Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance

[JW Frogen]

Australia is number one.

I can't prove it, it is like jazz, you have to be here to know it.

 

[midcan5]

I am amazed at those who always see change as bad or read into it some complex constitutional or some twisted rights issue.

Societies governments communities all exist for the citizens, and their values and morals come from the needs and requirements of the citizens. Healthcare is a requirement on a number of levels and should flow naturally from the society. In a third world nation, societal development leaves out a vast majority of its people, America is not a third world nation and as such should make sure the constitution has real bite and is not just symbolic.

"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

 

[Oddball]

Societies governments communities all exist for the citizens, and their values and morals come from the needs and requirements of the citizens. Healthcare is a requirement on a number of levels and should flow naturally from the society.

Bullshit.

The American republic was formed to form a framework for the prevention and remuneration for yiolence, force and fraud...NOT to act as a clearing house for do-gooder programs that serve a few at the expense of everyone else.

Your invocations of Jefferson and Adam Smith are as cynical and disingenuous as it gets.

 

[oreo]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

Then you have a nice selection of places to move to, so you can live off the prosperity of others.

Now, pick one and get the fuck out.

DITTO--Are all these LIBERALS ON WELFARE? They always want something for free--which is paid for by someone ELSE. They take no personal responsiblity for what happens to the children or grandchildren of this country. They believe it's perfectly O.K. for our Federal government to have a no limit credit card with future unknown generations names on it for re-payment--just so they can get what they want today.

We all agree that something needs to be done with the soaring cost of medical insurance in this country. It can be done with a simple signature from the President of the United States to simply regulate the insurance companies & by MANDATING that all people are covered & fine them if they don't have it. I agree with this 100%. I agree with serious tort reform, I agree that open up competition between insurance companies. But a government take-over of health care--is NOT THE SOLUTION--to the problem.


I am so sick & tired of these LIBERAL DEADBEATS who take no personal responsiblity & expect others to pay for them.

I am middle class income--I have a family of my own that I need to take care of--I don't want my children or grandchildren to pay for your CRAP.

 

[rubberhead]

Societies governments communities all exist for the citizens, and their values and morals come from the needs and requirements of the citizens. Healthcare is a requirement on a number of levels and should flow naturally from the society.

Bullshit.

The American republic was formed to form a framework for the prevention and remuneration for yiolence, force and fraud...NOT to act as a clearing house for do-gooder programs that serve a few at the expense of everyone else.

Your invocations of Jefferson and Adam Smith are as cynical and disingenuous as it gets.

Thank you. I would ask someone who wants to bleed the rich how many other peoples' health insurance they are paying for? Perhaps they could set the example for the rest of us?

 

[Diuretic]

The politics of it are not for me to comment on, well perhaps lightly, but certainly not in a partisan manner. The US is a vastly more complicated nation than ours, I fully appreciate that. And that's why I want to be at pains to point out that the programme that we developed in the 1970s was easy to put in place. This is an easy country to run, trust me, there's nothing sparkling about most of our politicians (one or two are pretty good, most are simply hacks) but even they can't stuff it up.

I wouldn't suggest our model be transplanted to the US. I do think though that some consideration might be given to how health care is looked at. I know I sound like a broken record (believe it or not music used to be produced and sold on vinyl discs, sometimes they would get damaged and the needle stuck so whatever was playing just repeated itself - this was before cd technology - j/k) but if health care is seen as a basic human right and not something to be purchased by an individual consumer then the possibilities of its management start to look a bit different.

This is where you, FDR and Teddy Kennedy are wrong. Health care is not a natural right. You don't spend money for natural rights, because you naturally have them. Natural rights are things like freedom, the right to own property, habeas corpus, etc. These are rights that if you deny them, people revolt. Health care does not fall into this category. Yes, someone certainly has the right not to be deprived of life, but you cannot classify the withholding of a scarce resource as a murder. Is it murder if you are in a desert and don't give up the rest of your water to save someone dying of dehydration? It's an extreme example, but the principle is not different when you scale the scenario to 300 million people. I don't deny that there is a significant moral hazard for health care providers when setting prices and the consumer must be protected (by the government) from unfair practices. It also seems to be the case that, in medicine, advances in technology raise costs rather than lower them as innovation does in other markets. Health care is definitely not a normal market, but it is a market. To demonstrate, say all doctors decided in unison that they no longer wanted to take patients (stay with me, it's a thought experiment), could you force them to see patients? No because they are free to choose not to help people.

