Top Ten Countries With Best Public Health Care

[Flash]

Why do Republicans like going without healthcare, or receiving ridiculous bills in the mail from their healthcare providers?

Let's take a look at the Top Ten.

The U.S.? #22.

1. Sweden
2. Germany
3. Denmark
4. Canada
5. Switzerland
6. Netherlands
7. Norway
8. United Kingdom
9. Finland
10. Japan

Socialism.............

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/countries-with-the-most-well-developed-public-health-care-system

What are the criteria?

Last time the stupid WHO did this idiotic list they used having Socialized medicine as the main criteria and we all know how dumb that is. They also didn't take into account that the US has so many unhealthy Illegals flood into the country.

Dumbass list only quoted by stupid uneducated Moon Bats.

 

[Stryder50]

Why do Republicans like going without healthcare, or receiving ridiculous bills in the mail from their healthcare providers?

Let's take a look at the Top Ten.

The U.S.? #22.

1. Sweden
2. Germany
3. Denmark
4. Canada
5. Switzerland
6. Netherlands
7. Norway
8. United Kingdom
9. Finland
10. Japan

Socialism.............

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/countries-with-the-most-well-developed-public-health-care-system

This might take 2-3 "quote" responses to deal with. We'll start with the First here, terms and definitions.;

One huge problem in discussions of this sort is the use of a term that actually has about three different meanings(definitions) and applications. As is so oft common to the Leftist/socialist defective mindset/'mentality', blurring word meaning and usage is an aid to confusion and disinformation, which is the foundation of socialist looting of society.

"Healthcare" is one of those terms oft use to cover three separate concepts and applications, hence the lack of precise language and usage becomes an aid to misconceptions and disinformation, advancing something oft opposite of what it should/could be.

To that end, let's consider that there are three more accurate and precise terms we should use, what they are/defined, and how to apply. Hence the following;

"Healthcare" = "Care of ONE's Health" = what the individual does to be healthy;
1) Proper diet of healthy and nutritious foods, consumed in moderation so as to nourish one's body while avoiding excess weight gain.
2) Active lifestyle(s) that include exercise that with maintain if not strengthen muscle mass and bone structure/strength.
3) Avoiding extreme or dangerous activities such as "extreme/hazardous sports (rock climbing, sky-diving, base jumping, etc.), race car driving, intense contact sports, etc.

"Medical Care" = is when one needs the aid of medical professionals* to deal with those things that "care of personal health" didn't cover or prevent. Such as catching a disease like common cold~flu~Covid~cancer, etc. Or injury such as from an auto accident of crime event, etc.

"Medical Insurance"** = a method to help pay for the cost$ of "medical care" beyond what a person can, or wants, to pay for out of their own financial pocket/resources.

* = Medical Professionals have often paid a lot of $ in tuition and a lot of time in classes to learn what they need to perform their career choice. Many did so expecting this will provide an income beyond that of lower quality knowledge and skill-sets labor demands such as being a 'burger flipper' n a fast food restaurant.

** = Insurance is basically a betting pool where the consumer pays money in, expecting they may have a need/claim that equals or exceeds what they paid, while expecting everyone else in that pool won't have needs/claims against the total paid in by all.

Insurance companies are setting their income needs/premiums paid by their customer such as to cover expenses/costs/claims with expectation of a bit left over(profit) should they get hit with claims~costs beyond what was expected~projected.

Hence, an efficiently and effectively run insurance company will usually show a profit, meaning they are doing things right and likely will be able to be around and provide their service in the future.

An insurance company that mostly "breaks even" where income/premiums just cover expenses/costs/claims is on the edge of failure and showing signs it is not run/operated smartly and efficiently/effectively. Such a company is not a good investment to those whom could support it (buy it's stock), and is on edge/at risk of failing. Failure putting it's employees out of a job, it's investors out of their money , and it's customers out of insurance coverage.

