The case for Universal Healthcare

[Political Junky]

Do you also forget that a lot of these countries are smaller in population?

Do you not understand the concept of per capita comparisons, Oscar?

Cons don't get that concept at all.

 

[Bern80]

Do you also forget that a lot of these countries are smaller in population?

This one always cracks me up.

Oh...we can't do it because we have too many people!

Bullshit.

Every other industrialized nation has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. That means that if we used a single payer system, that we would actually be paying LESS for healthcare than we are paying now because a single payer system is more efficient.

At this point you must think if you regurgitate this particular argument enough times it might come true or actually be able to be considered a valid argument. It isn't. So many things about this statement are wrong. Wrong in fact AND wrong in theory. For starters it generally is not a cornerstone of efficiency for a system to lose money, which most single payer systems are doing (see France).

It is also wrong in theory. Saying because it works in other places it will work here doesn't have a shred of credibility because we aren't even remotely comparable to those places. If you want to hold up the health care system models that some other country uses, you have to take into account all of the variables that make up that model. If you want our country to adopt said model, then the variables used to create that model in the other country or going to need to sync up here or results are going to be vastly different. I am not saying this because I am opposed to change. I am saying it because purely it is an argument so void of intelligent thought that it baffles the mind.

 

[Bern80]

Do you also forget that a lot of these countries are smaller in population?

Do you not understand the concept of per capita comparisons, Oscar?

Glad you brought it up. As an example France has a third more doctors per capita than we do.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Do you also forget that a lot of these countries are smaller in population?

Do you not understand the concept of per capita comparisons, Oscar?

Cons don't get that concept at all.

its going to be a HUGE undertaking to move this many people over.....listening to you guys your acting like one weeks tops and its done.....not one person including our Pres. is talking about the Scope of doing something like this,OR the problems that will be encountered to get this done.....but hey lets just rush into it,do it as fast as we can,and worry about the problems later.....meanwhile many are going to get FUCKED....not just that 40million that keeps floating around...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Do you also forget that a lot of these countries are smaller in population?

This one always cracks me up.

Oh...we can't do it because we have too many people!

Bullshit.

Every other industrialized nation has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. That means that if we used a single payer system, that we would actually be paying LESS for healthcare than we are paying now because a single payer system is more efficient.

At this point you must think if you regurgitate this particular argument enough times it might come true or actually be able to be considered a valid argument. It isn't. So many things about this statement are wrong. Wrong in fact AND wrong in theory. For starters it generally is not a cornerstone of efficiency for a system to lose money, which most single payer systems are doing (see France).

It is also wrong in theory. Saying because it works in other places it will work here doesn't have a shred of credibility because we aren't even remotely comparable to those places. If you want to hold up the health care system models that some other country uses, you have to take into account all of the variables that make up that model. If you want our country to adopt said model, then the variables used to create that model in the other country or going to need to sync up here or results are going to be vastly different. I am not saying this because I am opposed to change. I am saying it because purely it is an argument so void of intelligent thought that it baffles the mind.

O.k. lets compare apples to apples. Health care is not the issue - health insurance is. The closest example of a truly public insurance company is Social Security, with mandatory premiums (FICA taxes) and 'insurance' benefits for disability and/or retirement based on the amount of premiums paid in over your working life.

In spite of congress' hand in the cookie jar for the last 70+ years, Social Security continues to run at an efficiency of over 99% of premiums collected being conserved or paid out in benefits. Social Security does not collect one dime of general tax revenues for overhead or administration. Compare that apple to the health insurance industry which runs at an efficiency of 75% of premiums collected being conserved or paid in benefits.

Just to make the comparison even, remember that your Social Security dollars cannot be invested in the stock market for higher returns either, where as that is common practice for insurance funds.

Same fruit, 24% less expensive....... Rocket science?

-Joe

 

[Cecilie1200]

The problem with your 'case' is right here Chris:

Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems,

The first part of it is considering it a right. First it's not in the constitution. If you want it to be in there, get campaigning and make it one. It isn't a right for a reason. Which of the rights in the constitution require taking from one to provide for another?

