Seriously, why do you fear Universal Healthcare as a solution for US?

I'm not denying your experience.

 

No, food for my family has always been my priority. I wouldn't ever need to apply. I have no doubt you have.

 

Sure they are; again, I am not arguing against regulation, just excessive regulations.

Many of these so-called smart people are the ones that are responsible for these various government healthcare programs that have ended up not working at all the way that they were supposed to. So I am always rather skeptical about technocrats who claim that they can make it work. Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare, is a good example of the arrogance some of them have. Also, I am not arguing for a return to some wholly free-market model, as a wholly free-market model will not work for healthcare either. I would disagree that the belief in free markets is what has caused the current problems. It is more complex than that.

It has not been debunked. Also waiting times in the U.S. are not nearly as bad as tend to happen in other countries with single-payer systems. Also private care is not always available in all systems, as for example in Canada, private care is outlawed. The NHS may have an 18 day waiting period as policy, but in practice, it if oftentimes far longer.

Seniors have only been happy with Medicare because of the skyrocketing costs over the previous four decades, because the cost ceiling has not yet been hit. Once it gets hit, rationing will begin to occur (in some ways, it already has, as Medicare services have been cut back in comparison to what they used to be). When you look at the percentage of the federal budget that Medicare currently takes up, there is only so much more that it can increase. making it apply to everyone will cause severe problems of rationing.

There is no way to pay for healthcare for everyone through a program like Medicare. One only need look at its current costs to see that. Cost also isn't the only issue, there is also the issue of supply.

Some of the twenty-some countries who have some form of national healthcare plan do not have nationalized care, as not all universal healthcare is single-payer. Generally-speaking, single-payer is among the worst forms of universal healthcare. But I could very much say that I see the exact same thing from you that you are accusing me of, i.e. a belief, not a plan. Your "plan" (belief) is that we should just make the system single-payer and it will fix everything.

 

The system I am referring to is the healthcare system. "Wholesale" because the government's controlling health insurance essentially means it controls all of healthcare, as all of healthcare is tied to health insurance. The issue of national healthcare isn't that it stops all private care for those who have the money, but rather that it limits private care only to the wealthy, and leaves most of the rest of the population subject to the government healthcare system. Whereas in a more free-market-oriented model, private care is much more widely available.

 

It's also free food for many people. Yes, you have to qualify, but sometimes "qualify" means you're a 20 year-old girl who got pregnant and needs "help." Have a second baby, and you get even more food stamps. They also will give you a free apartment, at least here in NY state. So it incentivizes girls to not work and just pop out babies. There was that guy in California who just surfs and gets SNAP.

 

Just like defense spending that is BS.

Plenty of mayor drug companies are european and do quite fine.

Cherry picking stats that dont mean anything doest proff a whole lot.

Shorter hospital stays(for example) isnt better. Its actually better to keep people longer but of course that costs.

The avg of oecd doesnt mean anything. Turkey is oecd and spends 1/20th of the US on health care.

Apples to apples, turkey vs USA on health care is uncomparable due to vastly different settings/people/country.

You actually have to compare in general with western/northern EU countries or countries like australia/japan/south korea.



But it does touch on some of the reasons:

"A second important reason for higher healthcare spending in the U.S. is higher prices for inputs such as drugs and the services of specialist physicians."

Yes profits for companies, hospitals and physicians are a mayor factor and unlike what you seem to think that doesnt contribute all that much against the actually quality of health care.

 

Same can be said of some parts of US care, uk has as its defense it doesnt spend all that much on health care at least.

I dont care what label you put on it, the mixed system seems to better work then what the US has or what the UK has.

I used numbers that calculate the full cost so private & public.

And the US has lots of people that simply dont get the care they needed, again you cherry pic, a country and a stat that is largely meaningless.

And if you dont get care because you cant afford the prices of the expensive system you die earlier. Thats not a good system.

Yeah that makes no sense to have to depend on this.

 

"Seems to be" isn't is, and it is ironic that you say people who can't afford it die earlier when most of our seniors get much more aggressive care than the palliative care provided under the NHS. I have a relative who has never had insurance from the day he left his parents' policy. Still doesn't have insurance. He has also never been turned away at the doors of the emergency room. His credit is crap, but he has gotten all the medical care he has sought.

 

So statistics don't mean anything to you because "seems to" is all the evidence your bias allows room for. Access to specialists doesn't mean anything to you because you think junior doctors are just as good. Well you go with a doctor fresh out of med school next time you have a complex illness if you so desire. I will stick with the ones we have.

 

We have the SNAP program for one thing

 

Free food is not free. It is wealth redistribution.

 

Again you simply talk about the uk nhs as if thats the only system and even ignoring the things it does correct and the cost it has for the country.

Trying to pretend there are better system out there is just foolish de data on health and the costs back that up.

 

Again that makes no sense in countries like germany/sweden/denmark/netherlands/belgium people have just as much and just as easy acces to specialists usualy at lower costs.

 

Fortunately no, I haven't, but I have dealt enough with that portion of the population that does need that help.

Your snide attack is and bigotry is noted

 

I want to introduce another serious concern for the need of Universal Healthcare. I am purposely bolding this post to differentiate it from the previous reasons posted.

We are currently living in a very dangerous time for healthcare. Our exploding populations, close quartered living in cities, our ability to rapidly travel between points on the globe, coupled with our ever changing environment, is presenting us with unparalleled dangers of epidemic and pandemic viruses that can quickly travel and endanger us in ways we have not yet imagined except through fiction. We are very ignorant of the threats posed by the smallest of enemies. Influenza alone can account for as many as 50,000 deaths per year in the US.

SARS, ebola, HIV, and a whole host of influenza viruses that originate from animal species are being exacerbated by climate change. The need for being able to access and treat illnesses is more than just a matter of who pays, but how much are we willing to pay for the spread of a disease that could have been stopped from a regular doctor's office visit in the first place.

Healthcare is not about just "personal responsibility", it's about social responsibility in the light of what we know about the vicious nature of contagious diseases in the modern world. It is irresponsible to to not allow ANY individual who is sick to be able to access a doctor at the first sign of an illness that will not go away simply because they cannot afford to do so.

We live on the precipice of catastrophe, allowing politics and economic beliefs to sway our opinions when the danger can indeed wipe ALL of our rights away when the danger becomes imminent.

 

You can read into what I said what ever you want to. You seem to be pre-disposed. My view of life is, and you've probably heard it. "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a life time". Government charity always seem to operate in the former. Charity is doled out. Bureaucrats get what they can, politicians get votes and there is no consideration for the root cause. The charity I strive for is more of the latter. Consider the "whole man".
You can label my intentions bigoted, or whatever. I am completely used to your mode of operation. Why not add to it Misogynist, homophobic,, racist, and whatever other labels your liberal mindset would like to imply. By now, your liberal/progressive words are like water off the back of a duck! I refuse to paint myself and my fellow man as victims!

 

Seems like no matter what I say, it will roll off your back anyways. So why bother...