An insurance company operating at a loss = expenses/costs/claims exceed it's ability to pay/cover is one about to fail and go out of business. meaning, as stated above; "Such a company is not a good investment to those whom could support it (buy it's stock), and is on edge/at risk of failing. Failure putting it's employees out of a job, it's investors out of their money , and it's customers out of insurance coverage."

Profits are GOOD!
Losses are BAD!
Break even is Dangerous.

 

[ESay]

The federal tax codes are deliberately cryptic and corrupt because they are manipulated by the wealthy.
A public health care system would only be effected by doctors, voters, and patients, so would not have a source of corruption

Well, actually public health care is a lucrative field for corruption. Funding and maintaining clinics, centralised distribution of drugs and medical equipment and so on.

 

[Stryder50]

Quality was important to him, as it is to millions.

Actually it should read……as it is to millionaires

Our healthcare is tilted toward the wealthy
Those with marginal insurance can be bankrupted by a hospital stay

Again, you are ignoring the Quality issue in health care.

You talk as if its a "commodity" where its all the same.

How will a risky socialized medicine scheme help improve quality.

Socialized medicine is always better quality because the people vote based on the quality of their health care under socialism.
With a for profits private health care system, you prepay so have zero say in what ever quality they decide to give you, and their main motive is to please the stockholders, not the patients.

BOLLOCKS!
Under "socialist "healthcare" " you tend to get the doctor and treatment the system decides you will get, rather than the one you might want. Personal choice in the matter is a lower option to the needs and willingness to pay decided by "the State", which is footing the bill.

Private "healthcare", more correctly "medical care"; allows greater patient choice than the "one size fits all" from guv'mint run medical care/treatment plans.

 

[Blues Man]

Why do Republicans like going without healthcare, or receiving ridiculous bills in the mail from their healthcare providers?

Let's take a look at the Top Ten.

The U.S.? #22.

1. Sweden
2. Germany
3. Denmark
4. Canada
5. Switzerland
6. Netherlands
7. Norway
8. United Kingdom
9. Finland
10. Japan

Socialism.............

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/countries-with-the-most-well-developed-public-health-care-system

Funny I don't get ridiculous health care bills nor do I ever have to go without health care.

But then again I have a good insurance plan that is better than any government shit plan

 

[Rigby5]

The federal tax codes are deliberately cryptic and corrupt because they are manipulated by the wealthy.
A public health care system would only be effected by doctors, voters, and patients, so would not have a source of corruption

Well, actually public health care is a lucrative field for corruption. Funding and maintaining clinics, centralised distribution of drugs and medical equipment and so on.

In order for public health care to be corrupted, politicians would have to be getting kickbacks from the for profit companies.
That is illegal and traceable.

And you are also wrong when you say public health care is centralized.
Public health care is typically county run and totally decentralized.
For example, in urban areas you would likely build clinics, but in rural areas you would want visiting nurses associations instead.
It is private, for profit health care that is centralized, as they try to maximize profits by cutting out rural patients.

 

[Rigby5]

Quality was important to him, as it is to millions.

Actually it should read……as it is to millionaires

Our healthcare is tilted toward the wealthy
Those with marginal insurance can be bankrupted by a hospital stay

Again, you are ignoring the Quality issue in health care.

You talk as if its a "commodity" where its all the same.

How will a risky socialized medicine scheme help improve quality.

Socialized medicine is always better quality because the people vote based on the quality of their health care under socialism.
With a for profits private health care system, you prepay so have zero say in what ever quality they decide to give you, and their main motive is to please the stockholders, not the patients.

BOLLOCKS!
Under "socialist "healthcare" " you tend to get the doctor and treatment the system decides you will get, rather than the one you might want. Personal choice in the matter is a lower option to the needs and willingness to pay decided by "the State", which is footing the bill.

Private "healthcare", more correctly "medical care"; allows greater patient choice than the "one size fits all" from guv'mint run medical care/treatment plans.

