View Full Version : Universal Healthcare for the United States?
Marshal Murat
11-25-2005, 23:55
I'm in a foreign language class, and the teacher keeps telling me about the healthcare in France, Canada, Italy.
Do you think America should have free healthcare?
I would think so, because it would allow people to get care, despite any monetary limits.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
11-25-2005, 23:58
in practice, universal healthcare isn't quite as good as it sounds.
bitter experiences with the NHS...
Mongoose
11-26-2005, 00:02
But it's free!!!
~D
One issue with such a system is that the huge taxes make it the only option except for the wealthy. If the care provided is great, then OK. But i don't really see that happening any time soon for a large country such as the U.S.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
11-26-2005, 00:04
The NHS is only free at the point of delivery: taxes.
You also have to pay for prescriptions, dental, opticians, the best treatment for some things.
The NHS is only free at the point of delivery: taxes.
You also have to pay for prescriptions, dental, opticians, the best treatment for some things.
Still the only real option if you get something seriously wrong with you and aren't a multi millionaire.
With the amount the US spends on healthcare as it is (hugely more than the UK) I suspect it could easily enough create some sort of universal health care. The main issue is just coordinating everything and getting it to run efficiently enough, which the NHS just doesn't do a lot of the time.
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-26-2005, 00:30
Wasn't there just a massive, sprawling thread about this very issue?
Taffy_is_a_Taff
11-26-2005, 00:39
BKS: yes
BDC: yeah, I had to go private in the end. Expensive but it got everything sorted out swiftly.
Red Harvest
11-26-2005, 01:07
Wasn't there just a massive, sprawling thread about this very issue?
It suffered from the "free" label though. "Universal" is different than both "free" and "socialized." I feel that the U.S. goal should be Universal coverage, then figure out/debate what sort of payer system will best accomplish it efficiency wise. Universal is a far more civilized and christian approach than what we have.
"Socialized Medicine" is how the GOP sidetracked this whole debate over a decade ago. (They also used the "gays in the military" issue as a diversion, worked well for them.) Interestingly...the only time we had much cost containment was when Universal coverage was brought up for debate.
Cost containment must be worked out for the whole industry in the U.S. as part of any plan. Our current system fails to contain costs to something resembling the inflation rate. That is what is causing the Feds, State, Companies, and individuals grief.
Mongoose
11-26-2005, 04:13
The NHS is only free at the point of delivery: taxes.
You also have to pay for prescriptions, dental, opticians, the best treatment for some things.
It was a only a joke. There are so many fanatics around here(People like me) That it can be hard to tell if some one is joking or not...
One question: What about operations that aren't needed? Such as a face lift? (among other things~:eek: ...) Would their be a different, private doctor? Would that sort of tihng be coverd?
free (well, almost free) healthcare works pretty fine here in sweden
Strike For The South
11-26-2005, 04:26
teh old
BKS: yes
BDC: yeah, I had to go private in the end. Expensive but it got everything sorted out swiftly.
Yeah, saves lots of time if you go private. Of course it's all part of the problem. Doctors make money treating private patients, but patients will only go private of the waiting lists are so long. Therefore it's in the doctors' interest if they don't cut waiting times. Big issue right there.
A guy I work with is going to have to wait until April to get some physio for a slipped disk, and in the meantime is paying £20 a week on painkillers. Shouldn't work that way...
Meneldil
11-26-2005, 16:07
I'm in a foreign language class, and the teacher keeps telling me about the healthcare in France, Canada, Italy.
Do you think America should have free healthcare?
I would think so, because it would allow people to get care, despite any monetary limits.
Well, Free and Universal Healthcare are also the roots of a lot of social and economical issues.
Here in France, our system weights 20.5 % of our GDP, more than the total budget of the State (17.23 % of the GNP).
Since 1945 (when the Sécurité Sociale was created), its founding required more and more money, and except if a governement launch a huge reform, it will stay that way for a while.
Socially, although I'm not a right winger liberal, I must admit it creates a dependancy for some people. They meet a doctor while they have no health issue at all, buy loads of medecine when they only need to have some sleep or to buy a few pills.
It turned out to be so important that people will manifest as soon as a governement try to reform it. It's culturally a fundamental value of our country, for the best and for the worst, just as our Public services.
m52nickerson
11-26-2005, 17:13
Instead of Universal Healthcare in the US, There should be a few not-for-profit healthcare providers. There rates would be cheaper then the large HMO and would force them to lower costs to compete.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-27-2005, 19:41
Everything should be free. What a wonderful world it would be.
Red Harvest
11-27-2005, 19:59
Everything should be free. What a wonderful world it would be.
Look, the strawman from the GOP has arrived!
Mongoose
11-27-2005, 20:00
"Look, the strawman from the GOP has arrived!"
Yeah, your probably right. It will be funny to watch this thread rapidly go down hill though...
Red Harvest
11-27-2005, 21:03
"Look, the strawman from the GOP has arrived!"
Yeah, your probably right. It will be funny to watch this thread rapidly go down hill though...
The thread is probably not going anywhere, simply because quite a few diverse aspects were hashed out so recently.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-27-2005, 21:55
The thread is probably not going anywhere, simply because quite a few diverse aspects were hashed out so recently.
Nah. Just blame it on me. Shouldnt housing be free. I mean everyone needs a decent place to live.
Strike For The South
11-27-2005, 21:57
Nah. Just blame it on me. Shouldnt housing be free. I mean everyone needs a decent place to live.
you are comparing two complety difrent things. Stop trying to prove a point by using smokescreens
Meneldil
11-27-2005, 22:08
SFTS, you're dangerously leaning to the left, you'd better stop that *now*, or you'll end up as a centrist, or even worse, as a leftist ~;p
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.