Right cheers I guess the basic argument against the state providing healthcare free at the point of provision is that it's expensive in terms of taxation and transforms the worlds most free market economy into an ipso-facto marxist state. The only input I can make is that we in britain have just such a system and can confirm that it is expensive in terms of tax pounds; but so much more economical for the individual, economies of scale effect probably. There are still plenty of options for private provision via health insurance groups such as bupa so if you are a wealthy free marketer you can still get seen quicker in a luxury hospital for a few quid more but you hav'nt wasted your tax pounds because they've been used to train the m.ds and surgeons etc that are treating you in the private sector As for the fear that state provision of health care being tantamount to marxism I suspect it's a joke that's lost in translation.
Originally posted by kevcvs57You are 100% correct! You must understand 2 things about Americans however:
Right cheers I guess the basic argument against the state providing healthcare free at the point of provision is that it's expensive in terms of taxation and transforms the worlds most free market economy into an ipso-facto marxist state. The only input I can make is that we in britain have just such a system and can confirm that it is expensive in terms of ...[text shortened]... f health care being tantamount to marxism I suspect it's a joke that's lost in translation.
1. Americans are generally less educated than there Eurpoean counterparts, so the concept of Government involvment = Socialism is a simple enough idea that Insurance companies and HMO's can force feed them, and being bombarded by the media on this subject for decades has made many Americans fearful of any alternative.
2. Insurance companies and HMO's are very rich and powerful in America. This money and power buys the influence of many lawmakers who are eager to mantain the status quo.
President Obama made a pretty big mistake in the timing of his push for universal healthcare in America. This should have been done when the economy was in better shape, and paying for this program was more of a reality without adding to the federal deficit.
Not to worry my friend, Americans will (in time) learn that the headlong pursuit of concentrating the bulk of wealth and power in the hands of very few, is not the best way of doing things.
Originally posted by bill718Cheers for the feedback, what freaks me out is I have seen some of the tea party type demos against state healthcare on fox and they look at least as poor as me; but their frothing at the mouth because the state wants to prevent them from dying of easily remedied ailments due to lack of funds.
You are 100% correct! You must understand 2 things about Americans however:
1. Americans are generally less educated than there Eurpoean counterparts, so the concept of Government involvment = Socialism is a simple enough idea that Insurance companies and HMO's can force feed them, and being bombarded by the media on this subject for decades has made many ...[text shortened]... ng the bulk of wealth and power in the hands of very few, is not the best way of doing things.
Originally posted by kevcvs57Where do you get this from ? You people talk as if the U.S. is some third world country. People ARE NOT " dying of easily remedied ailments due to lack of funds."
Cheers for the feedback, what freaks me out is I have seen some of the tea party type demos against state healthcare on fox and they look at least as poor as me; but their frothing at the mouth because the state wants to prevent them from dying of easily remedied ailments due to lack of funds.
Personally, I have never met anybody who has met anybody denied of medical treatment in the United States.
Originally posted by utherpendragonSo how do they obtain it, if they not insured; do the charities manage to cover a hundred percent of the uninsured; does the state step in and pay for long term care of a diabetic or leukemia sufferer. I dont think I was accusing the u.s of being a third world country I was questioning the animosity toward state provision of healthcare whilst preferring a just as distant and faceless insurance corporation and their claim adjusters.
Where do you get this from ? You people talk as if the U.S. is some third world country. People ARE NOT " dying of easily remedied ailments due to lack of funds."
Personally, I have never met anybody who has met anybody denied of medical treatment in the United States.
Originally posted by kevcvs57Any sort of emergency, you cannot be denied.
So how do they obtain it, if they not insured; do the charities manage to cover a hundred percent of the uninsured; does the state step in and pay for long term care of a diabetic or leukemia sufferer. I dont think I was accusing the u.s of being a third world country I was questioning the animosity toward state provision of healthcare whilst preferring a just as distant and faceless insurance corporation and their claim adjusters.
Other than that there is Medicaid, a installment plan on paying the bill, many foundations that will pick up the tab, as well as other methods.
I do admit we need health insurance reform. For example I like the idea of not being denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.
Originally posted by utherpendragonRight, definitely not a third world country then. Insurance reform would be tricky though insurance companies are by definition gamblers but their no mugs i cant see them backing a horse with a broken leg and if they did what would the premiums be like. Do you envisage some sort partnership with state or fed government or are you referring to the way in which they define something as preexisting.
Any sort of emergency, you cannot be denied.
Other than that there is Medicaid, a installment plan on paying the bill, many foundations that will pick up the tab, as well as other methods.
