Tell me.

For a nation that as a majority would go crazy over not leaving a tip because waiting staff need them to earn a decent wage so they can live a fair life but gets so irate over the thought of paying extra taxes so that everyone can have access to medical care baffles me.

The thing is it wouldn't eliminate private healthcare. We still have that in England and in Europe and if you don't want to wait or think the "free" care is sub-standard you have the freedom to pay for private healthcare as well as have access to the free care provided. We don't have the insurance policy though and you pay for the medication/procedures etc. You pay for what you want. Not insurance on top of your taxes.

It wouldn't suck all the top doctors to the private sector because unlike America doctors get bonuses for treating more patients. Not turning them away to save their health insurance company money. So what is it that bothers you so much about it, is it because it's deemed socialist/communist?

We're beyond the cold war era of name calling and stereotyping socio-economic systems. Socialist policies operate within a capitalist mode of economy, they simply attempt to provide "essentials" and fairness for the majority. Most people yap on about it being a step towards their freedom being taken away but most people don't have their own massive business or portfolio of land etc, which would face decreased profits (although still in the millions) from such a system being implemented. You'd be getting something out of it - free health care.

People seem to think they are protecting "freedom" and "their rights" by sticking up for [richer] people by not letting them get massive taxes to front social programs. When you have that much money you have a social responsibility to your community whether you want to acknowledge it or not. We restrict children for "their own good" as they grow up because they don't know any better. We make them do things they don't want to because it benefits them and others.

Same with people. Sometimes they just need to be told the way things are going to be because they can't see it for themselves.

Black people -among others- were born as slaves with no rights not many decades ago. Now in modern times they are born as equals with the same rights as everyone else. What happened between those times? Legislation. It's become a widely accepted concept now. Your so called rights are nothing but what is dictated by your government according to the social, material and political conditions of the time. You get used to them as they remain set throughout time until they become commonplace.


This is a list of countries with universal healthcare programs:

Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, Brunei, China, Hong Kong SAR, India, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom. India, Australia and New Zealand.

Almost the whole Earth accepts the idea as standard practice. Are Americans so blindly arrogant to believe they have it right and the world has it wrong?

Americans love being patriotic and what could be more patriotic than paying extra taxes so that you and every American has access to healthcare if they cannot afford to go private?

I sadly see America refusing it being put in place (which I think Obama may resort to) but then extolling their application of it as being the only people to have made a socialist idea actually work (:rolleyes:) just because they see the beneifts of it after so long.

Thoughts on a postcard but please provide some reasons with your posts. Not just a few lines with no logic or proof.

An even worse economy. You can't compare us to other nations, no other nation is like the USA.

By the way, it's funny how the entire country, despite their "wisdom" regarding healthcare would be destroyed by the USA in a matter of hours. You don't make it to the top by socialism.

Fuck this shit, im going to the moon.

Socialized medicine rules. Don't believe any of the bullshitters.

I use medicaid, and I've been arguing with those idiots for over a month to get my insurance card so I can get my medicine (which runs about 500 dollars/month) and those morons still havent given me my card.

If they cant ship out cards right, what else can they do right?

I use medicaid, and I've been arguing with those idiots for over a month to get my insurance card so I can get my medicine (which runs about 500 dollars/month) and those morons still havent given me my card.

If they cant ship out cards right, what else can they do right?

As if the people who make a profit by rejecting health care claims are doing a much better job

As if the people who make a profit by rejecting health care claims are doing a much better job

yes...they are actually. I also need remicade which costs 13k a pop(which they cover), havent heard a peep from them, and I only have to pay 30/month for my medicine

An even worse economy. You can't compare us to other nations, no other nation is like the USA.

By the way, it's funny how the entire country, despite their "wisdom" regarding healthcare would be destroyed by the USA in a matter of hours. You don't make it to the top by socialism.

With the economy contracting at an annual rate of 5%. Government deficits in the trillions and the USA hated by most of the world I wouldn't be so cocky about the USA. As Lenin once said "The capitalists would sell themselves the rope to hang themselves", which is exactly what has happened.

Socialism is wrong! Unless it is for to the Rich. The Rich are our Greatest Natural Resource. They shouldn't be taxed more than a pittance. The workers should be taxed & the money given to the lovely lovely Rich!

Yeah, what the FUCK is with tipping?

I'd rather be dead than red.

I noticed that India is in your list. I wonder just how good "universal healthcare" is for the average Indian in a country of a billion+ people?

No seriously though, what the fuck is with tipping?

Tell me.


Americans love being patriotic and what could be more patriotic than paying extra taxes so that you and every American has access to healthcare if they cannot afford to go private?


Duh, not paying taxes. We fought the revolutionary war over taxes, idiot. So to say paying taxes is patriotic is just being a big government dipshit.

No seriously though, what the fuck is with tipping?

IDK? Lots of women seem to like to get the tip...

Well speaking from the viewpoint of somebody in a country with universal health care it's great having it ..
It's like, if you walk into the hospital with someone wrong with you, you'll get treated for whatever it is without having to pay, without having to wrangle with the insurance companies when all you want to do is get well, without being at risk if you're not insured or it expires, and if you need a prescription it's only a small charge (about $5) for whatever drug combinations you need .. down from simple medicines like paracetamol etc etc to the $200/pop drugs for cancer and shit like that , it's only like $5 ..
And I just don't see what it'd be like in a country where you didn't have that, having to consider an insurance company at any time you needed medication etc ..

Yeah. I had the worst pain in my stomach area and a fever of 101. I was so debilitating I couldn't move. I didn't go to the emergency room because I wasn't sure which insurance I have or if I was even insured. Luckily it went away 2 days later.

Fuck our current system.

As a britfag who's usually into more right wing politics, I have to say the nhs is great when you need it. I mean I hear some dark tales from the states of people getting kicked out of hospitals when they run out of money etc

Only thing is though, like all things socialist the nhs aint first class, I think they're getting on top of the whole MRSA thing now, but it was a real problem.

Yeah cuz like, the free market and the magical invisible hand are like, fast at work. those 47 million people will have health care tomorrow, or like next week or next year because the market is correcting itself. I mean, look at those insurance companies fast at work competing to provide the lowest costs to the poor. Notice those pain pills get smaller, a prettier color, and are stronger every year? That's amazing american ingenuity that you don't get under socialism, because people that aren't motivated by profit can't be creative. Clearly it's the government's fault for causing a distortion in the free markets. I mean, you can profit from everything cant you? Profit drives everything. I mean, fuck it's the poor people's fault they're sick for not making the right decisions in life.

An even worse economy. You can't compare us to other nations, no other nation is like the USA.

By the way, it's funny how the entire country, despite their "wisdom" regarding healthcare would be destroyed by the USA in a matter of hours. You don't make it to the top by socialism.

A hungry lion, polar bear, or your fat mother could destroy me in a matter of minutes as well. My is my wisdom useless.

Although I sometimes like to refer to myself as a moderate centrist social Libertarian, I do recognize that the state does have a significant role in providing social services and providing health care and education free of charge to the citizens should be one the government's main duties.

That said I don't think Obama's health care plans are any good, if I'm not mistaken his plan is quite similar to Hilary's and mainly consists of giving incentives to people to purchase insurance.

That's a very bad approach, you should eliminate the need to have insurance in the first place, not lend money to poorer citizens so they can make insurance companies richer.

Having insurance does not equate to receiving universal healthcare anyway, the best way of doing things is by creating a national health system, have state-owned hospitals, this way there would be no need to buy insurance.

You can't even use the tax argument against it given the huge amount of wealth the US Government is wasting on its misguided foreign adventures, just a fraction of that would be enough to provide a good level health care service to every US citizen.

With just a couple of foreign policy corrections the US would get more than enough surplus capital to create probably the best funded most efficient healthcare system in the world without raising taxes.

It's all a matter of wise decision making, the government should start using tax money in a way that truly benefits the citizens, you could be having great health coverage and not pay a single cent more in taxes, just stop the pointless wars, cut foreign aid and use the money domestically.

Yeah cuz like, the free market and the magical invisible hand are like, fast at work. those 47 million people will have health care tomorrow, or like next week or next year because the market is correcting itself. I mean, look at those insurance companies fast at work competing to provide the lowest costs to the poor. Notice those pain pills get smaller, a prettier color, and are stronger every year? That's amazing american ingenuity that you don't get under socialism, because people that aren't motivated by profit can't be creative.
Eh what? Pain pills aren't made by the health service, they're made by the drug companies who produces them .. don't see how that's relevant in any way .. crazy how people in the US just turn away at any suggestion of anything that appears to look even slightly like socialism when it's actually a good idea..
Seriously, FUCK all this left and right shit, just divides people who'd otherwise get along perfectly fine, if something's a good idea then do it ..

Clearly it's the government's fault for causing a distortion in the free markets. I mean, you can profit from everything cant you? Profit drives everything.
And it still does, doctors still get paid a lot to work in the NHS, they are often paid on the basis of how well they've treated their patients etc, not the insurance companies for doing the exact opposite..
I mean, fuck it's the poor people's fault they're sick for not making the right decisions in life.
Why the fuck do people always say this? Do you really think anyone has a choice if they're poor or not? I bet you'll go on and say 'poor people are lazy', but no, a lot of them work their arses off just to be able to afford to fucking live, while there may be people who work less it's not relevant. Why should people's social status judge how they can get treated for things that are wrong with their bodies? It just seems to me like such an inalienable right to actually get treated when you're ill without consideration to money, crazy how people are actually against it ..

^ I can't believe you actually fell for that...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/2251502_795a1bc7e5.jpg?v=0

^ I can't believe you actually fell for that...

That's what happens when you go on totse just out of bed, baked as fuck last night, and still only half awake :D

That's what happens when you go on totse just out of bed, baked as fuck last night, and still only half awake :D

It happened to me tons of time as well, sometimes I just switch off the sarcasm detector.

I'm wary of the idea of social medicine due to my experience in the military. In concept it would be very similar. Since you'll be seen by what in the civilian world would translate to paramedics, they often have no idea what to do with afflictions that aren't gunshot wounds or cuts or something. Case in point:

Me: *goes to sickbay after feeling nauseous with vertigo for a week*

Doc: Whats your problem

Me: I feel sick. I've had a feeling of vertigo and I've been nauseous for a week. It's almost like there's a gas leak at the barracks.

Doc: IF THERE'S A GAS LEAK THEN YOU NEED TO TALK TO BUILDING MAINTENANCE NOT MEDICAL!!!

Me: No, no, I said it's like a gas leak. I feel as if there were a gas leak.

Doc: Oh, ok. Well have you been hydrating properly?

Me: *holds up a nearly depleted gallon size gatorade container*

Doc: Ok, well I'll give you some Motrin, don't forget to hydrate. KTHXGBYE!!

Me: Fucksticks! This yardbird didn't help at all.

So, turns out I just had a flu. What about people who actually get really sick or injured? I've heard in some of these countries with socialist medicine the veterinary clinics give higher quality care than medical clinics.

Not that our current situation isn't FUBAR, but medical workers would get paid just the same whether they treat rich patients with cystic fibrosis or poor people with vaginitis. There's no incentive to provide quality care.

^Dude doctors in countries with free healthcare are just as qualified as anywhere else.

I'm worried that American social medicine would be like what I characterized, since it probably wouldn't adapt well into widespread use.

Since you'll be seen by what in the civilian world would translate to paramedics, they often have no idea what to do with afflictions that aren't gunshot wounds or cuts or something.
That's paramedics, and doctors and GP's etc are totally different from that, they're just as knowledgable as the ones in your countries ..

What about people who actually get really sick or injured? I've heard in some of these countries with socialist medicine the veterinary clinics give higher quality care than medical clinics.
Well my experience with the medical system has been perfectly fine and have been treated well at all times, the benefits of national healthcare are much greater for those who get 'really sick' as in a lot of cases they'd not be able to afford it if they couldn't get insurance or if they did happen to have insurance would have to wrangle the money out of them .. and 'some' countries doesn't really indicate that it is a result of having nationalized medicine, it could be a result of a shitty government and higher regard for animals in that culture etc etc etc (not necessarily that, but if ya get what I mean ..)

There's no incentive to provide quality care.
There often is, in a lot of places the doctors etc can be given more pay, promoted etc, based on the number of people they can provide quality care to and not return, for their career it provides a very real incentive to do well also ..

People talk about social healthcare like they do with communism:

"Oh but it would just do this and blah blah blah if we used it, it wouldn't work"

Thing is the whole world more or less uses it and it's working well enough. So shut up. It has faults but the private health insurance system does too. If that was so sperfect everyone one else would use it. They don't though.

A lot of you live in America right? Have you noticed that the poor people get all the medical care they want and they don't have to pay for it? Okay. Just checking.

I'm saying I think it'd probably go in the wrong direction. This is, after all, America.

An even worse economy. You can't compare us to other nations, no other nation is like the USA.


What about countries with even worse economies that successfully use socialized medicine?

You're telling me that not a single one of the European countries that has Universal Health-care is like the U.S.?

Basic fact of the matter is that there are people in the U.S. who die because certain things aren't covered, and because insurance companies will weasel out of paying anything they can, any way they can. Know why our Health-Care System is a failure?

It's not about making people healthy, it's about making money. Doctors in hospitals aren't allowed to help people without insurance.

