Excellent letter to the editor in our local rag this morning, I'd be interested in what people think of this excerpt from it:

"We now pay $5,440 per person for health care, compared to $2,927 in Canada, and under $2,000 in Japan, Italy, Sweden and England -- all countries with a longer life expentancy than us."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So if the cries about nationalized medicine as being "Communism" and limiting choices/effectiveness and etc of healthcare are legitimate, then how is it that countries with such systems both pay 1/2 what we do *AND* have longer lifespans?

Health insurance is highly inefficient, and only covers those that pay?

My opposition to socialist healthcare has nothing to do with cost. I just don't like the idea of forcing one person to pay for the healthcare of another.

My opposition to socialist healthcare has nothing to do with cost. I just don't like the idea of forcing one person to pay for the healthcare of another.

Well, you kind of inconsistent. Independently who's running health insurance bussiness, multimillion CEOs or government clerks, you ARE paying (if you are more or less healthy) for the other folks. The healthier you are, the more you pay for the others + CEOs humongous paycheck.

Well, you kind of inconsistent. Independently who's running health insurance bussiness, multimillion CEOs or government clerks, you ARE paying (if you are more or less healthy) for the other folks. The healthier you are, the more you pay for the others + CEOs humongous paycheck.

There's nothing inconsistent about it at all. Nobody is forcing me to buy health insurance.

I have 100% solution for the American health care problems. It's very simple. Increase 200% the number of medical schools (the number is strictly regulated by the American Medical Association in order to control birth rate of physicians=100% physician's employability(for life time, if one wishes)+healthy paychecks). Glut the labor market with MDs, make the capitalism to work. If even the lousiest physician has 99.9% chances of landing a job, it's not capitalism. Increase in the number of phisicians/nurses=competition=sane prices=less need for insurance guys=deflation of prices=one may actually will be able to pay for things out of his pocket.

Medical/law fields are the only protected (birth rate wise)fields in the American ecomy = insane prices. Engineering, sciences are glutted with people=dirt cheap (I know for a fact, one may hire an experienced Ph.D. in bio something for $12/hr no benefits). USA cannot afford having Medical field protected.

There's nothing inconsistent about it at all. Nobody is forcing me to buy health insurance.

Life forces you. Common sense forces you. Greed forces you (you would not want to sell a house to pay medical bills, would you?). Less than $500k/year salary forces you to buy health insurance. Sure, if you cannot afford one you are free like a bird not to buy it. If you have something to lose/want to live, it forces you in the buying direction.

Keep in mind, without health insurance you are less than nothing for the bludsucking bitches who happened to be MDs, etc. Most likely, they will not be willing to look at you even if you'll offer to pay cash.

My opposition to socialist healthcare has nothing to do with cost. I just don't like the idea of forcing one person to pay for the healthcare of another.

Then, if you don't want to be a hypocrite - you need to use medical technology very sparingly yourself - since a LOT of it was developed/refined with the help of the taxpayers dime.

Life forces you. Common sense forces you. Greed forces you (you would not want to sell a house to pay medical bills, would you?). Less than $500k/year salary forces you to buy health insurance. Sure, if you cannot afford one you are free like a bird not to buy it. If you have something to lose/want to live, it forces you in the buying direction.

Keep in mind, without health insurance you are less than nothing for the bludsucking bitches who happened to be MDs, etc. Most likely, they will not be willing to look at you even if you'll offer to pay cash.

Common sense tells me that it would be smart to have medical insurance (which is why I have medical insurance), but it doesn't force me to do it. People do stupid things all the time, in defiance of common sense. Anyway, figuring out the right course of action on my own isn't the same thing as actually being forced to do something by another person or group of people.

Then, if you don't want to be a hypocrite - you need to use medical technology very sparingly yourself - since a LOT of it was developed/refined with the help of the taxpayers dime.

Would I receive royalties for profits earned on technological advances I was forced to subsidize through taxation?

Would I be exempted from such taxation in the future?

Would unemployed people who don't pay taxes be barred from using this technology? Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, you know.