Secondly, NO system can GUARUNTEE ACCESS to health care. This is the point none of you lefties will own up to (I'm going to stop trying to get you to not compare us to other countries in this matter, some things are just beyond people I guess). Just because you no longer have to pay for it, or pay for it at a significantly reduced rate, or pay by a different mechanism, isn't going to guarantee when you need a new hip, you're going to get one in a timely manner.

If you refuse to listen to me, perhaps you will listen who tends to lean a bit more left than I do like Ed. We don't agree on much, but he is saying the same thing I have said time and again. Regardless of whether we agree government should get to run our health care, all of this is for naught because we know full well right now, we don't have the health care SUPPLY to achieve your goal of access.

It is also a myth that any country has a "guaranteed right to health care". Oh, they like to SAY they do, and our own beloved leftists like to repeat them, but it's a flat-out, baldfaced lie.

In fact, there is no such right in any sense that people ordinarily understand the meaning of the term. What the right to care means almost everywhere is nothign more than the opportunity to get services for free (or at very little cost) as the government decides to make those services available. But government is under no obligation to provide any particular service. And if it fails to provide a service, people are not entitled to go to court and sue the way that Americans, for example, can sue an employer, a health maintenance organization, or even Medicaid ("Lives At Risk", Goodman, Musgrave, and Herrick). Name me any other right, as we understand the term, for which you cannot go to court and sue.

Interestingly, the only country in the world that has established a universal right - defined as you are entitled to get it no matter what, and can sue for it if you are denied - is the United States. Our country grants every citizen a legally enforceable right to kidney dialysis treatment at government expense. So actually, we're ahead of the game on this one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

FDR has been dead for more than half a century (and I wasn't even born yet) and I'm still paying for his foolhardiness.

Please try to engage just a few brain cells before you post such pedantic nonsense.

I could ask the same of you. Telling somebody to leave the country simply because they're pointing out another country is doing something better than us is a deflection. We as a country should always strive to be better, not settle for average.

Or it could be the case of "sinking down to their level."

We're AMERICA, not England, France, Costa Rica, or anywhere else. Yes, we should ALWAYS strive for progress, but not the "progress" being offered.

Too bad the "WE'RE AMERICA!" phrase has turned into some bumper sticker or Toby Keith song...cuz the phrase is actually true.

Just TRY convincing leftists that movement does not equal "progress". I dare you.

 

[Political Junky]

Do you not understand the concept of per capita comparisons, Oscar?

Cons don't get that concept at all.

its going to be a HUGE undertaking to move this many people over.....listening to you guys your acting like one weeks tops and its done.....not one person including our Pres. is talking about the Scope of doing something like this,OR the problems that will be encountered to get this done.....but hey lets just rush into it,do it as fast as we can,and worry about the problems later.....meanwhile many are going to get FUCKED....not just that 40million that keeps floating around...

Many who are insured are getting fucked, by thinking they're covered. The insurance company screws them in the end, by refusing to pay.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then STFU and move to Costa Rica.

Old Rocks just proved you wrong, so you insulted him.

You don't have the balls to admit you are wrong.

It can be done but please consider what size Costa Rico is and also,they have NO military, if we did that, we could provide healthcare,we might be speaking Chinese but we could do it I suppose.

Oh, please. I can't believe you people are actually accepting the absurd premise that Costa Rica actually has better health care than the United States, and arguing as though that nonsense is TRUE, and trying to find ways to explain it away, instead of just horselaughing at it and moving on as it deserves.

You dumbass liberals call me when rich people from around the world flock to Costa frigging Rica for lifesaving operations the way they do here. And tell me which airline YOU'D be taking there if you were diagnosed with brain cancer.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Cons don't get that concept at all.

its going to be a HUGE undertaking to move this many people over.....listening to you guys your acting like one weeks tops and its done.....not one person including our Pres. is talking about the Scope of doing something like this,OR the problems that will be encountered to get this done.....but hey lets just rush into it,do it as fast as we can,and worry about the problems later.....meanwhile many are going to get FUCKED....not just that 40million that keeps floating around...