By the way, it's funny how the entire country, despite their "wisdom" regarding healthcare would be destroyed by the USA in a matter of hours. You don't make it to the top by socialism.

Because socializing programs fails 100% of the time.

Despite us having plenty of socialized programs that haven't failed.

A lot of you live in America right? Have you noticed that the poor people get all the medical care they want and they don't have to pay for it? Okay. Just checking.

:rolleyes:

alot of other countries also have alot less people

alot of other countries also have alot less people

Your point?

If Canada, Britain, France and even Cuba can give free, top notch health care, why the fuck can't the U.S. do it?
__________________________________________________ ____________

Anyway, Joe, this is how America fucking does things. We serve companies first, people second.

Duh, not paying taxes. We fought the revolutionary war over taxes, idiot. So to say paying taxes is patriotic is just being a big government dipshit.

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/not_sure_if_srs.jpg

Duh, not paying taxes. We fought the revolutionary war over taxes, idiot. So to say paying taxes is patriotic is just being a big government dipshit.

A few men fought a revolutionary war because of taxes, the majority didnt give a fuck and probably wouldn't have hadnt these small amount of bitching men been so convincing.

I've heard in some of these countries with socialist medicine the veterinary clinics give higher quality care than medical clinics.

This is true, but those veterinary clinics are private. As much as I'd like the best state-funded health care, a more pertinent goal would be to give everyone access and then allow them to pay for higher quality services. It's about saving lives, not providing the best quality; the government isn't completely taking over, it's just massively regulating in order to provide access. (at least this is what those on the center-left, including the de facto president believe).

:rolleyes:

Try getting treated for cancer in an emergency room. Fucking try it.

Perhaps some Americans would care to post about whether they know any folks who've been bankrupted by medical bills or not? Know anyone who has had an employer paid med plan & is now going without because they've lost their job?

Have you seen these things happen or is it personally unknown to you?

Perhaps some Americans would care to post about whether they know any folks who've been bankrupted by medical bills or not? Know anyone who has had an employer paid med plan & is now going without because they've lost their job?

Have you seen these things happen or is it personally unknown to you?

50% of American bankruptcies are related to medical bills.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/

Yes it's MSNBC, but that story is direct from the AP.

50% of American bankruptcies are related to medical bills.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/

Yes it's MSNBC, but that story is direct from the AP.

Yes, I understand that it's not uncommon. I was just wondering if any Americans had personal knowledge. 6 Degrees of separation & all?

As someone with a little experience in the field, I can tell you that Canada's healthcare system is the most expensive in the world. Think the US economy can handle that? If so, you're wrong.

Also, no matter what people who don't know any better might say, Canada's healthcare system is not as good as the US for health care quality. If you want healthcare quantity, then it is superior, but if I am going to buy healthcare privately anyway, why should I pay for socialized healthcare with my taxes?

I know some relatively young woman who bought a sports car instead of healthcare. If she prioritizes that way (stupid, in my opinion), then fine. If I bought a sports car instead of healthcare, why the hell should you end up paying for mine? It's called growing up. Some things in life you just need to prioritize for. I don't need to pay for someone else's college tuition or healthcare. I don't have children yet. I donate plenty of money to charity, by choice.

I honestly just don't believe that the government has the responsibility to babysit people in such a manner. Anyone's who's worked for the government (trust me on this one too if you haven't) will almost inevitably tell you that the government is highly inefficient due to the size of the bureaucracy and human laziness. When people say "good enough for government work" they say it for a reason. Ever been to a VA hospital? Most aren't all that great. I would not trust the government with my healthcare, the managing, or funding of it.

Oh, and I know of a couple hospitals where there are divisions where state funding will cover the tab of someone who gets emergency treatment if they don't have insurance.

Guess what.

They are always in great financial trouble and get bailed out by other departments. It ends up straining the state treasury. The last thing America needs is more bailouts. The auto industry is a joke. People should just look back over the Constitution and realize that there is no right to healthcare, yet.

The government would use it for eugenics, you'd have less choice, and I'd end up paying for more than I use so that some crack-head nigger can be kept alive needlessly.

The government would use it for eugenics, you'd have less choice, and I'd end up paying for more than I use so that some crack-head nigger can be kept alive needlessly.


The government would use it for eugenics


would use it for eugenics


eugenics

I hope you're trolling.

Healthcare is not a right. It is what's called a "demand". It is contingent upon someone else having gone to school for 7 years to be able to provide those services.

*Here is an idea for those of you who want socialized medicine: Either move to a country that does have it, or get together with people who feel the same way, and pool your OWN resources to create a voluntary participation healthcare safety net, much like some extended families do today in the US.

Do not think you are entitled to the government strong-arming to collect more money from private individuals, because you feel you deserve it. It is a dangerously steep slope.

Along with these "entitlements" comes more default delegation of individual responsibility over to governmental regulatory bodies and a de-emphasis of personal freedoms. If you expect the government to babysit you, you can expect them to continue telling you what you can and can't do with your body.
The brand-new "fat-tax" on cokes is an example of another step in this gradual shift.

Here is how I summarize most of your arguments: "HEy mang, I ain't the rich bastard who's gonna have to pay for it, so bring it on!"
This is an understandable sentiment given our current economic climate, but it is NOT the entire picture, and is a rather juvenile, and opportunistic (though increasingly commonly held) perspective.

tl/dr: "Socializing" access to medical needs is perfectly fine, so long as the people involved are doing so by their own choice.

Universal healthcare, by contrast, would force participation and allow government regulation to expand even further.
Honestly, how could any of you want that?

R_L, last time I checked you could opt out of the state health care system; at least in BC.

R_L, last time I checked you could opt out of the state health care system; at least in BC.

I don't have any experience with the Canadian medical system, but it seems to me that the people who would choose to opt out are the people who can take care of their own medical expenses.

Incidentally, wouldn't these be the same people whose money the socialized system would require for solvency?

Healthcare is not a right. It is what's called a "demand". It is contingent upon someone else having gone to school for 7 years to be able to provide those services.

I am not a slave to free market myths. there is supply, demand, and a point where some people are satisfied enough with the size of the market enough to exclude others. Right now the doctor/insurance/nigger loop has kept 47 million people excluded. Charity isn't cutting it either.
So do we blame the free market or do we blame the ethics of the people or do we solely blame government distortion?
Maybe it's the government distortion that doesn't lower the educational requirements, or that doesn't allow miracle snake-oils to be sold for very long? I'm sure there's a market out there for fake medicines and retarded doctors. Why not just let people do whatever they want?

The funny thing about resources is that they are all finite, while demand is limitless. Without the rest of the world to provide you cheap resources at gunpoint, I assure you you'd have a lot more to demand. So while we've got this robot known as the US government out looting the third world, I don't think it's too much to ask that we extend some health care.

I am not a slave to free market myths. there is supply, demand, and a point where some people are satisfied enough with the size of the market enough to exclude others. Right now the doctor/insurance/nigger loop has kept 47 million people excluded. Charity isn't cutting it either.
So do we blame the free market or do we blame the ethics of the people or do we solely blame government distortion?
Maybe it's the government distortion that doesn't lower the educational requirements, or that doesn't allow miracle snake-oils to be sold for very long? I'm sure there's a market out there for fake medicines and retarded doctors. Why not just let people do whatever they want?

The funny thing about resources is that they are all finite, while demand is limitless. Without the rest of the world to provide you cheap resources at gunpoint, I assure you you'd have a lot more to demand. So while we've got this robot known as the US government out looting the third world, I don't think it's too much to ask that we extend some health care.


1. I have no idea what you are talking about.

2. I produce over 50% of my food needs in my backyard, the remainder comes from other local farms in my community. I have no other "demands" aside from being left alone. It is bad form to use ad hominem arguments against people you don't know.

3. Whenever a pressing issue hits the table, why is it the knee-jerk reaction these days to call for more government involvement? Do you really have that little confidence in yourselves as intelligent, autonomous beings?

4. The leading cause of death in the US is: heart-disease, by quite a margin (note: this is historically unprecedented, and as fast food is permeating China, instances of heart disease are rising in direct correlation). The main cause of heart disease, in conjunction with laziness, is: fast food/all around bad diet. Fast food and the cheap low quality food that dominates supermarkets in 2008 is only made possible by the dominance of homogenous industrial mega-farms. These mega-farms only survive for two reasons. Those are: a) cheap petroleum, and b) massive government subsidies. (a) is going to be gone within four years, and (b) will likely disappear within ten years, unless the federal government straight-up nationalizes the farms.

Once this happens, most of these medical "needs" will no longer exist.

I know these points may not matter to anyone, since personal accountability for one's own actions is irrelevant when it is the role of government agencies to make sure we don't do anything to our own detriment.

4. The leading cause of death in the US is: heart-disease, by quite a margin (note: this is historically unprecedented, and as fast food is permeating China, instances of heart disease are rising in direct correlation). The main cause of heart disease, in conjunction with laziness, is: fast food/all around bad diet. Fast food and the cheap low quality food that dominates supermarkets in 2008 is only made possible by the dominance of homogenous industrial mega-farms. These mega-farms only survive for two reasons. Those are: a) cheap petroleum, and b) massive government subsidies.



Interesting, that's a link I've never made before. However that's not an argument against a national health service, that's an argument against goverment subsidies to these farms and lax food and animal health regulations (and stupid people).

Interesting, that's a link I've never made before. However that's not an argument against a national health service, that's an argument against goverment subsidies to these farms and lax food and animal health regulations (and stupid people).

I just want to bring the idea to the table that, quite possibly, we can solve several social problems by decreasing the scope of government, instead of increasing it to compensate for damage done by a previous increase.

???

I'm certainly not advocating more food regulation. It clearly has its merits, but insofar as people habitually delegate their discriminatory capacities over to regulatory bodies, they lose a great sense of individual responsibility in the matter, which I don't believe is a dynamic that is compatible with a free society.

National Healthcare System FTW!

The benefit of something like the NHS is that you can (in an emergency) walk (or be carried) into any hospital and receive life saving treatment. without having to worry about 'how the hell am i going to pay for this?'

Without the NHS several people i love would be dead right now. so i don't mind paying my national insurance.

the only thing i don't like about it is oxygen thieves who don't pay into my society can get health care as well.

Soooo...I take it you Americans who won't say anything about your personal knowledge of people becoming unemployed & losing their HMO's or going bankrupt from Medical Bills, means you do not want to supply any help to the "other" side?

That you are being partisan & that "your" side is your side & let the other side supply their own ammunition & they shouldn't expect any help from you. Otherwise you'd at least say, "Not to my knowledge." (Here is where they break down & say, "I never understand you! What are you talking about?") ;)

Soooo...I take it you Americans who won't say anything about your personal knowledge of people becoming unemployed & losing their HMO's or going bankrupt from Medical Bills, means you do not want to supply any help to the "other" side?

That you are being partisan & that "your" side is your side & let the other side supply their own ammunition & they shouldn't expect any help from you. Otherwise you'd at least say, "Not to my knowledge." (Here is where they break down & say, "I never understand you! What are you talking about?") ;)

I'm not in bankruptcy, but I am 2,000 dollars in debt because of some medical bills that my insurance company didnt pay off. However, that was a one time thing and now they are fulfilling all my medical needs w/o question.

I'm not in bankruptcy, but I am 2,000 dollars in debt because of some medical bills that my insurance company didnt pay off. However, that was a one time thing and now they are fulfilling all my medical needs w/o question.

And so? How hard is it to say that you are the only one in your extended circle? You've given that out like a poker player.

As someone with a little experience in the field, I can tell you that Canada's healthcare system is the most expensive in the world.

"Little" being the operative word here because that is just plain fucking false.

"The United States has by far the most expensive health care system in the world, based on health expenditures per capita (per person), and on total expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). As shown in Figure One and Table One, the United States spent $4,178 per capita on health care in 1998, more than twice the OECD median of $1,783, and far more than its closest competitor, Switzerland ($2,794).6 U.S. health spending as a percentage of GDP, 13.6 percent in 1998, also outdistanced the next most expensive health systems, in Germany (10.6 percent) and Switzerland (10.4 percent).

The reasons for the especially high cost of health care in the U.S. can be attributed to a number of factors, ranging from the rising costs of medical technology and prescription drugs to the high administrative costs resulting from the complex multiple payer system in the U.S. For example, it has been estimated that between 19.3 and 24.1 percent of the total dollars spent on health care in the U.S. is spent simply on administrative costs.7 {Other countries with socialize medicine have only a fraction of that amount—jk} The growing shift from non-profit to for-profit health care providers, such as the growth of for-profit hospital chains, has also contributed to the increased costs of health care. By 1994, research showed that administrative costs among for-profit hospitals had increased to 34.0 percent compared to 24.5 percent for private non-profit hospitals, and 22.9 percent for public hospitals.8

In addition, the high proportion of people who are uninsured in the U.S. (15.5 percent in 1999)9 contributes to expensive health care because conditions that could be either prevented or treated inexpensively in the early stages often develop into health crises. Treatment of crisis conditions later on is much more expensive, such as emergency room treatment, or intensive care when an untreated illness progresses to a more serious stage10. Finally, the aging of the population in the U.S. is also contributing to mounting increases in the cost of health care."