Wrong.
With private, for profit health insurance, they decide, not the patient.
The patient prepaid long ago, so gets no say at all.
With socialized medicine, you can always appeal and get satisfaction because you have layers of political representatives to go to.
There is no profit motive, so you WILL get satisfaction.

 

[Stryder50]

Bollocks!

"The people" vote on whom will pay, not the quality of care. You overlook that the medical practitioners would like to have decent earning/income and "socialized medical care" treats those medical practitioners as just cogs in the machine, hence they do the usual bare minimum.

This is why so many, if they can, move to the USA where they can charge and get what they are worth.

 

[Stryder50]

Quality was important to him, as it is to millions.

Actually it should read……as it is to millionaires

Our healthcare is tilted toward the wealthy
Those with marginal insurance can be bankrupted by a hospital stay

Again, you are ignoring the Quality issue in health care.

You talk as if its a "commodity" where its all the same.

How will a risky socialized medicine scheme help improve quality.

Yet, international ratings place the overall quality of Canadian healthcare as good as ours

yet , Alex Trebek came here to America when he had his health crisis. And thousands of Canadian patients cross the border for treatment every years.

"international ratings" are based on how socialist-friendlythe policies are, not their quality.

Elite Canadians I'm sure are perfectly happy with the current risky scheme up there.

Then again, Canadian citizens living n the US will run back across the border to get free healthcare

"Free" to them only because their fellow citizens are paying for it.
BTW, not just those Canadians "living in the US". Many whom live in Canada and don't want to wait until "their turn" comes up; think they may need medical care sooner, and can afford out of pocket, will come down here to the USA. I live near that border and have seen it often.

It just isn't health care that Canadian subjects like to cross the border over. A lot of Canadians like to travel here to Mercer County PA, and the tremendous Prime Outlets to avoid being punished with a VAT.

We see similar here in Washington, when the borders were more open.
Not only did Canadians come here to shop and load up on groceries (dairy especially), but also clothes, other consumer items, and especially petrol, often with a few 5 gallon jerry cans full in the trunk when going back North.

There's a message here in how the higher taxes and impact of such on cost of basic goods, affects the average citizen whom pays twice - to the taxman and the seller passing on cost$ - will go elsewhere if they can to make their money go further.

 

[Rigby5]

Bollocks!

"The people" vote on whom will pay, not the quality of care. You overlook that the medical practitioners would like to have decent earning/income and "socialized medical care" treats those medical practitioners as just cogs in the machine, hence they do the usual bare minimum.

This is why so many, if they can, move to the USA where they can charge and get what they are worth.

Wrong.
Medical practitioners get paid better under socialized medicine than they do under the for profit insurance system of the US because most medical offices need to hire dozens of people just to do all the insurance paperwork.
The overhead is huge.
The disallowed claims are huge.
The profits skimmed by insurance companies is huge.
Socialized medicine is not exclusive.
Doctors in countries with socialized medicine can go private is they want.
But most do not want to, because they like socialized medicine better.

 

[Rigby5]

Quality was important to him, as it is to millions.

Actually it should read……as it is to millionaires

Our healthcare is tilted toward the wealthy
Those with marginal insurance can be bankrupted by a hospital stay

Again, you are ignoring the Quality issue in health care.

You talk as if its a "commodity" where its all the same.

How will a risky socialized medicine scheme help improve quality.

Yet, international ratings place the overall quality of Canadian healthcare as good as ours

yet , Alex Trebek came here to America when he had his health crisis. And thousands of Canadian patients cross the border for treatment every years.

"international ratings" are based on how socialist-friendlythe policies are, not their quality.

Elite Canadians I'm sure are perfectly happy with the current risky scheme up there.

Then again, Canadian citizens living n the US will run back across the border to get free healthcare

"Free" to them only because their fellow citizens are paying for it.
BTW, not just those Canadians "living in the US". Many whom live in Canada and don't want to wait until "their turn" comes up; think they may need medical care sooner, and can afford out of pocket, will come down here to the USA. I live near that border and have seen it often.