Many who are insured are getting fucked, by thinking they're covered. The insurance company screws them in the end, by refusing to pay.

True. And it's not like you can take your business elsewhere, not with a pre-existing condition that was refused coverage by 'executive whim' at one of the private bureaucracies.

So much for 'choice'.

-Joe

 

[alan1]

The Case for Universal Health Care in the United States

Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.

Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.

Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money.

Seems you have fallen for what is commonly known as a "Logical Fallacy". Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because A happened, then B happened, that doesn't mean that A caused B.

I see. Then how about Costa Rica. 60 years of single payer health care, third in the world in longevity. And their average income is one tenth of ours. Seems to me that the fallacy here is that we can afford to go on with the system that we have.

Until he proves A caused B, he's got nothing but proof that both A and B exist.
Perhaps you can take a stab at proving A caused B. Good luck.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anybody heard of anyone leaving America to go to Costa Rica or Canada for a heart transplant or cancer treatment??

Oh, yeah. Costa Rica and its state-of-the-art medical establishment is a health care and surgical mecca for the world, dontcha know. Sick billionaires the world over rush there to be treated, and we ALL know hospitals everywhere are clamoring to hire doctors that graduate from Costa Rican medical schools, and top doctors from every country are fighting to get jobs there . . . in American Leftist Bizarro World. I swear, every liberal in this country must be having LSD flashbacks from the sixties, or smoking crack now, or both.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anybody heard of anyone leaving America to go to Costa Rica or Canada for a heart transplant or cancer treatment??

One can't get treatment in Canada unless they have the Canadian Health Card. I do know of people who have had dental work done in Costa Rica.

And why was it that they went all the way to Costa Rica for dental care?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cons don't get that concept at all.

its going to be a HUGE undertaking to move this many people over.....listening to you guys your acting like one weeks tops and its done.....not one person including our Pres. is talking about the Scope of doing something like this,OR the problems that will be encountered to get this done.....but hey lets just rush into it,do it as fast as we can,and worry about the problems later.....meanwhile many are going to get FUCKED....not just that 40million that keeps floating around...

Many who are insured are getting fucked, by thinking they're covered. The insurance company screws them in the end, by refusing to pay.

Oh, spare me. You really want us to believe that whole cadres of people out there are getting turned down by their insurance companies for procedures clearly defined in their policies as covered, with no recourse but to suck it up? Prove it.

On the other hand, it is a known fact in medical billing circles that Medicare, run by our benevolent government, does not guarantee coverage for ANY service, and any service rendered to a patient on Medicare is being done totally on spec. They MIGHT pay for it when you send in the bill, they PROBABLY will, but they don't promise to, and they can decide not to pay and there's nothing you can do about it.

By all means, get us all health coverage like THAT.

 

[Cecilie1200]

its going to be a HUGE undertaking to move this many people over.....listening to you guys your acting like one weeks tops and its done.....not one person including our Pres. is talking about the Scope of doing something like this,OR the problems that will be encountered to get this done.....but hey lets just rush into it,do it as fast as we can,and worry about the problems later.....meanwhile many are going to get FUCKED....not just that 40million that keeps floating around...

Many who are insured are getting fucked, by thinking they're covered. The insurance company screws them in the end, by refusing to pay.

True. And it's not like you can take your business elsewhere, not with a pre-existing condition that was refused coverage by 'executive whim' at one of the private bureaucracies.

So much for 'choice'.

-Joe

Pre-existing conditions aren't refused coverage by "whim", you dimwit. You don't buy fire insurance AFTER your house burns down, or car insurance AFTER you get into a fender-bender, and even you wouldn't be dumb enough to expect the insurance company to go along with that. Only with health insurance are companies expected to force their other customers to cover your misfortune retroactively.

 

[johnrocks]

Old Rocks just proved you wrong, so you insulted him.

You don't have the balls to admit you are wrong.

It can be done but please consider what size Costa Rico is and also,they have NO military, if we did that, we could provide healthcare,we might be speaking Chinese but we could do it I suppose.