- Bureau of Labor Education. University of Maine. 2001. (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf)


And in case you think that it's not like that today since the article is a few years old, here's the Human Development Report, for 2007:


http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf

In particular, page 262 of the Report. The list is sorted by HDI rank, however if you look at the expenditure per capita you will see no country gets close to the jaw-dropping figure of $6,096 per capita that the U.S. spends.

P.S.

By your logic, a socialized system that spends (in per capita terms) as little as the Canadian system (or other socialized system that are well below that of the U.S.) would be ideal in the U.S. for these troubled economic times!

I think that a nationalised, or at the very least, socialised health care system can only work in a society where the population is reasonably white. I am serious too, because when you have too many blacks or hispanics who tend to take more from it than give back, the whole system will collapse. Which is why I think that in the current state the idea of a nationalised health care system is not very feasible in US.

^^ not only that but you cant have a massive amount of illegal immigration either

^^ not only that but you cant have a massive amount of illegal immigration either

Still? :eek:

I think that a nationalised, or at the very least, socialised health care system can only work in a society where the population is reasonably white. I am serious too, because when you have too many blacks or hispanics who tend to take more from it than give back, the whole system will collapse. Which is why I think that in the current state the idea of a nationalised health care system is not very feasible in US.

thats only because they're poor. whitetrash are probably just as guilty

Still? :eek:

all 12-20 million havent left

all 12-20 million havent left

You'll do anything except answer...won't you? ;)

I'd rather be dead than red.

he yeah
well Mr. Commie we live in the "free"(at one point at least) nation of the USA were we have the FREEDOM to chose how we live our lives and here we make people take care of themselves and be coddle them by a nanny state govt

I don't have any experience with the Canadian medical system, but it seems to me that the people who would choose to opt out are the people who can take care of their own medical expenses.

Incidentally, wouldn't these be the same people whose money the socialized system would require for solvency?

Miraculous, ain't it?

The only 2 Socialist programs that 98% of America seems to want is Social Security and Free Health Care for all people. Anything beyond that and this country will start to look like a Socialist nation. Is this what we want? It never seems to work out. It collasped Russia's economy. do you people really want to stand in a food line waiting for bread and eggs?

The only 2 Socialist programs that 98% of America seems to want is Social Security and Free Health Care for all people. Anything beyond that and this country will start to look like a Socialist nation. Is this what we want? It never seems to work out. It collasped Russia's economy. do you people really want to stand in a food line waiting for bread and eggs?
I fucking hope my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning again ..

Miraculous, ain't it?


In other words, in a voluntary framework, the only people who would participate are those who can't pay.

Which can not work.

The only 2 Socialist programs that 98% of America seems to want is Social Security and Free Health Care for all people. Anything beyond that and this country will start to look like a Socialist nation. Is this what we want? It never seems to work out. It collasped Russia's economy. do you people really want to stand in a food line waiting for bread and eggs?

Then how do you think the general populace of the US feel about the Bailouts?

Are they all up, "Arrrrr! Them Rich People are the Best Americans & nothing be too good for them folks!"

In other words, in a voluntary framework, the only people who would participate are those who can't pay.

Which can not work.

The Canadian system has been proven to work. Your argument contradicts reality.

The Canadian system has been proven to work. Your argument contradicts reality.

From this past January:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=20119c0e-de4e-41b4-aa60-ca88e182282d

The B.C. government simultaneously announced Wednesday an additional $885 million for the health-care system and the axing of a senior official with the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.
Trevor Johnstone lost his position as chairman of the health authority after earlier telling the government the authority could not deliver expected services to the public this year without a $40-million deficit.
Minutes before announcing Johnstone's departure, the government scooped its own Feb. 20 provincial budget by announcing a 7.3-per-cent increase in health care spending, bringing total spending in 2007-08 to $13.1 billion, up from $12.2 billion this fiscal year.


I found that participation is indeed optional in B.C. as you stated earlier. I don't know about other provinces. But my hypothesis is that, if other provinces allow individuals not to involve themselves with the program, those programs will also run a deficit.

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/electoptout.pdf

The healthcare system in B.C. is functioning, as distinguished from working. It is not solvent.
It is increasingly dependent on outside funds. Those funds have to be taken from other sectors, both public and private.

Also, as in the US, Canada's healthcare costs are currently rising more quickly than their inflation rate.

The countries with the best healthcare in the world are all socialised.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

USA is only two up the ladder from Cuba for fuck's sake.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫
http://www.nocleanfeed.com/

The countries with the best healthcare in the world are all socialised.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

USA is only two up the ladder from Cuba for fuck's sake.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫
http://www.nocleanfeed.com/


"Best" is a little vague.

-The WHO stopped trying to rank national healthcare systems after publishing the report you reference from 2000, because the rankings have been confirmed as utterly meaningless.

In fact, the WHO as an organization is a piece of shit. Don't take my word for it.

The main criterion by which they determine the success of a country's healthcare system is "fairness of financial contribution". Essentially, "Do the higher quintiles pay for the medical needs of the lower quintiles?". If the answer is "yes", that country ranks highly.

This approach is flawed from any perspective, but especially an economic one.

Also, those top ranked countries require every citizen to pay into the public system, regardless of whether they need the services. It is compulsory. This is the only reason those systems don't immediately go bankrupt.

Call it what it really is: just more forcible redistribution of wealth. My opinion is that we already have more than enough of that in the United States.

The Canadian system has been proven to work.

The Canadian system has been proven to work for Canada.

In fact, the WHO as an organization is a piece of shit. Don't take my word for it.


The only sensible thing you said in that post. We definitely shouldn't take your word for anything because you are talking straight out of your fucking ass.


1. The WHO didn't stop producing the ranking because the statistics were "confirmed as utterly meaningless". There might have been some criticism of the statistics, and that's fair, but to say that they were "utterly meaningless" is ridiculous.


2. "Fairness of financial contribution" is not the "main" criterion they use. They focus on three different goals, and fairness of financial contribution is just one of them. Calling it the "main" one is wrong.

Moreover, they do not define fairness of financial contribution as you put it. They define a system having fairness in the financial contribution of the people, when "the ratio of total health contribution to total non-food spending is identical for all households, independently of their income, their health status or their use of the health system". Which means you can have a system where the "higher quintiles pay for the medical needs of the lower quintiles" and be completely unfair according to the WHO's criterion, thus refuting your baseless claim.

1. The WHO didn't stop producing the ranking because the statistics were "confirmed as utterly meaningless". There might have been some criticism of the statistics, and that's fair, but to say that they were "utterly meaningless" is ridiculous.

-Why did they stop? Did their typist quit showing up to work?


2. "Fairness of financial contribution" is not the "main" criterion they use. They focus on three different goals, and fairness of financial contribution is just one of them. Calling it the "main" one is wrong.

-Well, I neglected to mention "overall level of health" which is based solely on life expectancy. The country's that rank lowly in DALE are primarily African. The factors keeping life expectancy low in Africa are 1) lack of food and clean water, and 2) spreading AIDS. (1) is not a healthcare problem, and is not a problem the WHO has any intention of addressing, while (2) is a social problem. It doesn't matter how much access to healthcare you have if you continue to fuck strangers without protection in the most HIV prevalent area on the planet, and in the case of the US, eat chemical sludge three meals a day.

However, I don't doubt that socialized healthcare systems lead to higher life expectancy.


-Also, they use "Distribution of Health in the Populations", a criterion which is blatantly biased toward socialized systems.


The health system also has the responsibility to try to reduce inequalities by prioritizing actions to improve the health of the worse-off, wherever these inequalities are caused by conditions amenable to intervention. The objective of good health is really twofold: the best attainable average level – goodness – and the smallest feasible differences among individuals and groups – fairness. A gain in either one of these, with no change in the other, constitutes an improvement.

In other words, everyone must be the same.

From a socialist perspective, this probably makes perfect sense.
From a realist perspective, it is just a little childish and controlling.


Moreover, they do not define fairness of financial contribution as you put it. They define a system having fairness in the financial contribution of the people, when "the ratio of total health contribution to total non-food spending is identical for all households, independently of their income, their health status or their use of the health system". Which means you can have a system where the "higher quintiles pay for the medical needs of the lower quintiles" and be completely unfair according to the WHO's criterion, thus refuting your baseless claim.

Again, they use terms like "identical". Because the ratio of healthcare contribution to non-food spending is identical across income levels, the WHO deems that system to have a good dynamic.

It is clearly nothing more than a ranking of how efficiently income is redistributed.

-Why did they stop? Did their typist quit showing up to work?

The link that was provided for you by ibetyouvotenexttimehippy already explains why. Clearly, you need to start reading the sources being made avialable to you.


-Well, I neglected to mention "overall level of health" which is based solely on life expectancy. The country's that rank lowly in DALE are primarily African. The factors keeping life expectancy low in Africa are 1) lack of food and clean water, and 2) spreading AIDS. ...

However, I don't doubt that socialized healthcare systems lead to higher life expectancy. You actually neglected to mention two criterion (or "goals") the WHO judges healtcare systems on. The three in total are good health, responsiveness to the expectations of the population, and fairness of financial contribution.

The point still being, you were wrong. Fairness of financial contribution is not the "main" criterion as you claimed, nor is it defined as you claimed.

-Also, they use "Distribution of Health in the Populations", a criterion which is blatantly biased toward socialized systems. "blatantly biased toward socialized systems" being another phrase for "socialized systems provide a good distribution of healthcare and this criterion shows it".

Are Healthcare organizations not supposed to consider how healtcare is distributed among the population now, just because unsocialized systems under perform?


In other words, everyone must be the same.

From a socialist perspective, this probably makes perfect sense.
From a realist perspective, it is just a little childish and controlling.
This has little to do with my point, namely that you were wrong. I'm not here to debate whether you don't like equality in the healthcare system or not. I'm here to point out how you were grossly misinformed about the subject you were talking about, namely the WHO's report.

And no, that doesn't mean everyone must be the same, since not only do they leave open the possibility for differences, but they aren't preventing those with the means of getting better healthcare elsewhere from doing so.


Again, they use terms like "identical". Because the ratio of healthcare contribution to non-food spending is identical across income levels, the WHO deems that system to have a good dynamic.

It is clearly nothing more than a ranking of how efficiently income is redistributed.You don't have to explain to me what the WHO's criteria is. I'm explaining it you you because you misrepresented it initially.An equal or identical ratio of healthcare contribution to non-food spending across income levels is not synynomous with what you said. The "fairness of financial contribution" is not as you defined it.

Not to mention that it can't possibly ve ranking income redistribution sincenon-food expenditure is not the same as income.

The link that was provided for you by ibetyouvotenexttimehippy already explains why. Clearly, you need to start reading the sources being made avialable to you.

Yes, clearly:

...the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.

Translated: "We had no idea what the fuck we were talking about kthxbye."

I read the same drivel that you read.

You actually neglected to mention two criterion (or "goals") the WHO judges healtcare systems on. The three in total are good health, responsiveness to the expectations of the population, and fairness of financial contribution.
The point still being, you were wrong. Fairness of financial contribution is not the "main" criterion as you claimed, nor is it defined as you claimed.

Negative. As I pointed out, and as you ignore, the criteria all boil down to the same concept: "fairness", a concept that has no relevance in an economy based on free association.



"blatantly biased toward socialized systems" being another phrase for "socialized systems provide a good distribution of healthcare and this criterion shows it".


Indeed, socializing medical care does provide for a good distribution of services.
However, in a free market, services are not meant to be distributed. If there is a demander, and a supplier, they interact with one another on a voluntary basis. Neither party involved has any obligation to the other.

Perceived "injustices" are either be repaired by market forces, or not- in which case, people stop using the services and the supplier ceases to exist, or people settle for what they consider to be inadequate services.

Of course, the easier solution is to increase the scope of government so that it can take care of the problems for us.


Are Healthcare organizations not supposed to consider how healtcare is distributed among the population now, just because unsocialized systems under perform?

There is no "supposed to". Healthcare is a business, run like any other.

If government decides to interfere with the way business is done, slowly eroding any financial incentive to continue operations, businesses will do just that: quit.

If, in a system of socialized medicine, all participants are doing so by their own choice, it is perfectly compatible with a free society.

What I have pointed out is that this is not possible in the US. You can not have both. You have to force the individuals with money to pay for the medical needs of those who can not do so.
You are advocating a new program that would force participation. It doesn't matter how you phrase it, or what emotional appeals you attach to the issue: at the end of the day, it is bullshit.



This has little to do with my point, namely that you were wrong. I'm not here to debate whether you don't like equality in the healthcare system or not. I'm here to point out how you were grossly misinformed about the subject you were talking about, namely the WHO's report.

Exactly, you are wasting time pointing out minutiae that no gives a shit about as a substitute for actual discourse on the subject at hand.


And no, that doesn't mean everyone must be the same, since not only do they leave open the possibility for differences, but they aren't preventing those with the means of getting better healthcare elsewhere from doing so.

Those people simultaneously have to pay to prop up the public system as well.

I read the same drivel that you read.

I'm sorry, I assumed you wouldn't be a childish jackass that would complete ignore a reasonable explanation and pull ridiculous accusations out of his ass. My apologies.

Negative. As I pointed out, and as you ignore, the criteria all boil down to the same concept: "fairness", a concept that has no relevance in an economy based on free association.

No, not "negative". You were wrong. That's not really up to debate. You are wrong now as well when you claim all the criteria boil down to "fairness" since responsiveness and health are the other criteria you're not considering.

