Free Health Care in The USA

[Red Harvest]

Service and innovation is almost invariably better in free markets and private enterprise- whether its medicine or computers.

Yet it isn't in the U.S. with regards to healthcare. The customer "service" sucks goat g'nads compared to just about any other market in the U.S. and we are not getting our money's worth as a nation. I've gotten free care in a military hospital, and it was no worse than the "private" care I've received or that my family members have received.

If the free market approach was actually working then prices would not be hyperinflating on us. It isn't a free market though. Prices are variable depending on customer. Prices are not advertised. Prices quoted are altered after the agreement is made to use the services. You get billed by 20 other agencies who you did not have ANY agreement with. The whole damned system is broken and needs proper regulation.

[Tachikaze]

Yes, we definitely should have it. The healthcare tragedy we have in the US is one of the reasons I consider this a barbaric country. What we have now is nothing short of cruel and despicable.

[Redleg]

If you would be so kind, please offer unto me, any examples of how allowing all people equal access to life saving medicine, regardless of their ability to pay, equates with a dictatorial police state.

And as mentioned several times in the past - the current system in the United States does exactly this.

ITs not perfect - but neither is any other health care system out there.

[Beirut]

I've gotten free care in a military hospital, and it was no worse than the "private" care I've received or that my family members have received.

Excellent point.

If it's considered by the state that a person being in the armed forces is performing the highest service an individual can perform for the state, then why does the state subject its soldiers to what is obviously sub-par government run health care? Should not the government, out of concern for its cherished soldiers, force them to use for-profit medicine?

Also, if the state controls the army to safeguard the well being of the people, and the state controls the police to safeguard the well being of the people, why does the state instantly say that the state is in no position (to the point of admitting they are grossly incompetent compared to the private sector) to safeguard the health of the people?

"We're the only ones smart enough to wage war and use nuclear weapons, but if you want your kid to see doctor for a broken leg, sorry, we're simply not good enough."

It's patently ridiculous.

[Kanamori]

Perhaps it would be best to show the actual results under each system, rather than some vague idea of 'good' results v. some vague idea of 'bad' results, w/o even knowing to what degree each system makes those 'bad' and 'good' results and how.

[Redleg]

Yes, we definitely should have it. The healthcare tragedy we have in the US is one of the reasons I consider this a barbaric country. What we have now is nothing short of cruel and despicable.

Have someone develop a medically sound and finicially affordable health care plan to support the roughly 300,000,000 citizens of the United States plus the 10,000,000 or more illegal immigrants in this country - that does not increase our taxes more then what I must pay out for my current health care premiums - then I am all for it. You can get a picture of what universal health care will cost by looking at what it costs in Canada - and then factor in the population that is about 10 times as large.

But not one single plan has been mentioned nor does anyone in politics espouse a plan that might be workable. What you get is rethoric from both sides - to include this little tidbit of yours Tachikaz, it means absolutely nothing in the overall picture of the discussion - nor does it offer a viable solution to the problem.

[solypsist]

it's funny how people will pay $3 a gallon for gas, but feel asking for some $ beyond some relative premium-bar for healthcare that could benefit their children and it's a deal breaker.

Have someone develop a medically sound and finicially affordable health care plan to support the roughly 300,000,000 citizens of the United States plus the 10,000,000 or more illegal immigrants in this country - that does not increase our taxes more then what I must pay out for my current health care premiums - then I am all for it. You can get a picture of what universal health care will cost by looking at what it costs in Canada - and then factor in the population that is about 10 times as large.

But not one single plan has been mentioned nor does anyone in politics espouse a plan that might be workable. What you get is rethoric from both sides - to include this little tidbit of yours Tachikaz, it means absolutely nothing in the overall picture of the discussion - nor does it offer a viable solution to the problem.

[Redleg]

it's funny how people will pay $3 a gallon for gas, but feel asking for some $ beyond some relative premium-bar for healthcare that could benefit their children and it's a deal breaker.