Uh that wasn't a theoretical comment, this is already how things work - you don't recieve royalties for the profits earned on the tech advances you ALREADY HAVE subsidized. If you are a taxpayer that is. The hypocrasy I pointed out is in having our tax dollars help fund new technologies that then only the corporations profit from and many of those same taxpayers that funded the R&D can then not afford to reap the full benefit from. It needs to either be 100% privatized, and we can just go full bore into corporate fudalism - or healthcare should be universally avalailable.

you blind americans. we dont have an extra healthcare tax, we just spend regular taxes on healthcare instead of weapons(our last 3 supersonic planes were decommissioned last year :p )

Hell, we could decommission 1/2 of our nuclear sub and bomber force, STILL have by far the largest such force in the world, and pay for all of our healthcare -- but that would require less greasing of military contractor palms, and more forward and rational thinking . . . something we are not known for.

Under socialized medicine do I have to pay for all the smoker's health care?

Socialized health care is not all that one thinks it may be. Here is an article describing the problems with Canada's socialized system.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0400socmed.htm

http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html

http://www.free-market.net/spotlight/healthcare/


Many of the problems include:

-In reality, the taxes required to cover the health care actually end up being more expensive then an insurance policy in the U.S.

-Long wait times

-With taxes reaching a breaking point, quality of health care must go down. As medicine expenses inevitably increase, it becomes difficult to pay for a quality system.

I admit that the American medical system needs an overhaul, but I do not believe socialized medicine is the answer. 4 out of 5 people in Canada say they are not happy with their system.

Well I don't think that its an either/or situation -- labels often stop us from actually thinking about what they actually mean. Surely pure unfettered dog-eat-dog capitalist healthcare vs. purely socialist government controlled healthcare are not the only two possibilities?

I don't want to be rudandant - but again, pointing out the obvious. Those other nations with lower healthcare costs and yet longer lifespans . . . clearly they are doing something better than we are.

What if in a socialized health care system we give tax breaks to non-smokers, non-drinks, healthy people, and tax the shit out of the unhealthy addicts? It would basically be what our present insurance system does except more efficiently.

I agree with you there Fetus -- that seems much less ''socialist'' or any such thing then simply sensible. Just say "hey, if you are a fucking moron with your body - you pay for it dimwit!". Though controlling it would be tough. I mean, are you going to have random piss tests all over America to determine who is abusing their bodies? Probably easier to just tax the shit out of the products themselves, though we might just create even more of an underground economy then. There are no easy answers!

Well in any check up examines the doctors can easily tell if your a smoker or not, any drunken related crimes can cause you to be labeled a alcoholic on your tax forms for that year. Heck the insurance companies do a really good job of it as is. They got it all figured so that statically they will make a profit on you, so if you smoke and such they up your rates, hell they will even reject you converge.

and with the advent of genetic test the insurance companies can start upping and rejecting your rates on things you can’t control like your genetic propensity for cancers, heart disease (My family got a wicked problem of dieing of sudden first time heart attacks in early 60’s no matter how fit we are), ect. Perhaps a socialist medical system would be less stringent and not as likely to tax you for such things beyond your control, and give tax breaks for eating well, staying fit and healthy, ect.

"lower healthcare costs and yet longer lifespans", Gravity

There are other factors that lead to this, and some of them have nothing to do with the health care. Americans, for example, are extremely overweight compared to Japan. Blacks have a tendency to be at higher risk for heart disease, and it has nothing to do with diet. The U.S. also has a high immigration rate from poorer nations, but they still count in the statistics. I agree with you that U.S. healthcare is way to high, but I do not think lack of healthcare is what has necessarily led to a shorter lifespan.

Hmmm. Ok, overweight, poor diet, etc.

So, I'm confused. We are one of the most disliked nations on the planet now, our kids are dead last of all industrialized nations in literacy, math, science, history and more. We have a shorter lifespan than most industrialized nations. We have the highest fraud, murder and rape rates of all the industrialized nations.

But . . . "America is #1"?

Were #1 militarily by far and economically by a little.

There are advantages an disadvantages to socialized and capitalized medicine, I would like to see some form of hybrid.

Can you Americans please stop coming here for flu shots, and medicine? It’s not our fault you live in third world conditions in terms of medical care.

I wonder, economically, if as high of a percentage of people in say Switzerland or Austria, live in poverty as in the USA? I suspect not. I think the smokescreen that happens when we say the USA is #1 economically is that we are looking at our overall national GDP - but since we have the largest gap between rich and poor in history, that top 1% skews the results so much that it makes it look like the *average* American is better off than anybody else in the world. I suspect that the average citizen in many other nations actually have more financial security than we do.

when I said economically I meant in raw productions/IO/monetary value.