So again: "fairness of financial contribution" isn't the main criterion as you said. You were wrong. It is also not defined as you said. You were wrong.

As for your comment that "fairness no relevance in an economy based on free association", not only is that your own personal opinion, but it wrongly implies that the U.S. economy is based on free associations. History (e.g. corporations not being able to freely associate and requiring charters approved by the state after they had proved their endeavors were for the good of the people, in the early history of the U.S.) refutes that assertion.


Indeed, socializing medical care does provide for a good distribution of services.
However, in a free market, services are not meant to be distributed. If there is a demander, and a supplier, they interact with one another on a voluntary basis. Neither party involved has any obligation to the other.


1. Which has what at all to do with your accusation of it being a "biased" criteria? The fact that socialized countries perform well in the criteria does not make it biased.

2. Many services are already distributed by the state in the U.S., so either it isn't a free market or you're wrong about services not being distributed in a free market.


There is no "supposed to". Healthcare is a business, run like any other.

If government decides to interfere with the way business is done, slowly eroding any financial incentive to continue operations, businesses will do just that: quit.

If, in a system of socialized medicine, all participants are doing so by their own choice, it is perfectly compatible with a free society.

What I have pointed out is that this is not possible in the US. You can not have both. You have to force the individuals with money to pay for the medical needs of those who can not do so.
You are advocating a new program that would force participation. It doesn't matter how you phrase it, or what emotional appeals you attach to the issue: at the end of the day, it is bullshit.

Nothing in that rant answers or even realtes directly to anything I said in what you quoted.

You were attacking the criteria measuring the Distribution of Health in the Population. I'm pointing out how an organization involved in Health (e.g. the WHO) would naturally be interested in how health (care) is distributed among the population of the given nations they study. Making the criteria you were bashing, very useful.

Exactly, you are wasting time pointing out minutiae that no gives a shit about as a substitute for actual discourse on the subject at hand.

I'm not surprised that you, the person who was demonstrated to be incorrect in his accusations, thinks this is minutiae. But I'm not here to pander to your tastes. I'm here to correct your incorrect assertions. If you don't like it, I suggest you try not to make baseless accusations.

Sorry, but I just don't find completely subjective rants about what should or ought to be in a free market, all that interesting. You think that it's best to not give people adequate health care if it preserves the arbitrary right to "free association". I don't. A debate on this regard will get is nowhere.


Those people simultaneously have to pay to prop up the public system as well.

If the system is compulsory, yes. They would still not necessarily be the same as you claimed.

the US is a mixed-market economy...

It has been a long time since I have met someone as idiotic as "republic" on the internet. He has turned a simple fact sheet in to a multiple page argument, constantly diverting from the point that he is just a moron that he has no idea what he is talking about aside from the quick scan he read of a page linked to him by someone he doesn't know.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫
http://www.nocleanfeed.com/

It has been a long time since I have met someone as idiotic as "republic" on the internet. He has turned a simple fact sheet in to a multiple page argument, constantly diverting from the point that he is just a moron that he has no idea what he is talking about aside from the quick scan he read of a page linked to him by someone he doesn't know.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫
http://www.nocleanfeed.com/

The libertarianism movement has failed consistently for the past 2 centuries. They've kept achieving the opposite of their goals, and have winded up with even stronger government. They've failed catastrophically and are in complete denial about it, because while applying every criticism possible to every social program that isn't perfect, they haven't applied the same standards to their own movement. Look at the spectacular failure of ron paul, once it became apparent that he had no chance of winning, they fall back on the excuse that the campaign was "educational", as if they had some empirical data that showed the vigor of the movement didn't turn more people AWAY from ron paul once they got to know him. Don't neglect the fact that most free-market economics professors enjoy the benefits of state subsidized high wages and tenure. The failure of free-market economics to improve quality of life in South America, led by the Chicago school boys, is one of their most neglected and overlooked failures.

However, I don't doubt that socialized healthcare systems lead to higher life expectancy.


Hi, sorry to interrupt but I just want to say something.

As a citizen/someone who benefits from the socialized health care system, I just want to say that I don't really care if our health care system "leads to higher life expectancy" or not. From my point of view, the fact that I can pretty much walk up to a physician and tell him I am sick and he will attend to me and I do all this without having to spend one penny is all I care. And I am sure a lot of people will agree with me, too.

I should think that affordable health care (to the average people) is the most important feature of any health care system. A longer life expectancy is just icing on the cake, so to speak.

The issue is twofold: paying for other people's health care with your own taxes, and these taxes being extracted involuntarily.

With private health care, we can pay for our own, and only if we so choose.

It's some kind of media perpetuated misconception that everyone needs health insurance to receive health care. When I go to the doctor, which is almost always just once per year, I get sent a bill. Usually it's about $100. I pay the bill, and there you go. If I get a prescription of, say, antibiotics: I pay the goddamn $40. That's the end of it. $140 for an entire year of health care.

Who knows how much the taxes in a NHS system would add up to? If it were more than $140 per year, then absolutely I would take issue with it.

From my point of view, the fact that I can pretty much walk up to a physician and tell him I am sick and he will attend to me and I do all this without having to spend one penny is all I care.

Ah, the magical money trick. If you don't have to yank it out of your wallet, it isn't there. You have paid for it. Many times over. With your taxes. It's not free.

The issue is twofold: paying for other people's health care with your own taxes,

I am not saying that you are wrong, however I would like to ask you to please clarify what you meant by "paying for others' health care with one's own money".

Where I live (Canada), we don't pay for someone else' health care (not that I know of). We just pay the premiums monthly (or annually? Sorry I don't know because mom took care of it for me) and we are covered. If all this money that we pay into the system should "inadvertently" end up benefiting other people, I 1. personally wouldn't mind; and 2. would not consider it to be a case whereby I am footing someone's bill with my money. Allow me to explain why.

The mechanism is such (keep in mind I am in no way an expert and as such could be dead-wrong):
When you have a socialized health care system, what it essentially is is a form of large-scale insurance program. You have a lot of people paying into it (in the form of premium). As the number of participants (in this case, people) increases, the probability of an individual having an unexpected occurrence (in this case, getting sick) happen to him becomes negligible. And when it does happen, and this hapless person needs help, the government/the overseer of the program can then divert some money from the pool that everybody else pays into, to this person and help him. Technically this person is benefiting from the money of everybody else, however, in so doing nobody is really being hurt/taken advantage of.

I can honestly tell you I did NOT do justice to the principle of how insurance works, what with being a layperson and all, however I believe the above should suffice for the purpose of this thread for now. Also, you might want to check out this wiki page on how insurance works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance#Principles_of_insurance


and these taxes being extracted involuntarily.

I can't comment on this because I don't know what exactly is being advocated in your country. Although I believe that there should be an opt-out option available.


Ah, the magical money trick. If you don't have to yank it out of your wallet, it isn't there. You have paid for it. Many times over. With your taxes. It's not free.

1. First of all, it's not tax. It's called premiums. Be a difference.
2. You knew perfectly what I meant. Of course socialized health care requires money from people to work, and yes I admit that I have to pay into it (in the form of premium, not tax). However, it is to be expected. And I, after having fulfilled my financial obligation to help keep this system afloat, can now walk into any health clinic in Canana* with the assurance that my visit will NOT cost me one cent.

So my questions to you are:
1. Are you satisfied with my answers?
2. Are you gonna keep pretending people literally mean they don't have to pay anything at all into the system and insist on playing the (childish) semantic game of, "LAWL you lie you still have to pay!!!"?

*technically it's Ontario, the province I live in.

I am not saying that you are wrong, however I would like to ask you to please clarify what you meant by "paying for others' health care with one's own money".

If the amount I pay into a national health care (hereafter to be referred to as "NHC") system is more than what my personal health care costs, then I am paying too much. If that excess payment goes for others' care, even though, say, a collective fund I and most of my countrymen (USA) are and would be against it.

If all this money that we pay into the system should "inadvertently" end up benefiting other people, I 1. personally wouldn't mind; and 2. would not consider it to be a case whereby I am footing someone's bill with my money.

This is where we disagree. We're largely having a cultural and political difference: in the US, we are generally conditioned not to agree with taxed wages or waged funds (such as "premiums" being paid out of the earned wage) benefiting anyone outside the realms of family and close friends. It's just how most of us are.

Selfish? Yes. But that's Capitalism. Heartless? Debatable. When it comes to money from labor, we're absolutely cut-throat. I don't consider myself an exception, with the addendum that I align myself with Libertarianism. Not that you can go on the Libertarian party's site and know what I believe in politically-economically - it's more an umbrella idea that is open to interpretation: one of them being that social welfare is a byproduct of or necessitates big government. NHC also infringes on individual economic liberty. Keeping government small and allowing the maximum amount of earned wages to the individual are the priority.

I can't comment on this because I don't know what exactly is being advocated in your country. Although I believe that there should be an opt-out option available.

As far as I'm aware, the general idea floating around is that payment for NHC would come from a new federal tax on wages. Before Americans can even begin to debate on the ethics of private vs national care, we first have the debate on taxation. It's a multi-layered issue with us. It's not so much "why do they not want everyone to have access to health care?" like many ask, but rather that we who do not align themselves with the more liberal-left spectrum of our political model tend to oppose new taxes rather ardently. This is more or less split 50/50, so its a contentious issue.

I believe it was Mencken who said that "Democracy is the system by which 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%."

As for an opt-out, well, that opens up a whole new can of worms.

Should someone who opts-out of NH be eligible for full insurance privileges? Or should he have the options of private care, or no care? Would it then truly be a "national" system? If the quality of private care under NH were better, more people would opt-out for it if they can afford it. This means that the quality of NH care would be lower, due to lack of funds, lack of participation, etc.

If there is an opt-out, does the system still work? In other words, if such a program were implemented here in America, I imagine a good percentage of people would opt-out. This would take a significant amount of money away from the system, possibly resulting in a shortage of doctors and decline in the quality of care.

Either way, there are issues.

I, after having fulfilled my financial obligation to help keep this system afloat, can now walk into any health clinic in Canana* with the assurance that my visit will NOT cost me one cent.

This still sticks in my craw. My doctors appointments don't cost me a cent either. I walk in, get my diagnosis, and leave. I get a bill later, and pay it.

The only difference is that you've pre-paid. Either way, we both didn't have to take the wallets out at the clinic or office.

1. Are you satisfied with my answers?

Sure. Like I said, it's largely a disagreement between our respective local political and economic attitudes.

2. Are you gonna keep pretending people literally mean they don't have to pay anything at all into the system and insist on playing the (childish) semantic game of, "LAWL you lie you still have to pay!!!"?

It's not an issue of semantics.

You're arguing that you don't have to pay because you've pre-paid. I argued that I don't have to pay, because I post-pay. We both pay, just not on the spot. This is largely irrelevant.

It's the same thing, more or less: except that when I post-pay it is solely for my own health care, whereas when you pre-pay, it is not solely for your own health care. Therein lies the fundamental difference and why Americans are largely opposed to it.

Ah, only in America do they support the right of everyone to (have the weapons needed to) kill anyone but not the right of everyone to (have the resources needed to) be healthy ..

If the amount I pay into a national health care (hereafter to be referred to as "NHC") system is more than what my personal health care costs, then I am paying too much.

Well I can see your reasoning, although I must say I find it quite kind of strange you would be paying more into a national system than what you normally would pay personally. I don't know how it works exactly however here in Canada I am positive that without our health care system, I would definitely end up paying more for my health care.


If that excess payment goes for others' care, even though, say, a collective fund I and most of my countrymen (USA) are and would be against it.

I would advise you read my previous post again. It's not merely a "collective fund" (although technically it is); it is a collective fund that others can benefit from at no extra cost to you whatsoever. (please make sure you know how insurance works)

If you (by that I mean Americans) are so dead-set against any idea of communality to the point that you would reject something that your fellow countrymen could benefit from at no extra cost to you whatsoever, you know what, you don't deserve it.



This is where we disagree. We're largely having a cultural and political difference: in the US, we are generally conditioned not to agree with taxed wages or waged funds (such as "premiums" being paid out of the earned wage) benefiting anyone outside the realms of family and close friends. It's just how most of us are.

1. Taxing of wages is NOT inherent to a socialized/nationalized health care system. I can see why you would bring it up, because it is what is currently being advocated in your country, however you should keep in mind that the money required to run such a system does not necessarily have to come from taxation.
2. Here premiums are not taken out of the earned wages. Also just to add something, although this is probably irrelevant, here you can also get subsidized if you don't make enough money to pay for your premiums.
3. Regarding the "benefiting" part, see above. Like I stated, I could see how you would oppose having money taken out of your paycheck to DIRECTLY pay for say, a family of thieving niggers to buy crack or whatever, however, this is NOT what is happening with a nationalized health care. Like I said, you are paying into the system (yes), but it's an insurance program that invokes the law of large number, such that your money is doing magic, whereby it works to help others all without any extra cost to you.
4. Are you actually saying that Americans are opposed to being taxed to help those not of their immediate families/friends? If this is true, Americans have got to the most selfish, most short-sighted, narrow-minded, not to mention unpatriotic people. A nation is not a mere sum of a whole bunch of individual families, you are all inter-connected, but more importantly it is not practical to really "narrow down" categories of taxes so that people can pay for what they actually use.