What we are experiencing now is a symptom of the major flaw of a democratic republic masquerading as a revolution. Our leaders are taking advantage of the class war which, during times of financial crisis, galvanizes the underclass (not to mention grows their numbers). These people are then led to believe by one group of ambitious rich people that some other group of less ambitious rich people are the enemy and the cause of their suffering. There may be several politicians that are actually interested in helping the little guy, but I guarantee that the "redistribution of wealth" that's being sold here basically amounts to a massive kick-back.

I didn't say it was a “natural”right, I suggested it should be seen as a “basic” right. I need to enlarge upon that. Plenty of rights have been created, voting for example. Health care should be seen as just another basic right, part of the terms and conditions of the social contract.

On the market issue. Very true that doctors can't be forced to work, that would be a form of abuse. But no worker can be forced to work. People voluntarily enter in to a negotiated relationship with their employer (broadly speaking). That is a form of exchange, labour (and expertise) is sold to the employer (the buyer) by the individual worker. The broader context is another issue. As long as a doctor is paid for his or her professional services then does it matter who is providing the money? That's my point.

As for the alleged kick-back, I'll pass, the lobbyists for the health insurance industry are well in there and of course they're entitled to be in there. The domestic politics are not for me to comment on, I'm just interested in the discussion about the system.

 

[Oddball]

I didn't say it was a “natural”right, I suggested it should be seen as a “basic” right. I need to enlarge upon that. Plenty of rights have been created, voting for example. Health care should be seen as just another basic right, part of the terms and conditions of the social contract.

Nice attempt at trying to parse on what constitutes a right, but no dice.

1) Rights precede de jure government. Indeed, the protection of the rights of every man is its only legitimate reason to exist.

2) The "social contract" -if it did in fact exist- is a contract of adhesion, which no court of law in the world would uphold as legitemate.

On the market issue. Very true that doctors can't be forced to work, that would be a form of abuse. But no worker can be forced to work. People voluntarily enter in to a negotiated relationship with their employer (broadly speaking). That is a form of exchange, labour (and expertise) is sold to the employer (the buyer) by the individual worker. The broader context is another issue. As long as a doctor is paid for his or her professional services then does it matter who is providing the money? That's my point.

So, you are in favor of medical services being a bought-and-sold commodity...You just want the buying and selling to be under terms with which you agree.

As for the alleged kick-back, I'll pass, the lobbyists for the health insurance industry are well in there and of course they're entitled to be in there. The domestic politics are not for me to comment on, I'm just interested in the discussion about the system.

Once medical services become a gubmint run monopoly, then everything involved with it becomes a political issue. Then, the people are reduced to merely being another budget item, over which the politicians have to wrangle and haggle.

 

[rubberhead]

I didn't say it was a “natural”right, I suggested it should be seen as a “basic” right. I need to enlarge upon that. Plenty of rights have been created, voting for example. Health care should be seen as just another basic right, part of the terms and conditions of the social contract.

On the market issue. Very true that doctors can't be forced to work, that would be a form of abuse. But no worker can be forced to work. People voluntarily enter in to a negotiated relationship with their employer (broadly speaking). That is a form of exchange, labour (and expertise) is sold to the employer (the buyer) by the individual worker. The broader context is another issue. As long as a doctor is paid for his or her professional services then does it matter who is providing the money? That's my point.

As for the alleged kick-back, I'll pass, the lobbyists for the health insurance industry are well in there and of course they're entitled to be in there. The domestic politics are not for me to comment on, I'm just interested in the discussion about the system.

I'm not really sure what the difference between a natural right, a basic right and a fundamental right are. Voting is reflective of the fundamental right of a people to renew their social contract by participating in government. It's just a more peaceful way of having a revolution than bloody civil war.

Ok, so the doctors will be paid by a third party much the same way they are now by the insurance companies. However, people are no longer free to choose not to pay their insurance and to pay for those who cannot afford it. These taxpayers in turn put pressure on lawmakers to lower their taxes, then lawmakers must find money that can be cut from the budget and inevitably doctors' wages suffer, not because they are charging too much and the government deems that unfair but because of arbitrary budget constraints.


