Post: #1

I have posted this question under another thread, I just thought it deserves a thread as I am truly baffled as to the vitriolic opposition of it from many Americans.

What is so bad about it, considering you are the only 1st world nation without it.

I was watching Breaking Bad, and it occurred to me that the idea that someone should go into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt due to cancer is just fucking cruel, straight up.

Even when people have insurance, it seems it is often deemed unacceptable by the health establishment/insurance companies.

Post: #2

I'm somewhat opposed to it because people (usually women) feel entitled to healthcare despite not taking care of themselves whatsoever. In America I can't see UHC as anything but a way to enable obesity.

Post: #3

America has the worst obesity rates in the world, it is very low down in healthcare quality...It's a racket by big pharma, big money, and the doctors, it has nothing to do with providing the best care.

I just don't understand the true hatred of "socialized" medicine in America. It works fine everywhere else, not perfect, but better than America's.

I say again, it is just cruel. I hate the NHS experiencing health tourism, but I like to know if I got cancer, I'd get seen and treated without being in $100,000 of debt. It's disgusting and I don't know how you guy's accept it.

Post: #4

Last I checked 19 of the 20 best hospitals in the world were in the US.

Post: #5

Nationalized health care is not a bad thing as long as you have the tax base willing to fund it and your population isn't full of people looking to game the system. I am suspicious as to whether the United States fits the bill.

Post: #6

America has the worst obesity rates in the world because (a) the GOVERNMENT told people that carbs were good for you (2) people can't control their consumption of crap like sugar soda and processed foods and (3) kids do not get the sort of physical activity they got even 20 years ago.

This epidemic of obesity has ZERO to do with our health care system.

As for the UK's national health service....REALLY?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...e-NHS.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comm...75088.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...-john-fund
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...wards.html

But of the articles you can find about the issues with the NHS, this is the most telling.

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_3_ot...-care.html

Quote:According to the report, the British were the most satisfied with their health care of all the populations surveyed; they were the most confident that in the event of illness, they would receive the best and most up-to-date treatment; and they were the least anxious that their personal finances would prevent them from receiving proper treatment.

On several measures of actual achievement, rather than subjective assessment, the NHS came out the worst of all the systems examined. For example, it ranked worst for five-year survival rates in cervical, breast, and colon cancer. It was also worst for 30-day mortality rates after admission to a hospital for either hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke. On only one clinical measure was it best: the avoidance of amputation of the foot in diabetic gangrene. More than one reason for this outcome is possible, but the most likely is that foot care for diabetics—a matter of no small importance—is well arranged in Britain; the amputation rate is four times higher in the United States.

Overall, however, Britain seems to face a self-esteem problem: too much of it. How is it that the population most confident that it will receive treatment of the highest possible standard, featuring the latest medical advances, actually has the worst survival rates in precisely those diseases that require the most up-to-date treatments?

Post: #7

A government's fundamental role is to care for its citizens. I don't see how competent healthcare should even an issue that is argued.

Post: #8

(03-05-2013 05:24 PM)MaleDefined Wrote:  A government's fundamental role is to care for its citizens. I don't see how competent healthcare should even an issue that is argued.

No, a government's role should be very limited -- only those things to allow the maximum amount of freedom.

The minute a government has to "care" for you, you have given up freedome.

Post: #9

OK, I never said the NHS was the best ever, I said it is better, for the average person, than the American one. How can you deny that the majority of western health systems are superior to your own? There are league tables after league tables that show, considering America is extremely wealthy, it is woeful in healthcare.

Post: #10

I know Canada's universal health care isn't perfect and there have been well-documented cases of patients suffering from long waiting lists sometimes. The Republicans even use the Premier of Newfoundland (he traveled to the US for a surgery instead of waiting here) as an example whenever they fight against universal health care but the reality is our system works more often than not. If I ever have to see a doctor, I may have to wait a couple of hours but I won't be paying anything. That can usually be avoided anyway if you book appointments.