I do admit we need health [b]insurance reform. For example I like the idea of not being denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.[/b]
Originally posted by utherpendragonAnd the only "easily remedied ailments" are emergencies?
Any sort of emergency, you cannot be denied.
Other than that there is Medicaid, a installment plan on paying the bill, many foundations that will pick up the tab, as well as other methods.
I do admit we need health [b]insurance reform. For example I like the idea of not being denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.[/b]
The estimated annual death toll due to easily preventable illness is 50,000. That's 50,000 dead Americans because people like you think a system that would save you money is too "socialist".
Originally posted by bill718You can have free health care, too. Just like France.
You are 100% correct! You must understand 2 things about Americans however:
1. Americans are generally less educated than there Eurpoean counterparts, so the concept of Government involvment = Socialism is a simple enough idea that Insurance companies and HMO's can force feed them, and being bombarded by the media on this subject for decades has made many ...[text shortened]... ng the bulk of wealth and power in the hands of very few, is not the best way of doing things.
First, up the sales tax to 21% and put a $3/gallon tax on gasoline. Then tell pharmaceutical companies to cut their prices in half (result: pharma reduces R&D spend further.) Then tell doctors to cut their salaries by 2/3 and get rid of all receptionists and nurse assistants and all that crap (result: fewer doctors.) Then close most hospitals and pharmacies after 7pm and on weekends except for a few "emergency centers" dotted around and open on a rotating basis (Don't know which one is open tonight? Look it up.) Oh and ban all malpractice cases.
Furthermore, force people to get a prescription for ibuprofen or an antihistamine. But hey, you don't need that crap anyway. Got a headache? Tough it out. Sneezing? Blow.
Voila. Free healthcare. Just like France (and I know. I lived there.)
Go ahead -- you won't die from it. But most Americans won't like it, either.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358France's system is not the only universal health care model.
You can have free health care, too. Just like France.
First, up the sales tax to 21% and put a $3/gallon tax on gasoline. Then tell pharmaceutical companies to cut their prices in half (result: pharma reduces R&D spend further.) Then tell doctors to cut their salaries by 2/3 and get rid of all receptionists and nurse assistants and all that crap (res ed there.)
Go ahead -- you won't die from it. But most Americans won't like it, either.
Edit: That's not to agree with your bleak assessment of the implementation of universal health care in France, either, though.
Originally posted by utherpendragonYes, it makes so much more sense not to insure the hypertensive patient at a fraction of the cost the county/state/country will bear after admitting him to the hospital for a stroke "emergency."
Any sort of emergency, you cannot be denied.
Other than that there is Medicaid, a installment plan on paying the bill, many foundations that will pick up the tab, as well as other methods.
I do admit we need health [b]insurance reform. For example I like the idea of not being denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.[/b]
Furthermore, it makes so much more sense for the United States to have one health care system for the poor, another for the elderly, another for the military, another for miltary veterans, another for Native Americans, and another for the majority of employed Americans not falling into one of the preceding categories.
Originally posted by spruce112358We have free health care in uk but we can still buy all those low level meds at the supermarkets and chemists/pharmacies. U.K NHS is having a hot debate thats quite the reverse the one in the U.S i.e privatisation rearing its ugly head again.
You can have free health care, too. Just like France.
First, up the sales tax to 21% and put a $3/gallon tax on gasoline. Then tell pharmaceutical companies to cut their prices in half (result: pharma reduces R&D spend further.) Then tell doctors to cut their salaries by 2/3 and get rid of all receptionists and nurse assistants and all that crap (res ...[text shortened]... ed there.)
Go ahead -- you won't die from it. But most Americans won't like it, either.
Originally posted by kevcvs57I read somewhere that the prospect of the UK's system devolving into the US's system was always the tipping point in the national discussion that resulted in the UK's not privatizing its system.
We have free health care in uk but we can still buy all those low level meds at the supermarkets and chemists/pharmacies. U.K NHS is having a hot debate thats quite the reverse the one in the U.S i.e privatisation rearing its ugly head again.
Originally posted by wittywonkaIt is an incredebly immotive issue here; the only way the right wing free marketeers can infiltrate private enterprise into the NHS is by stealth and subdefuge. A tory politician once said "the nhs was the only religion britain had left". To your question; I think that may be true by default because its the only private system we have any real info about. However it may be telling that the pro privatisation camp never cite the U.S system as part of their argument.
I read somewhere that the prospect of the UK's system devolving into the US's system was always the tipping point in the national discussion that resulted in the UK's not privatizing its system.