Nationalized health care

[IronBrig4]

This thread mostly applies to Americans, since the majority of European governments provide national health care.

Do you think the government should provide health care for everyone? I think it's a great idea, as long as the system is well-funded. When my parents were visiting Austria, my Mom had a nasty eye infection. She saw the doctor and got the eye looked at. At the end of the visit, my parents just had to pay a small fee for the antibiotics. Quick, cheap, and efficient. You can't beat that. If you think about it, Americans pay more than Europeans do for health care; the only difference is that Americans are paying avaricious insurance companies while Europeans pay with their taxes.

I don't think the government should have to pay for cosmetic surgery, however. If some 18-year-old ditz wants to get breast augmentation surgery, that's something she should pay for.

[JP226]

no, health care is a limited resource, thus not everyone can have it. If you pull government from the system, and assuming you can pull european governments as well, which is highly unlikely, than the laws of the freemarket would bring the prices down to the point that more people were able to recieve it.

This idiotic idealistic approach of nationalized healthcare isn't helping anything. It's all about making yourself feel better, forget the results. That and this idea that healthcare is some kind of right. A right is something that somebody else is obliged to supply, and you can't do that with healthcare.

[Shadows]

voted this option: "Provide emergency, preventative, and general health care free of charge, but not cosmetic surgery."
I think national health care would be a good idea, since many people don't even have insurance anyways it can only help. Except for the cosmetic surgery, people can pay for that on their own, its not a neccesity for most people (except for maybe brun victims and the like).

[IamthePope]

Voted: "dirty commies foaming at the mouth" as I believe it to be a betrayal of capatalism
I disagree that health care system would be a good thing. Heres why:

1. More Beauracracy: another government service means more gov't beauracracy which means exponentially more taxes as government beauracracy has a tendancy to grow.

2. It is bound to be inefficient: take a look at the postal service, Fed-Ex does it much better.

3. It'll be difficult to use: Last time I went to the DMV (department of motor vehicals) I had to wait about 30 minutes to get a number and then another 2 hrs for my number to be called. This is how I imagine government run Healthcare. The local operators have little incentive to operate efficiently and you cannot go elsewhere for service. Free market competition necessitates improvements in efficiency and customer service.

4. Betrayal of Capatalism:It'll deprive American capatalists and entrepreneurs(sp?) of the oppurtunity to make money from the Hospital and Health Insurance industries and therefore would be a betrayal of American capatalism.

5. Unnessasary increase in Taxes: I think we all agree that taxes are already high enough. A huge new government service like this would require broad tax increases. Granted you wouldnt have to pay for health insurance any longer but If you suddenly start to have to pick up the slack for all those people who dont pay health insurance, its bound to cost the people who currently pay for health insurance more.

Finally I think the problems inherent in a proposed health care system are more numerous than the current inequalities that exist with the current system. we cannot imagine the possible consequences of simplifying such a complex industry into government control. These are only the most apparent problems with such proposal but I imagine there are far more that have not been addressed.

For instance, what about the bio-tech feild and the funding, and research that is undertaken by hospitals. How would government handle this? would the Government create another department to handle this (more beauracracy). And how would the government deal with the pharmacutical companies?

So much government influence on the lives of Americans disturbs and worries me. I'm uncertain the the risks in this proposal are of less importance than the possible gains.

[Elu Barcino]

I voted for the first one. Then I looked at the second one again, noticed the cosmetic surgey part, and thought it suited my viewpoint more.

So don't count my vote for the first option.

Then again, I live in Britain, where we have nationalized healthcare anyway, so I suppose it isn't as big an issue for me as it is for Americans...

[Last Roman]

none of the options cover me

I think there should be nationalized healthcare, but at state level (and of course only if you want it).

so if I had to choose one, I'd go with the 3rd option

[MadKow]

It's very fallacious to apply freemarket---->lower prices logic to certain kind of goods. Health is one of them. a free market provides transparent prices not necessarily lower prices.
You can maybe compare health to energy or water. When you are dealing with something that because of its nature people must have and dont have the flexibility to shop around, you can count on exploitation sooner than lower prices.

Im not american, but i favor universal health care, and i agree with the exclusion of breast implants, face lifts of nose jobs.
Plastic reconstructive sugery would of course be included.