Selfish? Yes. But that's Capitalism. Heartless? Debatable. When it comes to money from labor, we're absolutely cut-throat. I don't consider myself an exception, with the addendum that I align myself with Libertarianism. Not that you can go on the Libertarian party's site and know what I believe in politically-economically - it's more an umbrella idea that is open to interpretation: one of them being that social welfare is a byproduct of or necessitates big government. NHC also infringes on individual economic liberty. Keeping government small and allowing the maximum amount of earned wages to the individual are the priority.

I understand how in the current society Americans would want a smaller (federal) government, given that it's run by a bunch of Jews and capitalists intending on controlling every aspect of your life; however, I just want to say that big governments are actually a neutral thing all by itself, it's all in how the people/the beaurocrats run them. Take for example, Hitler's regime, I would say it was a very big/potent/binding/whatever the right word is I can't think of, and I believe it had done a tremendous amount of good to the Germans. You might not agree with my example, however my principle still stands. Big governments are not necessarily evil, it's all in the people.

Also, NHC does not infringes on individual economic liberty. You meant to say the particular kind of NHC currently being advocated in your country threatens individual economic liberty. Our kind doesn't; it lets you opt out (I think).

Finally, this is kind of tangential: I would advise people, but Americans especially, to pause and reflect on their never ending quest for "liberty" in the context of governments and being citizens. I am not saying that freedom/liberty is bad (in fact I personally consider freedom to be one of the most important things I hold dear); but rather I hope that they will at least entertain the idea that as far as government is concerned, the maximization of individual liberty might (note I said "might", not "is") not be its ultimate goal. Of course I realize I just opened a can of worms and I will probably receive a few strongly worded posts in response to what I just said (if not death threats) and this probably belongs in Humanities anyway, but I just felt the need to say it (and thanks for reading, heh)



As far as I'm aware, the general idea floating around is that payment for NHC would come from a new federal tax on wages. Before Americans can even begin to debate on the ethics of private vs national care, we first have the debate on taxation. It's a multi-layered issue with us. It's not so much "why do they not want everyone to have access to health care?" like many ask, but rather that we who do not align themselves with the more liberal-left spectrum of our political model tend to oppose new taxes rather ardently. This is more or less split 50/50, so its a contentious issue.

Well I understand your situation. It is too bad that your government has to make an already controversial issue even more controversial by suggesting people pay for the system out of their federal tax.


As for an opt-out, well, that opens up a whole new can of worms.

Should someone who opts-out of NH be eligible for full insurance privileges? Or should he have the options of private care, or no care? Would it then truly be a "national" system? If the quality of private care under NH were better, more people would opt-out for it if they can afford it. This means that the quality of NH care would be lower, due to lack of funds, lack of participation, etc.

If there is an opt-out, does the system still work? In other words, if such a program were implemented here in America, I imagine a good percentage of people would opt-out. This would take a significant amount of money away from the system, possibly resulting in a shortage of doctors and decline in the quality of care.


Huh what? I am actually not entirely sure what you were saying but anyway:

1. Someone who opts out of NHC will not be eligible for anything covered under the NHC.
2. They have the option of doing whatever else they want...I am not sure what you meant by "options of private care or no care"...of course they can choose to see a private doctor or choose to not see one at all...unless I am missing something.
3. Yes it would still be a national system. As long as it's a system done on a national level, doesn't matter how few people actually participate in it, it is a national system. But I fail to see the importance of this question anyway. Who cares if some system is truly national or not? As long as it does its job, that's all people ask.
4. What is "private care under NH"? Are you talking about physicians who don't "sign up" to be part of the NHC network of doctors? If this is what you meant, you probably have a point. And I honestly don't have an answer because I don't think we have this "thing" here in Canada, virtually all the physicians I know of I can just walk into their clinics, provided I have a valid health care card.
5. You are probably right in saying that quality of NH might be lower if there were not enough participants. Again I have no counter-argument for this one because the kind of situation you described doesn't happen in Canada (not that I am aware of, anyway)
6. Lastly, and more importantly, all of your questions are really non-issues, when it comes to the righteousness (sorry couldn't find a better word) of having an opt-out option. I don't care if there are supposedly a million negative consequences associated with having an opt-out option, there MUST be one, for the very simple principle that the government is not to force people into doing anything they don't want to do.


This still sticks in my craw. My doctors appointments don't cost me a cent either. I walk in, get my diagnosis, and leave. I get a bill later, and pay it.

The only difference is that you've pre-paid. Either way, we both didn't have to take the wallets out at the clinic or office.

False.

I did not "pre-pay" in the sense that I am NOT footing my own medical bills, like you do. I paid premiums, which are 1. NOT medical bills, and 2. considerably less than what an actual medical bill would have been.

You need to get into your head that just because money is technically coming out of my pocket and going into the system that doesn't mean I am paying for my "bill" like you Americans do. With us Canadians, there is no bill associated with visiting a physician. We still have to pay, but it's to pay into an insurance program, in the form of premiums.

If you want to argue "lol itz still money at the end of the day, itz only a matter of you paying it BEFORE visiting the doc instead of AFTER like us, therefore u loose LAWL' then I cannot help you. We Canadians know how insurance works (something that cannot be said for you guys), use our money cleverly and end up having pretty much everybody all well cared for and if you Americans can only see in terms of "mah money be leaving mah pocket ZOMG", then it's your purgatory. Have fun getting used to hearing your countrymen say "I should really go see a doctor but I can't afford to", because that is the reality you and your stupid mentality have created for them.

Lastly, I can see how you would oppose a NHC based on the taxation issue (because lets' face it, your federal government is fucking it up for you guys) BUT to say that the only difference between a socialized health care and whatever the hell you guys have is the mere fact that money comes out of our respective pockets at different sequences in relation to visitation to the doctor's office, you canNOT possibly be any stupider. Like I said, please try and read up on how insurance works.

You're arguing that you don't have to pay because you've pre-paid. I argued that I don't have to pay, because I post-pay. We both pay, just not on the spot. This is largely irrelevant.

It's the same thing, more or less: except that when I post-pay it is solely for my own health care, whereas when you pre-pay, it is not solely for your own health care. Therein lies the fundamental difference and why Americans are largely opposed to it.

See above where I explained how it's more than just a matter of paying before or after visitation to a doctor; the kind of things we pay for are fundamentally different. You are paying for your medical/doctor's bill, whereas I am paying premiums. What's more, I bet I pay a lot less than you do. Magic? Yes.

Also, regarding that "not solely for your own health care" part and how Americans are largely opposed to it. Well I believe that they are opposed to it because they don't understand how a nationalized/socialized health care really works. If they did, they probably would be more receptive to it. But I don't particularly care to go out of my way to educate them, I mean I will talk about it on a forum like I am doing now, however if they don't feel the need coming from within themselves as to seek the answer as to why a lot of countries have socialized health care and their citizens all seem (reasonably) happy with it, well, maybe they are not meant to have affordable health care.

Ah, only in America do they support the right of everyone to (have the weapons needed to) kill anyone but not the right of everyone to (have the resources needed to) be healthy ..

If you go to hospital and need financial aid, you fill out some paperwork and an individual charity or two registered with said hospital kicks in.

If that doesn't grab ya, don't pay your bill on time. The hospital will take percentages off. I got a 25% discount last time I had to go to the ER for ignoring the first one they sent. Bottom line: the resources are there. Hospitals, independent practices, clinics... hell, we even have free clinics. If you can't pay, it's against the law to refuse care. If you're strapped for cash, there's assistance.

Well I can see your reasoning, although I must say I find it quite kind of strange you would be paying more into a national system than what you normally would pay personally.

Using my example, it'd come down to about $12 per month, or $6 every pay period. You can bet your ass we'd be paying more than that. Granted, some people require more. It's up to them to pay that extra amount. I'm content with being responsible for my own health care.

It's not merely a "collective fund" (although technically it is); it is a collective fund that others can benefit from at no extra cost to you whatsoever.

Then it's a collective fund. As for at no extra cost...*

If you (by that I mean Americans) are so dead-set against any idea of communality to the point that you would reject something that your fellow countrymen could benefit from at no extra cost to you whatsoever, you know what, you don't deserve it.

We don't want it. It's the Canadians, Europeans, and lefter than usual left wing minority who are wagging the finger because we don't have it. It boggles our minds, frankly.

you should keep in mind that the money required to run such a system does not necessarily have to come from taxation.

I'm not sure where else it would come from, in my context. Social Security comes from taxes; likewise with medicare. It follows that some kind of NHC system would also come from taxes. Govt revenue is from taxes - if it comes from the govt, it comes from taxes.

Like I stated, I could see how you would oppose having money taken out of your paycheck to DIRECTLY pay for say, a family of thieving niggers to buy crack or whatever, however, this is NOT what is happening with a nationalized health care.

Welfare pisses us off too, but the point I was trying to make is that Americans are generally unwilling to compromise on what constitutes a "good reason" to give up part of their paycheck. As far as a good portion of us are concerned, there isn't one.

Are you actually saying that Americans are opposed to being taxed to help those not of their immediate families/friends?

Yep. We're generally opposed to being taxed, period. We begrudgingly admit that taxes are a necessary evil, in that the state needs revenue, but so much of our tax money is misappropriated and generally left unaccounted for or unexplained that getting support for a new tax is the equivalent of preaching Jesus in downtown Mecca. Remember, this country got its start with five words: taxation without representation is tyranny.

If this is true, Americans have got to [be] the most selfish, most short-sighted, narrow-minded, not to mention unpatriotic people.

I don't entirely disagree. Americans are selfish and tribal as all hell. It's our political culture, it's our economic culture, it's in every aspect of our private and public lives.

A nation is not a mere sum of a whole bunch of individual families, you are all inter-connected,

Collectivism is not our natural virtue. It often ends with the nuclear family.

but more importantly it is not practical to really "narrow down" categories of taxes so that people can pay for what they actually use.

Nobody's ever tried. Especially in this country. I'll concede that for the high tax rates in say, the Scandinavian nations, they actually get services in return for their taxes. We generally don't. Welfare's for a specific subsect. SSI is for a specific subsect. Medicare's for a specific subsect.

I just want to say that big governments are actually a neutral thing all by itself, it's all in how the people/the beaurocrats run them.

"Nature of the beast." A smaller government is theoretically easier to keep in check than a large bureaucracy, provided there is enough transparency. Big governments are prone to abuse.

Also, NHC does not infringes on individual economic liberty. You meant to say the particular kind of NHC currently being advocated in your country threatens individual economic liberty. Our kind doesn't; it lets you opt out (I think).

Ours would probably have an opt-out, too. However, many people opting out would result in the whole thing losing money, resulting in shitty public care, and private care becoming even more unaffordable.

as far as government is concerned, the maximization of individual liberty might (note I said "might", not "is") not be its ultimate goal.

What are you suggesting? Maximizing collective liberty, whatever that might be? Maximizing security in lieu of rights? Ben Franklin wrote a good bit on that last one...

1. Someone who opts out of NHC will not be eligible for anything covered under the NHC.

Then their option will be private health care, which will become even more expensive than it is now, or no health care. If it ain't broke...

Who cares if some system is truly national or not?

Federal tax payers.

Are you talking about physicians who don't "sign up" to be part of the NHC network of doctors?

Yes.

I paid premiums, which are 1. NOT medical bills, and 2. considerably less than what an actual medical bill would have been.

You pay premiums. For health care. When you receive health care, it has been presumably paid for out of these premiums. You have paid.. for your health care.

* Dollars to donuts you pay more in premiums in a year than you use on medical care in the same year. That's what I'm getting at.

With us Canadians, there is no bill associated with visiting a physician. We still have to pay,

Finally. Thank you. A bill is a piece of paper. Paying for health care doesn't require one.

If you want to argue "lol itz still money at the end of the day, itz only a matter of you paying it BEFORE visiting the doc instead of AFTER like us, therefore u loose LAWL' then I cannot help you. We Canadians know how insurance works (something that cannot be said for you guys),

Dude. You pay. For health care. So do we. Up til now you've been arguing that you don't.

BUT to say that the only difference between a socialized health care and whatever the hell you guys have is the mere fact that money comes out of our respective pockets at different sequences in relation to visitation to the doctor's office, you canNOT possibly be any stupider.

I realize that this is totse, and posters run the risk of arguing with someone who is on something at any given moment, but the fact that you can't connect paying a health care premium with money is not necessarily my problem.

Like I said, please try and read up on how insurance works.

You're stuck in the barter system. Try figuring out currency first.

the kind of things we pay for are fundamentally different. You are paying for your medical/doctor's bill, whereas I am paying premiums.

Your premiums go to your goddamn health care. Who's using semantics now?

What's more, I bet I pay a lot less than you do. Magic? Yes.

How much do you pay in one fiscal year in premiums?

Also, regarding that "not solely for your own health care" part and how Americans are largely opposed to it. Well I believe that they are opposed to it because they don't understand how a nationalized/socialized health care really works.

Bzzt. We have a very ardently individualist society.

The right to pay for your own health care is a core value.

well, maybe they are not meant to have affordable health care.

We do. Trying to convince Canadians, Europeans, and lefter than left wingers of this fact isn't easy, but it's a fact. If you can't afford to pay your bill, there is financial aid. If you can, you do. It's illegal to refuse a patient because they can't pay.