It just isn't health care that Canadian subjects like to cross the border over. A lot of Canadians like to travel here to Mercer County PA, and the tremendous Prime Outlets to avoid being punished with a VAT.

We see similar here in Washington, when the borders were more open.
Not only did Canadians come here to shop and load up on groceries (dairy especially), but also clothes, other consumer items, and especially petrol, often with a few 5 gallon jerry cans full in the trunk when going back North.

There's a message here in how the higher taxes and impact of such on cost of basic goods, affects the average citizen whom pays twice - to the taxman and the seller passing on cost$ - will go elsewhere if they can to make their money go further.

Wrong.
VAT taxes in Canada are LOWER than income taxes in the US.
The point of them buying in the US is then they pay NO taxes, not that Canadian taxes are higher.
They are not higher.
Canadian taxes are lower than US taxes.

 

[BlackSand]

Why do Republicans like going without healthcare, or receiving ridiculous bills in the mail from their healthcare providers?

Let's take a look at the Top Ten.

The U.S.? #22.

1. Sweden
2. Germany
3. Denmark
4. Canada
5. Switzerland
6. Netherlands
7. Norway
8. United Kingdom
9. Finland
10. Japan

Socialism.............

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/countries-with-the-most-well-developed-public-health-care-system

.

The US Constitution doesn't grant the Federal Government the power to impose one individual's Origin of Debt on another citizen,
No matter how diligent Hardcore Marxists are at establishing an imaginary Responsibility to the Collective.

Something that is often ignored by lawmakers, but equally Unconstitutional.

That's for people who still don't understand why the ACA (Obamacare) addressed Insurance Availability
and not Single-Payer or Universal Healthcare.

.​

 

[ESay]

The federal tax codes are deliberately cryptic and corrupt because they are manipulated by the wealthy.
A public health care system would only be effected by doctors, voters, and patients, so would not have a source of corruption

Well, actually public health care is a lucrative field for corruption. Funding and maintaining clinics, centralised distribution of drugs and medical equipment and so on.

In order for public health care to be corrupted, politicians would have to be getting kickbacks from the for profit companies.
That is illegal and traceable.

And you are also wrong when you say public health care is centralized.
Public health care is typically county run and totally decentralized.
For example, in urban areas you would likely build clinics, but in rural areas you would want visiting nurses associations instead.
It is private, for profit health care that is centralized, as they try to maximize profits by cutting out rural patients.

I think that public health care has to be centralised if you want to achieve equal standards and access throughout the whole country.

If you keep PHC on county or even state level of financing and regulation, then richer counties and states will afford better equipped and professional clinics, while clinics in poorer states will be underfinanced and even will have to charge an extra pay from the patients.

So, basically the things will remain the same.

 

[Stryder50]

LordBrownTrout I live in florida where lots of canadians spend their time-----when they get really sick, instead of waiting in canada with their rationed care for things like hip surgery---they come to the US to have it done. Canadas health care suck.

Hip surgery is not an urgent need. Most people go for years before they finally get it.
I would get it done for free in Canada rather than pay $100,000 here

Hip surgery is a lot more urgent than a Sex Change or an abortion, I'll tell you that for sure.

It isn't an "emergency" but it is needed, particularly in the current age where more and more doctors are hesitant to help their patients cope with the pain with oxy scrips.

If I needed it, I would rather get it done by a Competent surgeon, not some socialized medicine quack. Its still a medical challenge, and even native born Canadians like Alex Trebek come to America when they have a health challenge instead of relying on Canada's failed system.

You have to wait for hip surgery in Canada, maybe six months, but you will not receive a bill

In the US, you may wait six weeks and face a substantial bill later

You are not addressing the issue of "Quality" here at all, and that's where your argument fails.

American surgeons are the finest in the world, and the best always costs more. When British subject Mick Jagger needed complicated heart surgery, he came to America even though he could have received the procedure for less in England.