[Gwendylyn]

Ideally second option (emergency, preventive, and general healthcare). Comparing the situation of family living in the US, Canada, and Britain, I am almost tempted to move out for the security that universal healthcare coverage would provide me (too patriotic to do that though). I do not think the U.S. is in any way ready for that leap, so realistically I would side with the third option - basic healthcare that can be supplemented by private companies. I do believe they have private healthcare companies in Canada (could be wrong) which give superior healthcare, but that is paid for beyond what is provided based on your taxes.

And I for one would be willing to put up with a tax raise if it meant it went to providing healthcare for people who otherwise would not get it. Personally, our family pays $400 a month just on prescriptions for one person - and that is after our healthcare covers a percentage of the cost. Current health care plans benefit people who are healthy and puts families that have disabled individuals into major financial hardship beyond what they already have to deal with in such circumstances. So, captialism at work suits the majority of consumers to the detriment of the sick minority who actually need the services - no matter the price.

I don't think state level would work, because I can easily imagine states with large, poor populations not opting for it because it would be taxing a largely poor population that cannot afford it nearly as well as a balanced or wealthy population. Too much is unbalanced, and if it were state regulated, I'd move to the state with the best healthcare system, but I doubt that a lot of the people who can't afford healthcare on their own would find the money to pick up and move as well.

[Last Roman]

I don't think state level would work, because I can easily imagine states with large, poor populations not opting for it because it would be taxing a largely poor population that cannot afford it nearly as well as a balanced or wealthy population. Too much is unbalanced, and if it were state regulated, I'd move to the state with the best healthcare system, but I doubt that a lot of the people who can't afford healthcare on their own would find the money to pick up and move as well.

if they couldn't afford the basic healthcare in the first place, then I doubt many could afford to move.

And the plans would be made around the state's needs and resources.

[Gwendylyn]

if they couldn't afford the basic healthcare in the first place, then I doubt many could afford to move.

The first line was my point: if they can't afford basic healthcare, then many wouldn't be able to afford to move to a state that has it provided.

And the plans would be made around the state's needs and resources.

How? This actually confused me, because if it's a state thing as to what health care they provide, then the federal government wouldn't have any say in what they decide upon since it would be state taxes, not federal.

Or are you looking at in another way?

[Last Roman]

The first line was my point: if they can't afford basic healthcare, then many wouldn't be able to afford to move to a state that has it provided.

such is life

How? This actually confused me, because if it's a state thing as to what health care they provide, then the federal government wouldn't have any say in what they decide upon since it would be state taxes, not federal.

Or are you looking at in another way?

exactly. I imagine if the federal gov't took control of it, it would be hard to manage, too much redtape. At a state level, less gov't to go through, more efficient. So it's not really nationalized healthcare, but state healthcare, but the basic idea is the same

[Gwendylyn]

exactly. I imagine if the federal gov't took control of it, it would be hard to manage, too much redtape. At a state level, less gov't to go through, more efficient. So it's not really nationalized healthcare, but state healthcare, but the basic idea is the same

And that's where I have problems with it :\ Some states can afford higher taxes (Connecticut) and other can't (Louisiana) based on overall population income level. Connecticut would be able to afford basic healthcare, or even more, though possibly the majority wouldn't need it if they can already afford private healthcare through companies. So they may or may not institute basic healthcare. A place like Louisiana, though, wouldn't be able to afford better, necessary, healthcare for its population, since a larger percentage of the population is unable to afford their own healthcare. (Connecticut and Louisiana are just hte first examples that come to mind).

EDIT: and it also creates larger gaps between rich/poor through inequalities in health services (not that they don't already exist, but this wouldn't solve that problem)

[Darth Wong]

I love the way right-wingers insist that nationalized health-care would be less efficient than private health-care even though the numbers from the American health-care system indicate precisely the opposite: it is fantastically inefficient, and much more so than nationalized systems. Paperwork and bureaucracy waste alone in the American health-care system adds up to hundreds of billions of dollars, thanks in part to a profusion of insurance companies, all of which have different paperwork.

Are you people totally unaware that the "invisible hand" of the free market does not operate properly when customers have limited mobility (which is the case with health care) and limited understanding of the product (which is also the case with health care)?

Instead of looking at the numbers to see which system is more efficient right now, people IGNORE the data and present their theories about why private health care SHOULD be more efficient even though it isn't. That's dogma, not reason.