Anyone who walks in to see a doctor gets treated.

Anyone who walks in to see a doctor gets treated.[/B]

Try getting chemotherapy with that attitude.

Just a few statistics being thrown out here ..

Ok, lets say you get cancer, which is certainly not unlikely ..

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html
Based on rates from 2003-2005, 40.35% of men and women born today will be diagnosed with cancer of all sites at some time during their lifetime.
You'll most likely be put on chemotherapy ..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2166142
The mean survival benefit of 12.8 weeks that was obtained with VP chemotherapy compared with BSC was associated with an increased cost of $3,637.60 per patient, or $14,777.75 per year of life gained.
At your 'cost' of $120/year, that'll take 123 years to pay back, if you want to live a single year more.


Hmm the following statistics confuse me a bit, this is a treasury publication, I'm looking at page 11, from 2006-7, it says the 'Resource DEL' is 80,428 million pounds, but then further down the page says the 'Resource AME' is 10,450 million pounds. Not really familiar with these terms, and can't find definitions for them, as always the government is very vague about this stuff ..
(http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/2(8).pdf)
And those expenditures are not only for the NHS, it's for the various health programs, campaigns etc both outside of and sponsored by it ..
So,
The UK population is 60,943,912, so on average, it's either £1319 per person or £171, $2000 and $260 respectively, is spent every year for health care. On average meaning that the amount you have to pay is adjusted to income, and poor people often don't have to pay.
I'll see if I can get some more statistics later, that's enough typing for now :D

First of all, let me reiterate what I said, which is that I actually don't care to convince him (welshopiumeater), or any American for that matter, that there is something to be said for socialized health care, because you know what, I honestly don't give enough of a shit about you and your (most likely shitty) attitudes. Having said that, I am still gonna respond, because I A. have too much fucking time on my hands; and 2. derive great pleasure from schooling stupid, ignorant, pig-headed Americans who like to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing, reason be damned.



Using my example, it'd come down to about $12 per month, or $6 every pay period. You can bet your ass we'd be paying more than that. Granted, some people require more. It's up to them to pay that extra amount. I'm content with being responsible for my own health care.

1. I am not quite sure what you meant by that "12 dollars per month" part. Are you saying that that is how much you would pay under an NHC? I could be wrong but I would think that's an easily affordable amount of money to pay, especially after taking consideration that one could in theory visit the doctor/s for many many many many times.
2. "I am content with being responsible for my own health care'. Whatever. Just because you frame it in a lofty rhetoric ("ZOMG look i be takin care of my own health and payin for my own medical bills LAWL u should all be more like me"), it does NOT change the fact you Americans (well, not all of them, just to clarify) stubbornly cling to a system that's been shown time and time again is NO WHERE NEAR ideal (I canNOT begin to tell you how many Americans I have met who told me they cannot afford to see a doctor even though they are sick, or that they are gonna wait till it's "life-threatening". It breaks my heart. It really does) just for some obscure, supposedly "high-minded" ideal that (you probably think) us Canadians/Europeans fail to grasp, namely your much treasured "personal liberty"/"self-sufficiency" or whatever the hell you are thinking and secretly scorn us for not being to understand when in fact we do, we just don't feel the need to mention them constantly. But I digress. The point is, socialized health care, provided it's voluntary, does NOT infringe on your personal liberty any. Furthermore, participating in socialized health care does not mean you are not "taking care of your own health care". It just means that one is smart enough to not let his stupid pride get in the way of using science (yes, insurance is an application of science) to achieve a certain aim.

Also, just to add: I have always thought of Americans as our slightly less articulate cousin to the south, turns out I was wrong. I had no idea that they think in such a weird, foreign fashion.


Then it's a collective fund. As for at no extra cost...*

So what it's a "collective fund"? Furthermore, why do you ignore the part where I said you could benefit others at no extra cost to you? Thirdly, are you saying that you are against something (in this case, having a "collective fund"), just for the hell of it, despite the fact that its use and possible benefits have been repeatedly explained to you many many times? Why are you so perverse? Why are you against something just for the sake of disagreeing?

As for your "rebuttal" (if it can be called that), which is this: "* Dollars to donuts you pay more in premiums in a year than you use on medical care in the same year. That's what I'm getting at."

1. What are you talking about? What does NHC have to do with donuts?
2. Are you suggesting that I pay more in premiums in a year than what I would have paid without such a system in place? If that's true, you canNOT possibly more wrong. I am not sure how much exactly I pay in premiums (mom took care of that for me), however I can honestly tell you: 1. it must have been a very reasonable amount, because I never heard my mom bitch once about it, and she's a fucking miser 2. I actually have a vague, rough idea, I think it is less than 100 dollars a year (I honestly don't know, if you really want to know, I guess I can find out for you) 3. lastly and more importantly, I know for a fact I pay less in premiums than otherwise because I go to the doctor very frequently (not that I waste medical resources; I just tend to have a lot of problems). Which reminds me. Another advantage our system has over yours is that once we pay our premiums (or in your stupid, dense way of thinking: "LAWL you be "pre-paying" for your doctor's visits LAWL"), we can visit a doctor for theoretically unlimited amount of times, as often as we need, without having to worry about whether we will be able to "afford it', as it would be in the case of an American who visits a doctor numerous times. And this assurance can NOT be bought with money. Can any of you Americans say the same thing about your system?

Also, just to add something: we don't have to wait till it's "life-threatening" either, can you say the same thing about your system?


We don't want it. It's the Canadians, Europeans, and lefter than usual left wing minority who are wagging the finger because we don't have it. It boggles our minds, frankly.

"Wagging our finger"? First of all, that tells me so much about your mentality. It is you Americans who tend to think in a very defensive way. "ZOMG the Canadians and Europeans are (rightfully!) pointing out how shitty our health care system is, and now they are patiently explaining to us how a socialized health care system might benefit us more, but let us all in our minds think the worst of them, yep, that's right, brothers and sisters, be on guard, for the evil socialists are trying to push their evil socialist agenda on us freedom loving Americans again!!!!" :rolleyes:

Stop being so defensive and try (if possible) to entertain an idea in your head just for the hell of it, as enlightened people tend to do. If after careful consideration you still think a socialized health care system is still flawed/not good, fine. But I doubt that is the case. I suspect that you Americans, upon getting wind of the merest hint of any kind of socialist policy/program, get this knee-jerk reaction of assigning all kinds of sinister motives to proponents of such programs/policies (never mind the fact I already said, numerous times too, how you will, or should, be allowed to opt out)

Lastly, no shit you don't want it. But to me it is not very different from a kid saying to an adult "no I don't want to eat veggies". You say no to something before you even properly understand what it entails. I say this because I have very good reason to believe you don't even know (nor do you care to) how insurance works. I bet if I were to ask you to give me an account of how insurance works, you would stutter. Not that you owe me an answer or anything, it's just that I really suspect that you even had the courtesy to try and understand, hell, even read, what someone's brought to your attention, for your benefit.


I'm not sure where else it would come from, in my context. Social Security comes from taxes; likewise with medicare. It follows that some kind of NHC system would also come from taxes. Govt revenue is from taxes - if it comes from the govt, it comes from taxes.

I was tempted to pick apart this passage too except I chose not to, because I understand why Americans would feel so strongly about taxation/being taxed, because from what I heard your (federal) government has an uncontrollable urge to tax.

But to add something: our health system, while it's true that it does require money to operate, technically does not rely on taxation. And it's not a semantic thing either. We pay into it in the form of premiums. We don't have money taken out of our paychecks for pay for it. Although yes I do admit that it is still money coming of our pockets nevertheless.

Welfare pisses us off too, but the point I was trying to make is that Americans are generally unwilling to compromise on what constitutes a "good reason" to give up part of their paycheck. As far as a good portion of us are concerned, there isn't one.

Well I understand and in fact agree with you. I wouldn't want the government to take part of my paycheck to run whatever program they think we need. That being said, you do realize that there is, (or should be, anyway) an opt-out option, right? Assuming that there is/will be an opt-out option, that means you will not be forced against your will to pay for such a system, and if such is the case, would you still be so vehemently against an NHC? (forget all that stuff about how it wouldn't run satisfactorily...whatever that's not important. The important thing is I want to know where you stand on the issue. If you are not being forced into it, will you at least keep an open mind and consider, maybe even acknowledge that such a system might have virtues?)

Also, I could be wrong but I get the vibe from you that you are so strongly opposed to it not because you have thought long and hard about the pros and cons of it, but rather, you seem to think that if you "concede"/agree with me, you will then have no choice but to align your actions with your belief, which would then mean you would have to join your NHC, which in its current proposed form I agree has a lot of drawbacks. Am I pretty much spot on?


Yep. We're generally opposed to being taxed, period. We begrudgingly admit that taxes are a necessary evil, in that the state needs revenue, but so much of our tax money is misappropriated and generally left unaccounted for or unexplained that getting support for a new tax is the equivalent of preaching Jesus in downtown Mecca. Remember, this country got its start with five words: taxation without representation is tyranny.

I agree with everything you said except for one thing: you keep mixing up these two things: being taxed against your will and a socialized health care. I hope you realize that being taxed against one's will is NOT an inherent part of socialized health care; in other words, you can in theory have socialized health care while NOT being taxed against your will. You are against the NHC (probably) because currently the kind of NHC being proposed in your country just happens to be wrapped up in the same package as paying a (yet another?) federal tax, so you are all frothing at the mouth about how much you hate NHC when in fact it's not NHC itself you hate, it's the fact that you might be forced into it against your will in the form of paying a federal tax that you hate.


I don't entirely disagree. Americans are selfish and tribal as all hell. It's our political culture, it's our economic culture, it's in every aspect of our private and public lives.

Collectivism is not our natural virtue. It often ends with the nuclear family.


I am not sure if you were merely describing a fact or if you were actually being proud about it too, but if it's the latter: I wouldn't be too quick to "brag" about it if I were you. I am not necessarily saying it's a bad thing, I am just saying that it's not as good as you (probably) think.

"Nature of the beast." A smaller government is theoretically easier to keep in check than a large bureaucracy, provided there is enough transparency. Big governments are prone to abuse.

What are you suggesting? Maximizing collective liberty, whatever that might be? Maximizing security in lieu of rights? Ben Franklin wrote a good bit on that last one...

I was gonna say something but decided not too. If you really want to discuss this topic I can make one in the Humanities.


Ours would probably have an opt-out, too. However, many people opting out would result in the whole thing losing money, resulting in shitty public care, and private care becoming even more unaffordable.

1. You need to prove that with an opt out option "many" people will opt out.
2. You need to prove that many people opting out would make the whole thing collapse. ( I am not doubting you, in fact I kind of agree with you. However, it is your burden to come up with a proof to back up your claim)
3. You need to prove that should the system collapse, public care would get "shitty", and that private care would become even more unaffordable.


Then their option will be private health care, which will become even more expensive than it is now, or no health care. If it ain't broke...

1. "If it aint broke, dont' fix it"..etc. Idioms have no place in a (somewhat) formal debate.
2. As a matter of fact, I did not quite get what you were saying.
3. Are you worrying about how your countrymen would fare in the event of the NHC collapsing? While it's noble that you would think this is, I must point out to you that possible negative consequences have no bearing on whether something (in this case, having an opt out option) has merit or not. In other words, you should consider whether there should be an opt out option based strictly on the pros and cons of having an opt out option, NOT on the possible negative outcomes of having an opt out option.


Federal tax payers.

Please try and have a point, as in, don't rebut someone just for the sake of rebutting. When you say "the federal tax payers", it doesn't tell me much besides you are telling me that federal tax payers should care that a system is national or not.

What you probably meant to say was, "whether the NHC system is national or not is of significance, because tax payers pay their hard earned money into it to keep it afloat, as such they should have a say in whether it stays national or not" or whatever the heck it was that you were trying to say, it's not important (please note I was not trying to put words in your mouth, I was just demonstrating to you what I meant when I suggested that you should try and have a point/an argument")


You pay premiums. For health care. When you receive health care, it has been presumably paid for out of these premiums. You have paid.. for your health care.

1. No shit I have "paid" for my health care. I have never claimed that we literally pay nothing for our health care system. If I did, I would like to retract it, if it's ever possible.
2. What I do mean is that we do not have to pay for our health care in the traditional sense, as in, we go visit a doctor, he treats us, then he gives us a bill. With a socialized health care program, we as a matter of fact, do NOT get billed for visitation to a doctor. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
3. You are correct in that we do have to pay into such a system. This I completely agree. HOWEVER, there are significant differences between what we do, and what you do. Allow me.

A. The kind of things we respectively pay for are fundamentally different. You pay for your medical/doctor visit bills, whereas we pay premiums. Whilst it is true that it is technically still money out of our respective pockets, the kind of things our respective money are doing for us are very different.
B. The amount that we pay is less than yours (although this might be up to debate).
c. With our outlay of money (technically it's called "paying premiums"), it ensures basically unlimited times of visitations to a physician (as many times as we might require). Yours doesn't do this for you.
D. What we pay is a fixed amount (relative to yours, whereby your amount is entirely contingent upon how many times you have visited a doctor)
E. After us having paid for our premiums, we now have the complete peace of mind that we can now go see a doctor as often as we might need, and this cannot be bought with money. In your situation, no matter how rich an American might be, or how easily he could afford health care in his country. HE DOESN'T HAVE THIS LUXURY.

