a role on either side of this argument.

[BT]

No one considers it "free."

Nonsense. We just read an account from Mikey where he visited his cardiologist and didn't pay a dime.

Perhaps it would be easier to see what it costs a Jordanian since theirs is based on a VAT.

Henny?

[_JS]

No one considers it "free."

Nonsense. We just read an account from Mikey where he visited his cardiologist and didn't pay a dime.

Perhaps it would be easier to see what it costs a Jordanian since theirs is based on a VAT.

Henny?

Free at the point of service.

I think people here are intelligent enough to understand what that means.

[BT]

I think people here are intelligent enough to understand what that means.

Is it really free at the point of service if the service has been prepaid?

I think the people in this forum are smart enough to know that it isn't.

[Amianthus]

Free at the point of service.

I think people here are intelligent enough to understand what that means.

Hmm, guess my health insurance is "socialized" then, too, since it too is "free".

All of my co-pays are $0. Prescriptions included.

Costs me about $220 a month, with a similar payment from the employer.

[_JS]

I think people here are intelligent enough to understand what that means.

Is it really free at the point of service if the service has been prepaid?

I think the people in this forum are smart enough to know that it isn't.

Yes, it is. Free at the point of service means exactly what it says. It is simply that you don't pay at the point of service.