BTW, if America wasn't next door to Canada, the wait for hips would be a lot longer there. The American medical system provides an alternative for Canadians who care about their health and won't wait.

Wrong.
Average health care in the US is much WORSE than the rest of the world.
The fact we have a few of the finest doctors does not mean we get the advantage from them.
Only the very wealthy do.

Interesting point of view. So the quality of medical care in America is strictly shit for the most part, in your opinion?
What would you suggest be done to bring our current doctors and nurse up to speed?

I fail to consider the medical treatment I've gotten so far in my life (in the USA) as "shit for the most part"; rather just the opposite. I've a knowledgable and concerned PCP, a great raport with him, and consider my medical treatments to date as the best available in the world and provided at reasonable cost$.

A concept many here fail to grasp is just how concerned and conscientious will be the professional getting paid the bare minimum to perform and expected to meet lowest denominator standards. ???

Do you really want medical treatment from someone there just to be present and go through the motions of maybe caring ???

 

[Stryder50]

Bollocks!

"The people" vote on whom will pay, not the quality of care. You overlook that the medical practitioners would like to have decent earning/income and "socialized medical care" treats those medical practitioners as just cogs in the machine, hence they do the usual bare minimum.

This is why so many, if they can, move to the USA where they can charge and get what they are worth.

Wrong.
Medical practitioners get paid better under socialized medicine than they do under the for profit insurance system of the US because most medical offices need to hire dozens of people just to do all the insurance paperwork.
The overhead is huge.
The disallowed claims are huge.
The profits skimmed by insurance companies is huge.
Socialized medicine is not exclusive.
Doctors in countries with socialized medicine can go private is they want.
But most do not want to, because they like socialized medicine better.

How about documenting these claims of yours ...

 

[BlackSand]

But most do not want to, because they like socialized medicine better.

.

Not because they think the care they can provide is any better,
but because socialized medicine limits their clientele, absent any true competition in the market.

.​

 

[Stryder50]

Why do Republicans like going without healthcare, or receiving ridiculous bills in the mail from their healthcare providers?

Let's take a look at the Top Ten.

The U.S.? #22.

1. Sweden
2. Germany
3. Denmark
4. Canada
5. Switzerland
6. Netherlands
7. Norway
8. United Kingdom
9. Finland
10. Japan

Socialism.............

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/countries-with-the-most-well-developed-public-health-care-system

Per this website, most of those "top ten" do so a a private and public debt ratio/percnetage beyond sustainable and passing on economic burdens (inflation and currency devaluation) of such to the future generations of citizens/taxpayers.

Taking that list and per the data at this site, for debt to GDP ratio/percentage;

https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

We get this;

1. Sweden = 279+%
2. Germany = 260+%
3. Denmark = N/A*
4. Canada = 251+%
5. Switzerland = 354+%
6. Netherlands = 683+%
7. Norway = 98+%
8. UK = 433+%
9. Finland = N/A*
10. Japan = 354+%

This data suggests that most to all these nation do such via Deficit on annual Budget and growing National Debt being passed down to future taxpayers/Citizens. In other words, these bnations are paying/paying for what they can't afford/sustain now and will put such on the "credit card" for others to pay for later. Neither fiscally nor ethically responsible.

USA by comparison is at 237+%
This reflects the constant bounce from Right wing, Conservative Administrations trying to keep costs and Deficit/Debts down versus Left Wing Leftist Administrations constantly trying to spend more and run up Deficit and Debt. Still, for the most part, makes USA providing more in scope of what we can pay for rather than what we can charge against the unknown future.

* - It would take extensive web-searching to get real numbers for these nations which aren't shown on the linked website, and I've neither time nor inclination to do such. Still, the limited first layer investigations suggests both are in high and excessive ranges of deficit and debt to provide their "social medical care services".

Somebody, somewhere, eventually has to pay the cost$.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch ~TANSTAAFL !