Here's a rough answer for you Gravity I just did for fun:

http://www.uploadimages.net/show.php?img=085348inequality.jpg

As you can see Norway and the US share the same GDP per capita but widely divergent in terms of the lowest segments s of their society. Canada is only marginally better then the US, but better nevertheless. America’s lowest live not unlike that of a Iranian, should these figures be trusted (you can do the same calculations too). Now also one can see that the GDP consumption #’s are old, and under Bush the inequality has only grown even more. So American economic growth is the myth Mr.Snow, not unemployment.

Were #1 militarily by far and economically by a little.I fairly certain that the EU has a higher GNP than the US. It should be a fair comparison as the EU is closer to what the US was -supposed- to be than the US is.

My calculations show that the US will supercede the EU in GDP within the year:

USA:
2003: 10,990,000,000,000
2004: 11,330,690,000,000
2005: 11,817,909,000,000
2006: 12,231,535,000,000

EU:
2003:11,064,752,000,000
2004:11,188,152,000,000
2005:11,476,707,000,000
2006:11,759,532,000,000

To towards:

Have you ever been in a Canadian hospital? I have and it’s not that bad, I was in the worst one in Toronto yes I had to wait but at least I didn't have to declare bankruptcy.

Ah, thanks. Nevermind then:)

So that the USA has to be #1 of is its military, though our health care is also #1 for those that can pay for topnotch medical care here that is, the rest of us get something worse. If we converted to socialized medicine we can still have private hospital for the rich right?

I wouldn't see why not, the US is actually losing so much investment $$$ because her system is not publicly owned. Americans bitch and complain about outsourcing (which accounts for very little of American job losses) then Americans should ask themselves why are they having their jobs outsourced? One reason is because of the costs of healthcare benefits in the US, why would a company from Japan for instance want to invest in the US when he can invest in Canada for the same levels of education (greater even), lower labor costs, and the same access to the American market? One of Canada’s great advantages over the US is our national healthcare system, which is not bad it is still one of the best in the world. Yes American healthcare is the best in the world for those who can afford it, try telling that to 45 million who have no such healthcare. Tell those Americans one of the reasons why they are poor is because companies that would have invested in the US are investing elsewhere because of the costs of covering their employees. Under Bush (2001- 03) $392 billion worth of investments have left the US mostly for China the US under Bush got back $252 billion, a net loss of $140 billion. The costs of insuring an American worker is too high and the returns seem to be greater elsewhere. So as long as Americans have this private system, the American worker will ultimately pay the greatest price.

So that the USA has to be #1 of is its military, though our health care is also #1 for those that can pay for topnotch medical care here that is, the rest of us get something worse. If we converted to socialized medicine we can still have private hospital for the rich right?Well, that's almost the way it is now.... albeit to a limited extent. If you can prove that you can not afford the bill, the government will pay for it. This may be a state thing and not federal though.

The present system in the U.S. utterly fails the working poor. You have a job without benefits, and private insurance is hopelessly expensive. So if you get sick, you try not to go to the doctor, because the expense is out of your pocket, and a trip to the doctor combined simple Rx for antibiotics can cost between $100.00 to $200.00.

Of course, this sometimes leads to illnesses that wouldn't have been serious if they were treated early becoming life threatening. So they end up in the emergency room, where the cost of treatment is much more expensive. Then there is the matter of the lost productivity of serious illness, much less premature death.

If you have assets such as a home, you will have to sell it before you can get the state to pay for your health care. Ten years ago when I was struck with Grave's Disease, I was "lucky" enough to not own anything of value. But it can be very difficult to see a specialist ifyou only have MediCal.

I don't think many citizens of countries with public health systems would be interested in switching to our "system".

If you have assets such as a home, you will have to sell it before you can get the state to pay for your health care.Well, that doesn't seem to be the case now.

But even then you are correct in that the system doesn't help until you absolutely need it.