Canada has many faults but I like its universal health care.

Also, whether or not you have insurance coverage from your employer or if you work a shitty Mcjob, you won't go broke or die because you are unable to pay for expensive cancer/other disease treatments.

Post: #11

Yes the Lewis and Clark expedition should never have happened. Too many potential lawsuits.

The westward expansion? No infrastructure to keep people healthy. Can't do it.

The Klondike Gold Rush? Not allowed without proper permits be legal fees.

The great earthquake in San Francisco? We would still be litigating in 2013.

Post: #12

(03-05-2013 04:57 PM)Teedub Wrote:  What is so bad about it, considering you are the only 1st world nation without it.

The U.S. is very different from other 1st world nations in Europe and Asia. My 0.02 USD:

• Universal health care is much, much easier to implement in ethnically homogeneous societies. Needless to say, the U.S. is the opposite of an ethnically homogeneous society. This also means that multiculturalism in Europe will weaken the welfare state. Erik the Swede will accept to pay 50% income tax to subsidize the bastard spawn of single mom Inga the Slut if her children are ethnically Swedish, but maybe Erik will not be very fond of supporting the children of non-ethnic Swedes, since those children look nothing like him, their culture is alien to him, and they view him as someone alien to their tribe. The welfare state is stronger where there is one tribe in one country, like in Sweden, or Japan (let's forget about the Sami and the Okinawans).
  

• Unconditional universal health care is a potentially dangerous idea, since it does not give many incentives for people to lead a healthy life. In other words, it rewards irresponsibility, and it decouples people from the consequences of their actions. If you lead a healthy life, eat healthy food, exercise regularly, and do not smoke, why should you pay for the health care of a fat fuck who lives on fast food and beer, who never exercises and who smokes 10 packs a day? In sane countries people undergo medical exams to assess their health, and the healthier they are, the less they pay. I heard from an economist friend of mine that they do something like this in the Netherlands, or they were planning to do it. Can you imagine Obama telling the American people that obese people will pay more for health care since they are a high-risk group?
  

Post: #13

Although this is no longer a political majority, some of us in the U.S. do not recognize "the government" as some independent, holier-than-thou institution that holds moral and intellectual superiority over everyone and everything. Instead, we see it as a function of the people (you and me) that comprise it.

So when you say that "a government's fundamental role is to care for its citizens", we interpret that as "you have an obligation to care for your neighbor".

To that assertion, I simply say...I sure as hell do not have any such obligation.

Post: #14

3 Reasons I think:

1 ) The Cost: Possible increase of taxes and reduced spending elsewhere.

2 ) Communism: Americans, I believe, tend to be very much against the notion of communism and everyone getting equal care seems unfair to them viewing it from a Capitalist perspective. It's almost taking a page out of Communism's book.

3) This one applied to Ireland (So you can kind of discount this one,if you want)when the Government here was introducing more universal health care, the Church got very much involved , Many Hospitals were run by the Church. And they saw they Government invading their territory, if they failed to stand against this, then there would be more "difficult" ideas forced onto the health sytem. i.e Abortion etc

Post: #15

Teedub is speaking for most Brits over here.

We always think it is strange that such a great (and rich) country like the US doesn't have universal health care. Since it is taken for granted in most western countries.

And as bad as things are here (from time to time). I can't think of anything worse than having to find 100 grand at the same time as I find out I have cancer.

Still - I am a great admirer of Milton Friedman. And he was against universal health care. So - maybe there is something in this that I haven't considered. But then again - the smartest people often have a habit of having the strangest opinions.

Post: #16

(03-05-2013 05:41 PM)Apollo Wrote:  Although this is no longer a political majority, some of us in the U.S. do not recognize "the government" as some independent, holier-than-thou institution that holds moral and intellectual superiority over everyone and everything. Instead, we see it as a function of the people (you and me) that comprise it.

So when you say that "a government's fundamental role is to care for its citizens", we interpret that as "you have an obligation to care for you neighbor".