 

[Stryder50]

Bollocks!

"The people" vote on whom will pay, not the quality of care. You overlook that the medical practitioners would like to have decent earning/income and "socialized medical care" treats those medical practitioners as just cogs in the machine, hence they do the usual bare minimum.

This is why so many, if they can, move to the USA where they can charge and get what they are worth.

Wrong.
Medical practitioners get paid better under socialized medicine than they do under the for profit insurance system of the US because most medical offices need to hire dozens of people just to do all the insurance paperwork.
The overhead is huge.
The disallowed claims are huge.
The profits skimmed by insurance companies is huge.
Socialized medicine is not exclusive.
Doctors in countries with socialized medicine can go private is they want.
But most do not want to, because they like socialized medicine better.

Costs still get paid by someone/somewhere.

In USA it may be by the medical care provider, but in socialized systems it is the guv'mint/taxpayers/citizens whom pay the costs.

Obviously you don't know squat about basic economics!

TANSTAAFL !

 

[francoHFW]

Let's take a look at the Top Ten.

The U.S.? #22.

1. Sweden
2. Germany
3. Denmark
4. Canada
5. Switzerland
6. Netherlands
7. Norway
8. United Kingdom
9. Finland
10. Japan

Thanks for confirming for us the utter failure of Obamacare, taking us from the best care in the world now down to #22.

Yeah, nah...sorry.
These are the figures for 2000
View attachment 504541

World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Welp, we knew in 2009 what we were getting from Obamacare, the SHAFT. 40 million more people have health INSURANCE now, not worth a nickel, and everyone else's care has gone down by 50% or increased 3X in cost.

Yes now the problem is cost. Obamacare is actually the GOP plan they always said the liars. We have to have much more transparency and competition which the GOP blocks of course. They love having the most expensive healthcare system anywhere by far and many people are not covered. Brilliant!

 

[francoHFW]

Why do Republicans like going without healthcare, or receiving ridiculous bills in the mail from their healthcare providers?

Let's take a look at the Top Ten.

The U.S.? #22.

1. Sweden
2. Germany
3. Denmark
4. Canada
5. Switzerland
6. Netherlands
7. Norway
8. United Kingdom
9. Finland
10. Japan

Socialism.............

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/countries-with-the-most-well-developed-public-health-care-system

Per this website, most of those "top ten" do so a a private and public debt ratio/percnetage beyond sustainable and passing on economic burdens (inflation and currency devaluation) of such to the future generations of citizens/taxpayers.

Taking that list and per the data at this site, for debt to GDP ratio/percentage;

https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

We get this;

1. Sweden = 279+%
2. Germany = 260+%
3. Denmark = N/A*
4. Canada = 251+%
5. Switzerland = 354+%
6. Netherlands = 683+%
7. Norway = 98+%
8. UK = 433+%
9. Finland = N/A*
10. Japan = 354+%

This data suggests that most to all these nation do such via Deficit on annual Budget and growing National Debt being passed down to future taxpayers/Citizens. In other words, these bnations are paying/paying for what they can't afford/sustain now and will put such on the "credit card" for others to pay for later. Neither fiscally nor ethically responsible.

USA by comparison is at 237+%
This reflects the constant bounce from Right wing, Conservative Administrations trying to keep costs and Deficit/Debts down versus Left Wing Leftist Administrations constantly trying to spend more and run up Deficit and Debt. Still, for the most part, makes USA providing more in scope of what we can pay for rather than what we can charge against the unknown future.

* - It would take extensive web-searching to get real numbers for these nations which aren't shown on the linked website, and I've neither time nor inclination to do such. Still, the limited first layer investigations suggests both are in high and excessive ranges of deficit and debt to provide their "social medical care services".

Somebody, somewhere, eventually has to pay the cost$.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch ~TANSTAAFL !

All that is about the 2008 GOP world depression. Great job! And the Trump inspired conservative blockhead reaction to the pandemic.