Oh, please. I can't believe you people are actually accepting the absurd premise that Costa Rica actually has better health care than the United States, and arguing as though that nonsense is TRUE, and trying to find ways to explain it away, instead of just horselaughing at it and moving on as it deserves.

You dumbass liberals call me when rich people from around the world flock to Costa frigging Rica for lifesaving operations the way they do here. And tell me which airline YOU'D be taking there if you were diagnosed with brain cancer.

I was stating that the only way they did it was to dissolve the military,silly thing to do in this day and age. I support a free market approach,get government completly out of the equation.

 

[alan1]

Anybody heard of anyone leaving America to go to Costa Rica or Canada for a heart transplant or cancer treatment??

Oh, yeah. Costa Rica and its state-of-the-art medical establishment is a health care and surgical mecca for the world, dontcha know. Sick billionaires the world over rush there to be treated, and we ALL know hospitals everywhere are clamoring to hire doctors that graduate from Costa Rican medical schools, and top doctors from every country are fighting to get jobs there . . . in American Leftist Bizarro World. I swear, every liberal in this country must be having LSD flashbacks from the sixties, or smoking crack now, or both.

Good point.
Didn't Ted Kennedy go to Duke University in NC for his treatment?
Now why the heck didn't he go to Costa Rica?
I'll patiently wait for Old Rocks or Chris to explain that.

 

[johnrocks]

Anybody heard of anyone leaving America to go to Costa Rica or Canada for a heart transplant or cancer treatment??

Oh, yeah. Costa Rica and its state-of-the-art medical establishment is a health care and surgical mecca for the world, dontcha know. Sick billionaires the world over rush there to be treated, and we ALL know hospitals everywhere are clamoring to hire doctors that graduate from Costa Rican medical schools, and top doctors from every country are fighting to get jobs there . . . in American Leftist Bizarro World. I swear, every liberal in this country must be having LSD flashbacks from the sixties, or smoking crack now, or both.

Good point.
Didn't Ted Kennedy go to Duke University in NC for his treatment?
Now why the heck didn't he go to Costa Rica?
I'll patiently wait for Old Rocks or Chris to explain that.

Or even Canada

 

[Cecilie1200]

It can be done but please consider what size Costa Rico is and also,they have NO military, if we did that, we could provide healthcare,we might be speaking Chinese but we could do it I suppose.

Oh, please. I can't believe you people are actually accepting the absurd premise that Costa Rica actually has better health care than the United States, and arguing as though that nonsense is TRUE, and trying to find ways to explain it away, instead of just horselaughing at it and moving on as it deserves.

You dumbass liberals call me when rich people from around the world flock to Costa frigging Rica for lifesaving operations the way they do here. And tell me which airline YOU'D be taking there if you were diagnosed with brain cancer.

I was stating that the only way they did it was to dissolve the military,silly thing to do in this day and age. I support a free market approach,get government completly out of the equation.

The only way they did WHAT, precisely? Get better health care than we have? They didn't do that at all. Get cheaper health care? They did that by basically getting what they pay for. Get "greater longevity"? Doesn't have a damned thing to do with health care systems, and SURE as hell doesn't indicate that COSTA RICA has better health care than the UNITED STATES. I mean, just play that concept over in your mind a couple of times, and see if you can even keep a straight face while doing it.

I know you don't support universal health care, which is why I'm wondering why you and others like you are letting the asshats define the parameters of the debate for you to such a ludicrous notion. Why are you even trying to explain that "Costa Rica has better health care" instead of challenging that whole assertion?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Cons don't get that concept at all.

its going to be a HUGE undertaking to move this many people over.....listening to you guys your acting like one weeks tops and its done.....not one person including our Pres. is talking about the Scope of doing something like this,OR the problems that will be encountered to get this done.....but hey lets just rush into it,do it as fast as we can,and worry about the problems later.....meanwhile many are going to get FUCKED....not just that 40million that keeps floating around...

Many who are insured are getting fucked, by thinking they're covered. The insurance company screws them in the end, by refusing to pay.

do you even understand what im talking about here?.....cause what you just said has absolutely nothing to do with what i posted....