Its a start point Solypsist. Come up with a better start point if you don't like where I would like it to start. The point is that provide a viable and working plan - not the neublus idea of unversial or free medical care. Its not hard to point out the errors of many of the universial health care most of them are based on cost and why some must resort to paying out or their own pockets for health care to get it in a more timely manner.

Give me a plan - a working model of an idea that makes sense to support the concept of universal health care. If you can't think of one - your objection to my comment is nothing but the same basic rethoric that means absolutely nothing in working toward a better health care system.

BTW my child already benefits from a workable plan for health care - so your objection once again is mote.

I don't like paying $3 for a gallon of gas either - and I cut back on the amount of extra driving I do - not only to conserve - but to pay more attention to what I am doing.

[Beirut]

it's funny how people will pay $3 a gallon for gas, but feel asking for some $ beyond some relative premium-bar for healthcare that could benefit their children and it's a deal breaker.

Because, as we know, it's purely ideological. It has nothing to do with whether it would work or not, it only has to do with profits and profitable politics.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

If you would be so kind, please offer unto me, any examples of how allowing all people equal access to life saving medicine, regardless of their ability to pay, equates with a dictatorial police state.

And if it is true that socialized medicine equates with the tenets of communism, and communism bearing the hallmark of mass incarceration of its own citizens, why does the US with its for-profit medicine have one of, if not the highest, percentage of its own people in jail? Far more than Canada with our quasi-commie healthcare. Where is the corelation there?

Taxes lead to poor people. Poor people lead to Communists. Communists lead to millions dead.

How do you intend to pay for this free healthcare in the US?

And also, may I note that, compared to the US, Canadian law is basically anarchy. Or at least, that's how I view it. Except that you deport people because they say something the government disagrees with vehemantly. Doesn't seem very nice, does it?

In essence, it doesn't lead to communism, but some of the things nessissary for it to be implemented can lead to communism.

[Beirut]

In essence, it doesn't lead to communism, but some of the things nessissary for it to be implemented can lead to communism.

Yep, goodness know the GPs in Quebec who average $190,000 a year are all Marxists. I have to step over the hammers and sickles every time I go for a flu shot.

[solypsist]

it's not my job to come up with a better concept; it's what i elect and pay local/state/federal officials for. i'm tired of electing them* and they not coming through on their promises for this because their corporate lobbyists keep shutting down even the best start points.

*yes, i have even voted for republicans who claim this as a priority.

Its a start point Solypsist. Come up with a better start point if you don't like where I would like it to start. The point is that provide a viable and working plan - not the neublus idea of unversial or free medical care.

[Beirut]

Kaiser,

May I ask why you (or someone who holds similar views) trust the government to raise an army, wage war, control the police, pass laws, imprison people, and a myriad of other critical things, yet you draw the line sharply at healing the sick. Not only draw the line, but say that the other side of the line is not only wrong, but un-American and anti-freedom.

[solypsist]

listening to someone whose mommy and daddy pay their healthcare is like taking auto repair advice from someone whose parents own a bicycle shop: it may be viable, and the intention is good, but it doesn't beat talking to someone who actually fixes cars.

/end nonsense metaphor

Yep, goodness know the GPs in Quebec who average $190,000 a year are all Marxists. I have to step over the hammers and sickles every time I go for a flu shot.

[Papewaio]

The states in Australia look after the public health system but it is federally funded... so things get tweaked for local issues.

[Beirut]

Me and my Medicare card are going to bed. "Smooch!"

Night all.

[Redleg]

Because, as we know, it's purely ideological. It has nothing to do with whether it would work or not, it only has to do with profits and profitable politics.

Goes to show that you don't really know do you, its about cost and benefit analysis - how else will you sell it to the average middleclass individual. You can sell it to the poor easily - it eases their burdern, but emotional appeal only goes so far when your in the middleclass and watching your money. Tell me what I am going to get for my tax money being spent - and how much of my earning are going to be taken from me to pay for it.

Offer a economically viable plan or even a basic idea - that does not bankrupt the government nor continues to cause the taxpayers have to pay more and more in taxes to float a large healthcare system managed by the Government.