Having the government setting the price of anything generally creates dead weight loss. In this case the dead weight loss would manifest itself as a shortage, because the operating cost for a doctor would not decrease significantly, but their income would be below the market value. Here's a problem with our current system shared by a government run third party payment system. With the system we have now the price of health care is not negotiated between the patient and doctor because the patient is insulated from the cost and therefore has no motivation to initiate such negotiations.

Also, the price that a person would agree upon before and after they receive health care would in many cases be very different. However, since the doctor has a right to refuse to treat a patient, the price must be negotiated before treatment is given and it gives the doctor a sort of monopoly effect, which also creates dead weight loss ultimately hurting the consumer. This is obviously unfair and the government should be protecting consumers from it, just as consumers are protected from monopolies by anti-trust laws. It is difficult to accomplish that without compromising the doctor-patient relationship or the doctor's rights as a professional. I suggest price controls or perhaps a some sort of system where patients in non-emergency situations have access to price quotes from several doctors for their treatment and also information about what the wait time would be like to get treatment. This creates actual choice and competition and a forum for the patient to negotiate prices with providers.

Emergency care is obviously a lot more complicated and I haven't really thought too much about it. Hospitals generally don't have much competition aside from maybe one other competitor in an area and are often non-profit institutions driven by taxes or donations. These are real public services that are worthy of tax dollars and not many would disagree with me there.

 

[Chris]

Taking care of sick people is the right thing to do.

Making money off of sick people is the wrong thing to do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chris is 100% right, and I hope Dude catches on and up.

 

[Contumacious]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

So why the fuck don't you move to one of those countries?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?


.

 

[Oddball]

Chris is 100% right, and I hope Dude catches on and up.

Chris is a sniveling punk looter and you're not too far behind him.

 

[Maple]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

Yes, and what are they paying for taxes on a gallon of gasoline, what are the taxes on their food and their clothing, how high is their income tax rates, what are their taxes on a bottle of wine, a pack of cigs, on their cars on everything and anything that they own including their home. More importantly, what's their unemployment rate, because with all these added taxes, they may well have health care but it's highly unlikely that they have a low unemployment rate or have much of an opportunity of getting a job. Come out with those stats Chris and I will read it. You guys just do not get it, HEALTH CARE IS NOT FREE NOT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

 

[Maple]

Taking care of sick people is the right thing to do.

Making money off of sick people is the wrong thing to do.

So you don't think that Doctors and nurses should be paid. Do you work for free???? You know they have themselves their families to take care of just like you do, I really doubt that you or any of your liberal buds do anything for free, you expect everyone else to, but don't do it yourselves. To prove my point on this google charitable donations- Bush vx. Obama and that very evil guy Cheney vs. Biden, Biden did not give one red cent to charity and he has a few million hanging around. Obama gave only 5.6 % with his millions, Cheney contributed 7 million dollars to charity and Bush gave plenty considering he was the poorest of this group of people.

 

[rubberhead]

Taking care of sick people is the right thing to do.

Making money off of sick people is the wrong thing to do.

It's a little more complicated than that. When you say "right" and "wrong" do you mean that the former should be mandated and the latter should be outlawed? If so, then to what degree? If not, then who gives a shit. People are free to do both and you are free to say they are right or wrong and the rest of us are free to agree or disagree with you.

 

[rubberhead]

Chris is 100% right, and I hope Dude catches on and up.

Chris still hasn't made his case or even clarified what his position is. So how can you even say that he is right or wrong? The only user on your side of the argument who has posted anything that I can, in good conscience, say is intelligent and relevant is diuretic (who is not even an American citizen - and thus not really vested in this argument personally). Maybe you can go back and read some of his posts for ideas of how to coherently define and defend your position and then you can come back and join the real discussion that we're trying to have.

 

[Oddball]

Taking care of sick people is the right thing to do.

Making money off of sick people is the wrong thing to do.

It's a little more complicated than that. When you say "right" and "wrong" do you mean that the former should be mandated and the latter should be outlawed? If so, then to what degree? If not, then who gives a shit. People are free to do both and you are free to say they are right or wrong and the rest of us are free to agree or disagree with you.