To that assertion, I simply say...I sure as hell do not have any such obligation. (morally)

Yes big corporations are much more trustworthy than the government

It is due to individualism you see selfishness as a moral trait.

Re: whoever said Americans are healthier - are you joking? Free healthcare does NOT cause ppl to not take care of their health what madness.

If you don't believe in free healthcare why not charge people for firemen? Don't pay your house burns down

Note also that despite having no healthcare you instead pump your cash into the military. This tells you where your priorities lie. Bombing foreigners instead of caring for the sick and poor

Post: #17

Another point that i wanted to bring up was that when the The Dark Knight Rises shooting happened in Colorado, I read articles that many survivors were facing medical bills of thousands of dollars even after the hospitals had "discounted" them. There were many fundraising initiatives to help those survivors pay the bills but should that really be happening in a first-world country?

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/25/au...cal-bills/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/heal...le4465642/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25...04209.html

Post: #18

The tax issue is irrelevant, as when you look at all the taxes (state + federal etc), Americans pay roughly the same as Brits. Yet no healthcare. You have to pay health on top of that. It just doesn't add up. I don't know why you can't just say:

"America is shit, it's great if you're rich, crap for everyone else" as that is what it is.

Post: #19

Teedub, Quick question.

Say I'm visiting the UK for a week and I step off a curb and break my ankle. Can a US citizen get free care at a UK hospital in that instance?

Post: #20

(03-05-2013 05:59 PM)HeyPete Wrote:  Teedub, Quick question.

Say I'm visiting the UK for a week and I step off a curb and break my ankle. Can a US citizen get free care at a UK hospital in that instance?

Yes.

Edit- The amount you paid in airport taxes, food taxes, booze etc...Paid for a quick trip to have your ankle to have a check up

Post: #21

Yes, the world's best hospitals might just be the American ones, but that doesnt mean that the entire system is the best, as well. I'm German and neither do I get the whole fuss about it. Sure, UHC is not without flaws, but the complete commercialization of a nation's healthcare system is just bizarre. Just like water, transport and education, HC should be a mostly public good.

Post: #22

(03-05-2013 05:26 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 05:24 PM)MaleDefined Wrote:  A government's fundamental role is to care for its citizens. I don't see how competent healthcare should even an issue that is argued.

No, a government's role should be very limited -- only those things to allow the maximum amount of freedom.

The minute a government has to "care" for you, you have given up freedome.

Protect? Word choice possibly.

What is government's role?

Post: #23

Universal healthcare is great, but there is no method of achieving it that will give better results than free market healthcare. Even America's approximately 50% free system provides better treatment results than the universal systems in Europe.

Basically, I oppose universal healthcare because it does not provide a net benefit versus what we have now and what we should have.

On a more fundamental level, UHC requires a violation of human rights in practice because it requires the government to either force providers and pharma companies to provide free services/products or it requires people to pay into a forced insurance scheme.

Post: #24

(03-05-2013 05:26 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 05:24 PM)MaleDefined Wrote:  A government's fundamental role is to care for its citizens. I don't see how competent healthcare should even an issue that is argued.

No, a government's role should be very limited -- only those things to allow the maximum amount of freedom.

The minute a government has to "care" for you, you have given up freedome.

How is being an economic slave to insurance company racquets count as freedom?

Post: #25

(03-05-2013 06:09 PM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  Universal healthcare is great, but there is no method of achieving it that will give better results than free market healthcare. Even America's approximately 50% free system provides better treatment results than the universal systems in Europe.

Basically, I oppose universal healthcare because it does not provide a net benefit versus what we have now and what we should have.

On a more fundamental level, UHC requires a violation of human rights in practice because it requires the government to either force providers and pharma companies to provide free services/products or it requires people to pay into a forced insurance scheme.

No other system bankrupts people. Come on man, you must see how the U.S system is harsh, it's all about profit and not about helping people?