To conclude:
1. Yes I admit that money does come out of our pocket, and that our system is not literally "free". There. Are you satisfied now? Will you please stop arguing the semantics of "LAWL you lie, you still have to pay. money still comes out of your pocket LULZ"?
2. Just because we are both expending money it does not mean our respective money will be utilized in the same manner, or with the same amount of efficiency. Like I explained earlier, our respective money is not only spent in very different fashions, our (referring to Canadians') money is spent in a very clever manner, if I do say so myself.

I have done all I can to explain the differences between what we Canadians do with the money coming out of our pocket and what you Americans do with the money coming of your pocket. If you still come back with "but at the end of the day it's still money coming out of both of our pockets so you aren't any better off than us", well, I will stop arguing with you.



Finally. Thank you. A bill is a piece of paper. Paying for health care doesn't require one.

Please do not ever again take what I said out of context. I do not appreciate it. I did not mean "we still have to pay" in the backwards sense you Americans have understood it to mean. We don't "pay" in the sense that we are paying for visitations to doctor. We "pay" in the sense that we are paying into a motherfucking (pardon my language but I was hoping profanity might help drive my point home, seeing as how my opponent is an American after all) insurance program in the form of motherfucking premium, in order to keep the system afloat (seeing as how nothing is free and things do require a financial input), and furthermore, our money is not merely a "down payment" on future visitations (as you were implying). No. It is much much more than that. It goes into a socialized health care program, where our (kind and very intelligent, might I add) overseers do their magic, and viola, we end up with more services than if we had individually spent our money in the form of paying for medical/doctor visitation bills like you Americans do.

I am telling (warning?) you one last time. Have the courtesy to try and read and maybe even, dare I say, comprehend what I am trying to say, especially with regards to how insurance works. If you ever again see it merely in terms of sheer money coming out of our respective pockets, I will banish you from my presence forever. I do not waste my time on people who refuse to read what I put much effort into writing and explaining.

Dude. You pay. For health care. So do we. Up til now you've been arguing that you don't.

See above.

If I did ever say "we Canadians don't have to pay for our health care at all", I would like to retract it, if possible. What I meant to say was that we don't "pay" for doctor visits in the traditional sense, again, see above where I explained the differences.

Also, just to make it very clear, I concede that I was/am wrong in saying that we don't have to pay. There. Are you vindicated now? Will you drop this already please? You got a Canadian to admit that he/she still has to expend money for his/her health care, I mean, ATTABOY. Are you very proud of yourself now? Are you now, more than ever before, convinced that your health care system is not so shit after all?


I realize that this is totse, and posters run the risk of arguing with someone who is on something at any given moment, but the fact that you can't connect paying a health care premium with money is not necessarily my problem.

I was not under the impression that I failed to connect paying a health care premium with money; if I did, I can assure you it was a linguistic mistake, one which I hope you can let go (furthermore, see above for what I really meant when I said Canadians "didn't have to pay")

Also, you sidestepped a point I raised, which is that there exist differences between our system and yours besides when our respective money leaves our respective pockets. Do you or do you not agree that there are many many differences between ours and yours, and furthermore, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you (probably) were/are unaware of a good number of them?

Lastly, kindly refrain from personal attacks (you were implying I was on drugs). Just because I say something you find disagreeable it doesn't mean I am high or crazy or whatever.

You're stuck in the barter system. Try figuring out currency first.

1. There is no need to be rude.
2. Were you implying that we had trouble with our currency? If yes, I require proof.
3. Were you suggesting we are "stuck in the barter system"? If yes, please produce proof.
4. Suppose we are "stuck in the barter system", and that we have trouble "figuring out our currency", what does that have anything to do with your failure to understand how insurance works?
5. Do you realize how childish you just sounded? Seriously. "So you are calling me out on my stupidity....well, er, uhm...you suck too!!!", anyone?


Your premiums go to your goddamn health care. Who's using semantics now?

You are in fact, wrong in saying that I was merely playing the semantic game when I said our money goes towards paying for premiums whereas yours goes towards footing the bill. Firstly, like I stated above, given the same amount, premiums do ever so much more than your footing-of-bill-ness, as it were. It is NOT hair-splitting or playing the semantic game for me to have brought it up. If you should think that the differences between paying for premiums and footing for doctor visitation bill are so minute as to render what I said trivial/verging on semantics, you know what, the problem lies with YOU.

You do NOT know jackshit (pardon my language but I am human after all and I do get impatient, especially when my opponent refuses to educate him on the subject at hand) about what premiums are, what they do, how insurance works, how a socialized health care system works, how VASTLY different it is from whatever shit thing you Americans have in place.

Like I stated earlier, you give me "lip" back on how it's all just money at the end of the day, you will never talk to me again.


How much do you pay in one fiscal year in premiums?

I honestly don't know, however I can find out for you if you wish.


Bzzt. We have a very ardently individualist society.

It's good to have an individualist society. However, please keep in mind that just because you are an individualist society, it doesn't mean you should automatically reject ALL things that have the slightest hint of communality, just because. Incorporating a socialist policy does not diminish your "manliness" any, as it were.


The right to pay for your own health care is a core value.

Lol. "The right to pay for your own health care"...you are making me laugh.

You meant to say, "the right to choose whether to pay for one's own health care or to join a collective socialist program is a core value", in other words, the freedom to choose.


We do. Trying to convince Canadians, Europeans, and lefter than left wingers of this fact isn't easy, but it's a fact. If you can't afford to pay your bill, there is financial aid. If you can, you do. It's illegal to refuse a patient because they can't pay.

Anyone who walks in to see a doctor gets treated.[/B]

You could be right, seeing as how I am not an American and as such I might not know as much about your country as you.

However, just to satisfy my curiosity, why do I hear so many Americans say things to the tune of "I am sick and should really see a doctor but I can't afford to"/"I should see a doctor but I don't really have the money, I am gonna wait till it's life-threatening"?

Lastly, to recap:

1. Try not to confuse socialized health care with forced taxation. The latter is not an inherent part of former.
2. Socialized health care is neutral in terms of personal liberty. As in, just because the kind currently being advocated in your country has an involuntary overtone, it does not mean it is an inherent part of socialized health care. Socialized health care can very much be voluntary.
3. Try not to feel defensive whenever a Canadian/European brings up the issue of health care. We just want to introduce a concept to you, heck, some of us even care about the plight of your countrymen.
4. Please please please try and educate yourself on the differences between our system and your system.
5. Please try and read up on how insurance works, it might prove to be valuable.
6. Please try and at least entertain the idea of a collective socialist policy as a theoretical possibility. I am not saying you should embrace it/implement it. Just think about it, toss it around a bit, for the hell of it.
7. I hope that you realize (should there every be) implementation of a socialist policy, assuming it's entirely voluntary, it's NOT an affront to your values, such as individual responsibility, liberty/freedom, individualism..etc.
8. Lastly, to reiterate. If I ever detect that you are just arguing in a knee-jerk reaction, saying no just for the sake of saying no/saying no for some perverse obscure reasons in a childish, willful fashion, not at all having attempted to understand what I am explaining to you, I will stop wasting my time with you. I am not saying this because I think I am some sort of hot shit that people should be grateful to interact with, no, not at all. What I am doing is giving you a fair warning, I want to give you a chance before I cut you off completely. I really do not appreciate it when people waste my time (not saying that you do that intentionally) That and I enjoy discussing this topic with you and would much rather that you continued debating with me, although in a more, how should I say, educated manner.

*Disclaimer: I actually do not know a whole lot about how our system works, so there might be some factual errors. However please be advised that these are not intentional.

"Little" being the operative word here because that is just plain fucking false.


Negative on that first part; I've never done budgeting, so even if I'd spent my entire life within R&D, I wouldn't necessarily know the logistics.


I have to admit, I wasn’t craftily trolling this time. I was mislead by an administrator who should have known better, and admitted they made a mistake once I confronted them about it. Now I’ve learned something new. You’re absolutely right about per capita and GDP costs. However, I still am opposed to the financial strains of a socialized healthcare system in the US. Given the OECD rankings for 2008, I believe Canada is the most expensive health care system in the world per physician per capita (1000 people to be convenient), but have yet to factor in their shoddy equipment, so I can not say for certain. To be honest, I was actually misled by an errant administrator as to fiscal costs of Canada’s healthcare system, and have actually learned something new.

Using your data for 2004, I see that 3,173 dollars per capita is spent in Canada and 6,096 per capita US. This is roughly 2 times the amount of money spent by the US as is spent by Canada (1.92121021).

Okay. So, let’s look at http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_13jan2005_e
We see here that Canada had 4.6 MRI scanners per million population while the U.S. had 19.5 per million.
The US had about 4 times the number of MRI scanners (4.23913043).
In Canada, the number of MRIs also increased over time, to reach 6.2 per million population in
2006. Despite this increase, Canada was still lagging behind the OECD average of 10.2 MRI units permillion population. Similarly, the number of CT scanners in Canada stood at 12.0 per million populationin 2006, below the OECD average of 19.2.
The number of acute care hospital beds in Canada was 2.8 per 1 000 population in 2005, which though higher than the United States (2.7 in 2006), was lower than the OECD average of 3.9 beds per 1 000 population.

Now we’ll check http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_13jan2005_e
Canada was shown to have 10.3 CT scanners per million whereas the U.S., had 29.5 per million.
The US had about 3 times the number of CT scanners (2.86407767).
Apparently, access to this kind of equipment is inadequate in Canada, so the argument that the US is spending too much money on such equipment, or more than is needed, is one that I just can’t fathom being made.
http://www.nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/nps/news/PDF-e/Regional_Data_Release_2004_NPS_Feb05.pdf
http://www.nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/nps/news/PDF-e/NPS%20Provincial%20Media%20Release_ENG.pdf
Finally, depending on what year you want to look at, there were 853,187 physicians in the United States in 2004 (https://catalog.ama-assn.org/Catalog/product/product_detail.jsp?productId=prod10002?checkXwho=d one)or 800,000 active physicians in ‘05 http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm

This supports the claims here (http://www.adbi.org/3rdpartycdrom/2005/06/13/1342.public.health.data/ ) that Canada has fewer doctors per capita than the United States, there being 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people in the US; and 2.2 per 1,000 people in Canada both in the year 2005 and 2006, which is below OECD average of 3.1 per 1,000 people in 2006. Canada apparently ties with Korea, Poland, and the UK at 23rd out of 28 countries with 2.3 doctors per 1,000 people (though cited as 2.2 elsewhere) in 2006. Historically, Canada has failed to show the ability to increase its per capita doctor supply to meet the growth of other nations, and has lagged with very slow growth. This is important because the US has a higher birth and documented immigration rate than Canada, and I question the system’s ability to keep up with demand for physicians and technological access.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/175/5/465.pdf
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2244

This may even be a more serious problem in the US due to the large quantity of illegal immigrants from less developed nations, and genetic diversity which cause the US to be at higher risk for diseases such as TB, lyme disease, filiarisis, hepatitis, dengue fever, chagas, leprosy etc. as well as the “Baby Boomer” generation reaching retirement age, and costing more in health care.
In Canada seniors over age 65 accounted for 44% of health care spending during the year 2006 yet only comprised 13.2% of the population, America would be in serious trouble trying to adopt that type of spending because 36.3 million were estimated as 65 or older on July 1, 2004. This age group accounted for 12 percent of the total population. Between 2003 and 2004, the size of this age group increased by 351,000 people and is expected to increase to 86.7 million in the year 2050. People in this age group would then comprise 21 percent of the total population.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/004083.html


There were 18,340 dentists total in Canada in 2004.
http://www.dentpedia.ca/news/dental_news/dental-statistics-canada/

Canada’s estimated population at the time (2004) was 31,946,316.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/040929/dq040929d-eng.htm
This means there were roughly 0.574088105 dentists per 1000 people in Canada at the time. There were 0.6 dentists per 1,000 people in US in 2004.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_tot_den_percap-health-total-dentists-per-capita

Given how many more thousand people there are in the US versus Canada, these discrepancy are larger than they appear.

Now, this is despite the generally higher income of doctors, dentists, etc. in the US as well as . If the Canadian system were adapted to fit current US medical demographics and supplies, costs would appear to increase for the US. Also, it is despite an estimated $68 billion inflating the US statistics due to fraud each year. (National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association, 2008)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071802461.html
A huge amount of that fraud comes from medicare/medicaid fraud.

By your logic, a socialized system that spends (in per capita terms) as little as the Canadian system (or other socialized system that are well below that of the U.S.) would be ideal in the U.S. for these troubled economic times!

Nope. The reason I believe the current American system is a less expensive system is because of the difference between public and private investment. Private for-profit spending on healthcare can be taxed by the government once it becomes profit for a healthcare organization. On top of this, organizations then pay their employees who are also taxed. If the government taxes a person’s income who buys health insurance, then the insurance company, then the hospital the insurance company pays to cover the bill, then the doctor from his paycheck… the government will take in money without spending it on healthcare itself. Government spending of public funds would just contribute to the deficit. Increased government deficit tends to increase interest rates, which is typically a bad thing for a bear market economy.