In addition to smokers, WCF, the public would also pick up a share for the drinkers, the chronic overeaters, the junkies, the cokeheads, &c. Around Seattle, a huge part of our traffic problem comes from folks who think they need to live forty miles from their place of work. People choose to not drive hybrids; governments choose to allow car companies to dictate policy; fuel companies chooose to not bring forward better resources, &c. Why? As nice of an idea as it all sounds, it's not profitable enough to do the right thing. And, you know, I live near Seattle, so the pollution--no matter how bad it seems to us--isn't really all that bad. I've seen the brown dome over Los Angeles on a March day from near Castaic; it's astounding. I've been in Chicago midsummer when the hot air stalls out at the lakefont and wraps the city in a choking swelter. I've seen the air in Seattle go from clear to hazy over the years, and while those from L.A. might wonder what we're talking about, I guarantee you the difference is notable to anyone who has lived here since before the 1990s.

I mention cars because Henry Waxman of California once stood on the House of Representatives floor and declared that cigarettes were the primary cause of air pollution in Los Angeles.

I also think of my cousin; overweight and pushing her fourth prengnancy, she spent much/most of the last trimester in the hospital on monitors. As one who has only one child between two parents and plans on fathering no more, I do wonder about the costs of irresponsible reproduction. It's easy enough to pick on the unwed Hispanic teenage mother, sure, but what about the working white folks who just can't afford the kids they've got?

Part of the problem is that ever since the Clinton administration dropped the expense bomb in its crusade against tobacco, Americans have seemingly accepted that line in general, whereas we kind of chuckled at it before. I mean, think about it.

Cigarette smokers are an unfair burden on a public health system? Fair 'nuff. So, by the same measure, are:
• Vegans
• People who eat bacon
• Alcohol consumers
• Caffeine consumers
• People who breathe urban air

We can certainly acknowledge the costs of people's behaviors, but we must guard against getting ridiculous with it.

I also wanted to note that, in addition to lawyers, claimants are an inflating factor in health costs. I worked for a workers-comp insurance company ten years ago; part of the time I spent out in the archives, where there were boxes and boxes of fraud investigations on the shelves. Like the guy who got nailed, after winning a claim for back and shoulder injuries, was finally videotaped lifting his child up over his head after coming home one day. The PI waited days to get the evidence. I have a friend who went to the hospital last week; it's a work-related claim since illness struck at work. But I'm not so sure it was the workplace that did it; it could well have been the booze and nose candy the night before. Nonetheless, somebody's gotta pay for it, and aside from a small copay, that wasn't the user.

tiassa,

Thank you for stating the obvious in deep, deep blinding detail :p

You mention vegans in a less than flattering light, healthwise. And I agree - but I thought that all iMac users were required by law to *be* vegans? :)

Nah, the old Macs licenses required you to be vegan. The new ones just require you to use the -verbose option.

They figured out vegans don't make enough money to afford Macs.

Personally I think socialised healthcare is great. As long as there is also sufficient feedback and monitoring by the patients.

"our kids are dead last of all industrialized nations in literacy, math, science, history and more." Gravity

Since last time I did not respond to your international "grandfather" test (since it was from 1996 that its a good title), and you now regard it as true, I will happily debate the point in the following thread were it is on topic.


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41179

Towards - I'm in that thread now. But in answer to your tone here, let me give you an equally loving reply. And suggest you do what our great and compassionate leader Dick Cheney suggested that Pat Leahey do with himself . . .

:cool:

to continue...
(because I had to go for tea)
I find socialised healthcare great because
1) i dont have to worry about filling in many forms, paying my insurance, reading the small print about what I am allowed to claim on, etc.
2) It also covers everyone else I know.

I was talking to a French student who was over here earlier this year, and she said that the health system in France, you had to fill out a great deal of forms before treatment, and during. Which fits with their insurance based system, but personally I dont like.

Certainly, anecdotal evidence from American friends, including one who is a paramedic, is that they dont like the USA medical system either. So it part its probably a bit like over here, in that people will moan about anything they can (especially things they dont see how they can change) which is why I tend not to take statistics on unhappiness very seriously. If you asked those CAnadians who expressed dissatisfaction with the Canadian healthcare system if they'd rather have a USA like one, I think most of them would have said "no!"

If you asked those CAnadians who expressed dissatisfaction with the Canadian healthcare system if they'd rather have a USA like one, I think most of them would have said "no!"

As a Canadian I can confrim this to the greatest degree possible. Virtually no Canadian wants to give up socialized healthcare, healthcare is to Canada what the US military is to the US.