He doesn't think that way....In fact, he doesn't think at all.

If your don't want socialized medical services, then you want people to die in the streets....End of discussion.

 

[mightypeon]

Well, Germany has a system that does possess both private and gouverment run insurances.

The bottom deal is: 2 classes of medicine, while the top class (those with a FAT private insurance) are propably a bit worse off then those in the US with a Fat private insurance, the basic gouverment insurance pays for the basic needs (around 630 Euro per year for me, healthy male single, from what I get fees are a fair bit higher in the US), and definitly protects you from cases that would bankrupt an uninsured American (for example, I got stabbed once (near fatal), between the needed intensive cares etc. p.p. it would have been around 12K total my insurance covered it without a fuss (but wanted a piece of the fucker who stabbed me ). At that time I was a student fresh into university (which is a lot cheaper in Germany than in the states, tution fees are 800 per Semester maximum on gouverment institutions, private universities in Germany tend to suck), in the states I would have been more or less bankrupt.

 

[rubberhead]

Well, Germany has a system that does possess both private and gouverment run insurances.

The bottom deal is: 2 classes of medicine, while the top class (those with a FAT private insurance) are propably a bit worse off then those in the US with a Fat private insurance, the basic gouverment insurance pays for the basic needs (around 630 Euro per year for me, healthy male single, from what I get fees are a fair bit higher in the US), and definitly protects you from cases that would bankrupt an uninsured American (for example, I got stabbed once (near fatal), between the needed intensive cares etc. p.p. it would have been around 12K total my insurance covered it without a fuss (but wanted a piece of the fucker who stabbed me ). At that time I was a student fresh into university (which is a lot cheaper in Germany than in the states, tution fees are 800 per Semester maximum on gouverment institutions, private universities in Germany tend to suck), in the states I would have been more or less bankrupt.

Australia also has a hybrid like what you are describing and it is quite successful. But, you must keep in mind:

1) the US population has about 5 times the population of any European nation (>10x that of Australia). If you've ever studied economics, think about the law of diminishing returns and then compound that by the fact that federal bureaucrats are generally unmotivated and difficult to replace (especially after Andy Stern and his SEIU goons get their hands on this deal).

2) the US is currently having huge corruption problems at the highest levels of government and business. Most major news organizations are not even paying attention to this fact now that the evil GWB is gone now (who I believe was also corrupt)

3) there are many people around the country who believe that socialism is un-American, and I happen to agree with them. There is a welfare clause in the constitution, but I don't think that the founders were referring to persistent handouts. People that cannot provide for themselves need to find a community that will support them. Federal mandates to support them will only create unrest and hard feelings on both sides.

So why not do this thing state-to-state? If a state wants to have universal government controlled health care, then let their state government institute that. In fact there are many states that are doing this and in most cases it's not really working in a fiscal sense (I think Hawaii has universal health care and their doing OK). Is anyone wondering why this has to be a federal mandate? Why not just concentrate the debate in areas that represent concentrations of people who are dissatisfied with their health care? If anyone here can answer any of these questions, I'd love to hear it. My answer is that the power that is driving this bill is not the will of the people, or the impassioned plea of the champion of the little guy, but the will of the lobby that Obama serves: labor organizing and community organizing. Anything that's in this plan that turns out to actually benefit the little people will be an utter coincidence, because the purpose of it is to create pork pipes to SEIU and ACORN.

About your point on universities being waaaaaay too expensive in America. I completely agree. I think that there is a lot of help for people who can't afford it, but no one can deny that the cost of going to a decent university is way too high. I wonder how many people decide not to become doctors because of how much it would cost to attend medical school... Maybe that should be considered here. I would totally support the federal government creating need-based incentives for people to attend medical school. This would certainly lower medical costs. I'm surprised we haven't heard more proposals about this approach. It wouldn't solve the price problem on it's own, but I don't think that there is any panacea.

 

[rubberhead]

I would totally support the federal government creating need-based incentives for people to attend medical school. This would certainly lower medical costs. I'm surprised we haven't heard more proposals about this approach. It wouldn't solve the price problem on it's own, but I don't think that there is any panacea.

I guess this wouldn't affect the price until those people who received the federal aid became doctors and entered the market. So I guess the savings would be about 10 years away.