Comments like yours and Solypsists show a more purely ideological make-up on the issue then my own. Your just argueing from an emotional appeal standpoint. Provide the plan, the numbers, and how it will be managed for review if you can.

I have taken hard look at the Canadian System - and to implement anything like your system in the United States would bankrupt the government with a growth in defiect spending that far exceeds the currrent level. We had this same discussion in the not so distant past - and when presented with the costs - you did not counter how much it might end up costing the average taxpayer - nor could you explain away the beuaracy that is in the Canadian system.

Your arguement is nothing but emotional appeal - which is pure ideological based. Yet you refuse to see your ideological fallacies in your postion and only attempt to point out mine - good way to solve an issue or come to a consensus.

If it was not so predictable - it would actually be amusing.

[Redleg]

it's not my job to come up with a better concept; it's what i elect and pay local/state/federal officials for. i'm tired of electing them* and they not coming through on their promises for this because their corporate lobbyists keep shutting down even the best start points.

*yes, i have even voted for republicans who claim this as a priority.

Then you really have no base in which to complain that I want it to be planned, thought out, and explained to the taxpayers before it comes about.

To say my view is purely ideological without seeing yours, an arguement based on emotional appeal - which is also a purely ideological standpoint is nothing but hypocrisy on your part.

[Redleg]

Me and my Medicare card are going to bed. "Smooch!"

Night all.

Well low and behold - care to guess how many Americans also have a Medicare card which entitles them to free medical care at the taxpayer expense. I will give you a clue - its about roughly the same number as the total population of Canada.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Kaiser,

May I ask why you (or someone who holds similar views) trust the government to raise an army, wage war, control the police, pass laws, imprison people, and a myriad of other critical things, yet you draw the line sharply at healing the sick. Not only draw the line, but say that the other side of the line is not only wrong, but un-American and anti-freedom.

It's the governments job to raise an army, wage war, control the police, pass laws, imprison people, and a myriad of other critical things. It is not their job to heal the sick, help the poor, or any of that other socialist stuff. The Government is here to protect the people from foreign threats and crime, mainly. And to make sure anarchy doesn't reign. It is not they're job to baby the people.

[solypsist]

it's not hypocrisy to understand that national healthcare would offer US citizens a better quality of life overall. i want it to be planned and thought out, too, and i'm sure there are some good solutions. but someone always wants the other guy to be the one who takes the hit (the selfish "me generation" baby boomer mentality so at odds with the ww2 "greatest generation" mentality), and so of course nothing is ever accomplished.

Then you really have no base in which to complain that I want it to be planned, thought out, and explained to the taxpayers before it comes about.

To say my view is purely ideological without seeing yours, an arguement based on emotional appeal - which is also a purely ideological standpoint is nothing but hypocrisy on your part.

[Redleg]

it's not hypocrisy to understand that national healthcare would offer US citizens a better quality of life overall. i want it to be planned and thought out, too, and i'm sure there are some good solutions. but someone always wants the other guy to be the one who takes the hit (the selfish "me generation" baby boomer mentality so at odds with the ww2 "greatest generation" mentality), and so of course nothing is ever accomplished.

Hince you get my initial comment - if it doesn't cost what I have to currently pay for my medical insurance - I don't have a problem with going to a National or Universal Health Care system - because its already spending money that I have personally had to spend already. Its a zero sum loss on my pocketbook - the difference is only who takes my money.

Your statement of it's funny how people will pay $3 a gallon for gas, but feel asking for some $ beyond some relative premium-bar for healthcare that could benefit their children and it's a deal breaker. is based upon a false assumption on your part and is a more ideological based arguement then mine - I want the plan thought out and explained to me before I decide how I want to vote for it through my elected representive. Since I am willing to allow them to just do it if it doesn't cost anymore then what is alreadly being spent - but if it goes beyond that - they have to show me how it benefits not only society but me as a taxpayer.