[Bwaho]

the only difference is that Americans are paying avaricious insurance companies while Europeans pay with their taxes.

yup, and if you've ever dealt with insurance companies you'll know that they're sneaky bastards who will do almost everything NOT to help you.

If you pull government from the system, and assuming you can pull european governments as well, which is highly unlikely, than the laws of the freemarket would bring the prices down to the point that more people were able to recieve it.

just like the dentists did huh? here you have to pay dentists seperate from the taxes so it's very expensive. What the dentists have done is formed a sort of cartel where they all agree on a base sum (naturally not a cheap one) to keep their incomes high.

3. It'll be difficult to use: Last time I went to the DMV (department of motor vehicals) I had to wait about 30 minutes to get a number and then another 2 hrs for my number to be called. This is how I imagine government run Healthcare

waiting times in hospitals here are long, you're right about that...and private health care is better and more efficient, but can the poor cleaner afford such health care?

[Gwendylyn]

waiting times in hospitals here are long, you're right about that...and private health care is better and more efficient, but can the poor cleaner afford such health care?

I've never waited less than 4 hours at the emergency room at the hospital, excepting when my brother's head was split open, after which we had to wait 6 hours for a doctor to return and tell him he could go home. My family in Canada (son has horrible asthma and often gets brought to the emergency room) has waited, tops, 20 minutes.

What's the waiting times around you?

[Darth Wong]

It's interesting that people assume that the DMV proves their belief about government healthcare rather than looking at functional examples of government health care. After all, what are they comparing the DMV to? Privately run driver certification organizations? How would such a thing even be conducted? You'd have to give the private company authority to force people to come into its doors, and the record of business behaviour when they have the customer over a barrel is hardly exemplary.

[Darth Wong]

Waiting times are VERY short if you're filthy rich. I think that's what people are referring to when they hoot about the superiority of private care. They're longer if you have a crappy HMO provided by your cheapskate employer, and they're even longer if you have no private health-care coverage.

Sympathy does not seem to be a driving factor in right-wing views on healthcare. The fact that America has a high infant mortality rate because of high death rates among babies born in poor communities doesn't seem to bother them either.

[IronBrig4]

Health care is not a product to be bought and sold. I agree with Patch Adams' view that the science of healing others is something that cannot be measured in dollars. That is why I HATE medical insurance companies. They will try to find every single loophole to deny you medical care.

[Bwaho]

What's the waiting times around you?

When my very old grandma fell and broke her leg (and some other bones) she had to wait 5 hours in the waiting room, that's not acceptable.

My mom who's been at the hospital a lot of times (partly because she's worked in one) knows all about the +3 hour waiting times.

Waiting times are VERY short if you're filthy rich

sure, but my dad managed to short his waiting time by several months when he went to a private firm.

Sympathy does not seem to be a driving factor in right-wing views on healthcare

indeed... natural selection based on the thickness of your wallet.

Insurance companies do their darndest to hamstring doctors from doing the tests and procedures patients need

the trust some people have for insurance companies is quite strange...I wonder if they've actually ever had to deal with them?

[StarDreamer]

When my very old grandma fell and broke her leg (and some other bones) she had to wait 5 hours in the waiting room, that's not acceptable.

My mom who's been at the hospital a lot of times (partly because she's worked in one) knows all about the +3 hour waiting times.

Bwaho, I think that as long as nothing is life threatening waiting for 5 hours is acceptable. As long as something like painkillers are given so you don't have to be in pain while waiting for a doctor. Long waiting times can't really tell if a system is bad or not.
What it does tell is if there are enough doctors and others to take care of those who need it whenever they come in.

My last hospital visit here in Finland was because of my appendix(it got cut away). It was early morning and I had so much pain that I couldn't really sleep. So well my father takes me to a private clinic(the only thing that cost, and KELA(sort of a national insurance) payed a bit of it) to get it diagnosed, since there will be no waiting time. From there we get papers that I need medical attetion. My father takes me to the hospital(not private). They take me in immediately(since it could be dangerous to have a infected appendix). They do all the necessary test and at noon I'm taken to surgery. I stay a few days after it so they make sure everything is okay.

So in my opinion it is good to have both private and national clinics. I don't want to know how much the surgery would have cost in a all private system. Oh I didn't vote since the OP said something about mostly concerning americans.