"As a Canadian I can confrim this to the greatest degree possible", Undecided

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/losingfaith.html

According to this poll by the Canadian Medical Association, more and more dissatisfaction with the system is developing.

In no way did that poll say anything that countered my point. Ask those same Canadians do you want to get rid of the socialized healthcare system and very different answer is coming. Yes we have our problems, but most Canadians agree our system is better.

canadian one is way the hell better than american one. and who cares if it costs slightly more for candian healthcare than american insurance, because people in canada are leeked after by the govt and can afford to pay it.

no canadian would want to have an american system

"people in canada are leeked after by the govt ", vslayer

I choose not to be looked after by my government, I can take care of myself better.

"no canadian would want to have an american system ", vslayer

I see Americans suggesting a need for an overhaul of the system, but there are very few clamoring for a socialist system, so it works both ways.

you can look after yourself better if you have the money, but in a socialist system, those who dont have 1000s for surgery can still get the treatment necessary.

i see americans who dont know what they want, all their taxes ore being spent on warfare, when they should be spent on health and education

Its in the best interests of the wealthiest and most powerful population in a nation *NOT* to have the workers be as healthy as they are. Worse nutrition and healthcare means lessened physical and mental capabilities, though they still can accomplish the work they need to do just fine. And shortened lifespans? Hell, they keep breeding - so there are always new little workers being spawned. Also, making sure they have to worry more and work harder about just staying healthy and alive, ensures they won't be stirring up any trouble.

Ahhh, a cynic!

Or a realist.

"people in canada are leeked after by the govt ", vslayer

I choose not to be looked after by my government, I can take care of myself better.

"no canadian would want to have an american system ", vslayer

I see Americans suggesting a need for an overhaul of the system, but there are very few clamoring for a socialist system, so it works both ways.

Unfortunately, we live in more and more complex societies where average one's capabilities to take care of oneself depends on way too many Ifsssss, on way too many people, laws, events...... Claim "I take care of myself" is becoming more and more synonymous to "I was lucky to be born/to be in the right place, at the right time". Sure, all people think that's not luck it was their hard work, smart ass, yada, yada, yada. Common, get real folks, chance is more and more important player in our lives.

Common sense tells me that it would be smart to have medical insurance (which is why I have medical insurance), but it doesn't force me to do it. People do stupid things all the time, in defiance of common sense. Anyway, figuring out the right course of action on my own isn't the same thing as actually being forced to do something by another person or group of people.

Logic does not force you to do it? What else? Insurance guy with M16 on your door steps? All normal (and almost all abnormal) human beings would chose food to starvation. Near all people would chose to have their broken leg healed, etc. So argument "I want to have freedom to die from starvation, broken bones, etc." sounds weird. YOu have such a freedom, lock yourself into a house, go to the woods.... possibilities for a suicide are almost infinite.

Private insurance does not force you to do certain things to keep CEOs paycheck sky high? Course of your actions??? I think you greatly overestimate the number of options you have in health care. Options will be chosen by your insurance guy (#1), your doctor (#2), you (#124) and your wallet. The lousier insurance you have the less say you have. Please, do not write "I may chose another plan " because I doubt you'll have many better options (unless your are a zillioner and have no need in insurance). Plus, if you already have health problems, another health insurance will most likely not cover them. Thus, if you have purchased a private insurance yourself, you'd better stick with it or nobody else will take care of your old problems (or find a job with health insurance and neve get laid off). If you will lose your coverage in the midst of sickness, you are SCREWED. Good luck in choosing "the right course of action" short of declaring bancruptcy and buying a spot at a cemetery.

Many private "insurance" companies scam their subscribers. For example, a person have an insurance with the same company for 25 years. The person is approaching to the ripe age of 50th or he/she develops serious health problems. in this case, insurance guys will find a way not to renew person's subscription. Not a big deal, the person has a freedom to choose (out of nothing).

It's hard to match the health of an insured with insurance's companies profits. Those two things are damn uncompatible. An insurance company has a private interest to treat you as little as possible, dump you when you became too much of a burden, or not to subscribe people in the bad health whatsoever. That is the reason #1 why medicine should be socialized. For rich folks private health care will be always around. For folks who want to have a freedom to die or to have a freedom to contribute to X millions CEO's paychecks, medical taxes should be optional.