A simple cost to benefit analysis is all that it would take to explain the program to me. Something that no politican has ever attempted to explain - they rely on the rethoric that people like Tachikaze, Beriut, and even you have shown in this thread to become the deal breakers to the middleclass. Edit: Not so much the middleclass but the moderates who would most likely support a national health care program if it was explained to them in terms that go beyond the rethoric that is currently being used concerning National Health Care.

[Devastatin Dave]

Nothings for free....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus' pet peeve #1:

There is no such thing as "free." Somewhere, somehow, it was created through the expenditure of labor and resources.

Life's basic rule is TANSTAAFL.

[Redleg]

Bingo. Either way, it costs the people. It comes down to who you trust more: People who's livelyhood depends on the quality of their medical care, or the state? It's been ovbvious for decades which one provides higher quality.

Give me private healthcare any day, with Government subsidies only for those who truly need it.

And what many don't realize is that there are already several major programs being used - one of them that already provides health care for more American Citizens then the populations of many countries who have a National Health Care system.

Medicare
Medicaid

Then there is the state programs

and finally many counties have a County Hospital that gets taxpayer funds from the property taxes to care for the disadvantage. Some counties even have a free health clinic to serve the citizens of that county who can not pay for a visit to the doctor.


All has been covered in a previous thread about this issue.

And then the law that clearly states that Hospitals must provide health care for all life threatening emergancies without asking if the individual can pay. Only after the care has been given and patient stablized can they ask.

[PanzerJaeger]

I dont want to be taxed to pay for other people's medical problems. (Or mexicans, if that is applicable )

[Roark]

Free healthcare is a blessing, but Yanks have wayyy too many hang-ups about tax for it to happen there anytime soon...

[bmolsson]

Medical care is never free. The problem in countries with "free" health care programs is that people actually believe that it's free. This creates a disrespect for the cost involved and sooner or later it spirals out of control.
It is really irrelevant who owns the hospitals and/or the insurance companies, as long as control and competition is maintained. The customer service and care comes out of competition and nothing else.

[Xiahou]

I would not trust the government with a borrowed pen, let alone my healthcare. Let's stick with the way it is, eh? Illegal Immigrants flooding the emergency rooms with no way of paying the fee are far more of a problem.

I'd argue that our healthcare is already too socialized and that is what's responsible for many of our healthcare systems problems- spiraling costs and lower quality of care.

[Red Harvest]

Redleg,

I would like to see this analysis, because it doesn't add up when I look at it. In a 2000 WHO report the U.S. spent $4,178 per capita compared to $2,312 for Canada. Considering that Federal and State government is already paying a fairly large share of the total U.S. health care costs (about 45%) it seems the problem is not what Canadians spend on health care, but what Americans do. American costs are far higher and we are already spending nearly as much in public funds per capita as Canada--we just don't get nealy as much bang for the buck.

And administrative costs are an interesting comparison: the U.S. was spending $1,059 per capita on administration in 1999 versus $307 per capita in Canada. Considering economies of scale, Canada's system should cost far more per person to operate, rather than 3 times less. But a single payer system is naturally far more efficient in that regard. http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html

While in ones study it was reported the U.S. spends 14% of GDP on healthcare (6.2% public, 7.7% private), Canada spends 9% (6.8% public, 2.8% private.)

Here is a link with some better breakdowns for the U.S. by year (note that it won't match some other figures precisely--different bases I suppose): http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/t1.asp
What I found interesting is that the inflation rate of health care cost is not nearly as high as what I've seen previously and repeated--as presented by companies to employees, as presented by "liberals", etc. Instead it is running about 7% per capita inflation now, about twice that of overall inflation. Under Clinton it averaged 4.3% (and was in the 3.7% range while universal health care was a threat. ) Premiums are inflating at about 9%.

A particularly disturbing trend is that U.S. healthcare costs have risen from 8.8% of GDP in 1980 to 15.3% in 2003. If that continues...well...26.5% of GDP for healthcare sounds extremely harmful to the economy to me.

As I've said, I'm not in favor of completely "free" healthcare, but I do want full access. It is shameful that a "developed" nation treats its poor this way.