In 2006, almost 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 44.7% in the United States. Because total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was already 23% higher than Canadian government healthcare spending, and you can probably imagine that increasing is another 25% would be extremely cost-prohibitive.).
http://www.swivel.com/data_columns/spreadsheet/1857938?page=8&order_by_direction=ASC

Negative on that first part; I've never done budgeting, so even if I'd spent my entire life within R&D, I wouldn't necessarily know the logistics.<snip>

I'd be very interested to know what the figures are for the UK, both because it's where I live and because it has
nationalised health care..

I'd be very interested to know what the figures are for the UK, both because it's where I live and because it has
nationalised health care..

I would not be surprised if preventative health care were better, as it is indisputably much better in Canada than America (and I have to say, I am slightly envious), but because I made sure to get a job with health care, and budget my money, it is not an issue for me.

Also, I forgot to mention that one way Canada manages to save money is by rationing services, providing only one type of service rather than an array of services (peritoneal dialysis rather than hemodialysis for many with renal failure), and disincentivizing physicians from seeing more than a certain quota of patients. Personally, I do not feel comfortable with limiting my medical options.

Negative on that first part; I've never done budgeting, so even if I'd spent my entire life within R&D, I wouldn't necessarily know the logistics.

Well, you didn't say where your little knowledge of the field was. I was assuming you were mentioning the knowledge you had because it related to the topic you were, erroneously, making claims about...



I have to admit, I wasn’t craftily trolling this time. I was mislead by an administrator who should have known better, and admitted they made a mistake once I confronted them about it. Now I’ve learned something new. You’re absolutely right about per capita and GDP costs.Great. I'm glad we can agree that you were wrong in your claim. That's all I wanted.

The rest of your post deals with other points I didn't dispute, and while well-sourced, only focuses on the Canadian system which is not the only system of socialized healthcare. Any shortcomings it (Canadian system) has, doesn't necessarily show a short coming in any other system, nor in one in the U.S. if one were established.

That being said, I'll point out a few flaws I see in your points:

1. The number of equipments or doctors alone isn't that helpful, since it doesn't tell us about actual availability. For example, If I build a hospital that has 1 billion CT scanners yet I charge 1 billion dollars per use, I would still be included in those statistics.

So while the U.S. might have more CT scanners and MRI machines, it does not mean they are more available to the average citizen. We need to consider whether they can afford to use them in the first place.

2. Like I mentioned above, Canada is only one system. If you look at the avaibility of resources in other countries, you'll see a different picture:

"Do Americans have access to a greater supply of health care resources?

Surprisingly, Americans have access to fewer health care resources than people in most other OECD countries, measured in three major categories: hospital beds per capita, physicians and nurses per capita, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) scanners per capita.

The number of hospital beds per capita in the United States was in the bottom quartile of OECD countries in 2002 (Exhibit 2Go). Also, the number of U.S. physicians per capita (2.4) was below the OECD median of 3.1 in 2002. However, the growth rate in the number of U.S. physicians per capita between 1992 and 2002 exceeded the growth rate of the OECD median. Despite this growth, the United States still had fewer physicians per capita than the OECD median in 2002."

3. The vast majority of U.S. hospitals are non-profit ["In the United States, around 10% of all hospitals are for-profit institutions, whereas 70% are not-for-profit hospitals and the balance are public institutions (generally run by counties or municipalities)." (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/11/1418)], which means their private investment cannot be taxed. Those that are for profit are not only the minority but have higher mortality rates (http://www.buffalo.edu/news/5712) (which impacts tax in many ways, one of them being less income to tax through out the lifetime of the person that died) and are more costly (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/june/forprofit_hospitals.php), which is again not something you want in a recession.

Also, the number of doctors per thousand people or whatever might not be that good an indicator of health simply because they don't need them, due to (say) better preventative health care and education etc ..

Well, you didn't say where your little knowledge of the field was. I was assuming you were mentioning the knowledge you had because it related to the topic you were, erroneously, making claims about...


It did relate in that I had access to individuals who wrote up budget expenses, and have personally seen government-refunded divisions drain the coffers consistently, so I mistakenly trusted my source. Appeal to authority :-).


Great. I'm glad we can agree that you were wrong in your claim. That's all I wanted.
Well, I could really be an ass and say that since I didn't specify per GDP or per capita, I wasn't necessarily wrong depending on what basis you make the the statement on (I am fairly convinced if I were able to do the numbers in a timely fashion, I'd find Canada is the most expensive per doctor, but that is unsubstantiated, so I won't), but that would be misleading since I not only haven't been able to compare some of the adjusted OECD expenses per country. It actually really makes me wish I had a grant from the GAO to do comparisons for cost-cutting recommendation purposes. If the US legal system allowed more state judges to weed out law suits they felt were unsubstantiated, malpractice suits would lessen in number, court costs would decrease, and I'm sure the US' health care system would be relieved of much of the more recent increases in consumer cost due to insurance. Whether this would bring the market into competition with socialized/nationalized health care markets per consumer cost, would be fallacious for me to say.

But yeah, I willingly concede and appreciate your showing me that the US system costs more per capita and GDP, especially as politely as you did. So thanks.


The rest of your post deals with other points I didn't dispute, and while well-sourced, only focuses on the Canadian system which is not the only system of socialized healthcare. Any shortcomings it (Canadian system) has, doesn't necessarily show a short coming in any other system, nor in one in the U.S. if one were established.

Absolutely correct, and in some cases, the OECD averages for socialized health care systems have the US beat. What I see as the largest difference is the absolutely huge amount of funding research gets in the US. One of the government seminars I went to had a nice big flow chart depicting the big 3 financers of spending, and it was depicted to me that most of the grant money from federal sources is spent primarily on .mil technology, which often had medical uses (DARPA has several Bio Rev programs at the labs), Energy-related technology (which also has several medical uses), and most importantly in medicine, medicine itself from organizations such as the NIH.

Being strategic investments, they not only allow for more medical options at the individual level (which is not irrelevant to pricing), but also allow more techs to be trained for these devices. This lowers unemployment levels. For a reason unbeknownst to me, Canada has been slow in training more techs despite trying to increase the number of CT scanning machines, MRI machines, mammography machines, and similar imaging hardware, which leads to fewer medical jobs than there could be. With Canada's unemployment (http://www.hrmguide.net/canada/jobmarket/canadian-unemployment.htm) I think it would be prudent of Canada to try and hire more. I can’t say for everyone, but I know Canadian students in medical school here, and they want to work in the US because of the wages. I’d imagine that offering more incentives would increase interest in the job market.


That being said, I'll point out a few flaws I see in your points:

1. The number of equipments or doctors alone isn't that helpful, since it doesn't tell us about actual availability. For example, If I build a hospital that has 1 billion CT scanners yet I charge 1 billion dollars per use, I would still be included in those statistics.

So while the U.S. might have more CT scanners and MRI machines, it does not mean they are more available to the average citizen. We need to consider whether they can afford to use them in the first place.

This is very true, but Americans typically seem to receive better access to immediate healthcare for a few reasons.

The US' MRI rankings for the OECD are also very favorable. It's been in second place repeatedly for MRI and CT scanning machines, though I believe you are correct that currently the US has fewer CT machines per capita, average.
http://titania.sourceoecd.org/vl=6636828/cl=16/nw=1/rpsv/health2007/4-7.htm

Mammograms are another example. Canadian women get fewer mammograms than Americans

“American women aged 50–69 were more likely than Canadian women of the same age to have had a recent mammogram. Using data from a 2002–2003 Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health, the report also shows that 82% of American women aged 50–69 reported that they had a mammogram in the last two years, compared to 74% of Canadian women in the same age group. "
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_13jan2005_e


2. Like I mentioned above, Canada is only one system. If you look at the avaibility of resources in other countries, you'll see a different picture:

"Do Americans have access to a greater supply of health care resources?

Surprisingly, Americans have access to fewer health care resources than people in most other OECD countries, measured in three major categories: hospital beds per capita, physicians and nurses per capita, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) scanners per capita.

The number of hospital beds per capita in the United States was in the bottom quartile of OECD countries in 2002 (Exhibit 2Go). Also, the number of U.S. physicians per capita (2.4) was below the OECD median of 3.1 in 2002. However, the growth rate in the number of U.S. physicians per capita between 1992 and 2002 exceeded the growth rate of the OECD median. Despite this growth, the United States still had fewer physicians per capita than the OECD median in 2002."
I did notice the nurses and hospital beds, however, I disagree with the statements in the above that MRI scanners were below average. I would agree with CT scanners. Lithotriptors in the US were also above average. Now, CT scanning definitely has its pluses, but generally speaking, not only can MRI’s be used better for full body scans in any plane, but contrast is much higher in soft tissues than CT scanning (whereas CT shows bone more effectively). Also, whole body CT scans are much more difficult to read because of contrast, which necessitates confirmatory procedures such as exploratory surgeries. The tradeoff here is a more expensive machine (typically meaning it’s more expensive to use and therefore the test is more expensive) and a less risky diagnosis for most soft-tissue diseases. So I question whether or not CT numbers are relevant if there isn't a deficit in the US. MRI is also non-ionizing radiation and uses intravenous gadolinium chelate for contrast, which doesn’t have nearly any of the risks involved with iodinated intravenous contrast use in CT scanning (renal issues, allergies, etc.)
http://www.accesspharmacy.com/content.aspx?aID=3141685

Also, the larger array of services provided by the US are not taken into account, though they cost more.

3. The vast majority of U.S. hospitals are non-profit ["In the United States, around 10% of all hospitals are for-profit institutions, whereas 70% are not-for-profit hospitals and the balance are public institutions (generally run by counties or municipalities)." (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/11/1418)], which means their private investment cannot be taxed. Those that are for profit are not only the minority but have higher mortality rates (http://www.buffalo.edu/news/5712) (which impacts tax in many ways, one of them being less income to tax through out the lifetime of the person that died) and are more costly (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/june/forprofit_hospitals.php), which is again not something you want in a recession.
While it is true that I would not want higher mortality rates, all things being equal, I do not believe the comparison stands. Mortality rates are highly flawed because of several factors.


Public hospitals also have a longer average length of stay than for-profit hospitals. http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/Andrulis%20Hospitals%20Report-final.pdf

” The best record was for private nonosteopathic teaching hospitals, which train interns and residents after medical school. They had 108 deaths per 1,000 patients.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DEED8133CF932A15751C1A96F948260


“Among children without insurance, the mortality rate was 0.58 percent in 2002, compared with 0.45 percent of children on Medicaid, and 0.33 percent of children with private insurance.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-12/uomh-dri121008.php
Same system, different statistics that would lead one to believe in the year 2002, private insurance may have influenced superior treatment leading to fewer mortalities. Complicated.

Obesity and coronary disease in America also makes things difficult to analyze.
“The overall two-year mortality rate was higher in women, 28.9 percent, than in men, 19.6 percent. When patients were examined by age group, only women younger than 60 years old had a higher mortality rate than men of similar age.”
“These sex-based differences in mortality rates are independent of the severity of the heart attack and other health problems, the authors said in the article published in a recent issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.”
http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=3324
“Published in the November 28 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, the study compared the patterns of care and outcomes of 28,521 Medicare patients with 8,180 similarly aged patients hospitalized in Canada. Compared to Canadian patients, those in the U.S. had almost a 20 percent lower risk of dying within 30 days of being hospitalized for heart failure, but by one year there was virtually no difference in the survival rates.
"Despite being based on the same medical literature, the health care systems in the United States and Canada have very different results with respect to patients with heart failure," said principal investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, M.D., professor of medicine at Yale and director of Yale-New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation. "The findings raise questions about whether the American system is poised to provide better acute care, whereas the Canadian system is better positioned to provide chronic care."
Dennis Ko, M.D., lead author of the article and assistant professor, University of Toronto, said there are several potential explanations for our results. "The Canadian system has a greater emphasis on primary care and all patients have health insurance, including a drug benefit. It is possible that our approach leads to better patient follow-up and fewer financial barriers to care."
The study also showed that patients hospitalized in the United States were more likely to undergo tests and procedures, but just as likely to receive medications. “
http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-3/Short-term-survival-rates-better-for-US-vs--Canadian-heart-failure-patients-7380-1/
“Adjusted mortality rates for private, for-profit hospitals (121 per 1,000) and for public hospitals (120 per 1,000) were significantly higher than for private, non-profit hospitals (114 per 1,000). Private teaching hospitals had adjusted mortality rates (108 per 1,000) that were lower than private non-teaching hospitals (116 per 1,000). Osteopathic hospitals, where there is an emphasis on the musculoskeletal system, had adjusted mortality rates higher than average (129 per 1,000). The hospital characteristic most closely associated with adjusted mortality rates was the level of training of the hospital personnel. Hospitals with greater numbers of board-certified specialists and registered nurses had lowest mortality rates.”
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/Hospital-characteristics-and-mortality-rates-Racial-and-community-factors-influencing-coronary-arter.html

“The overall mortality rate of the 11 public hospitals was 38 percent higher than that of private hospitals, and 30 percent higher for babies of healthy birth weight. Four of the 10 highest mortality rates belonged to public hospitals.
Dr. Walid Michelen, senior vice president for medical and professional affairs at the Health and Hospitals Corporation, said he believed the state rankings measured "socioeconomic factors more than medical care at the time of delivery" and were not a good measure of hospital performance. Nonetheless, he said that the public hospitals would review their mortality cases. “
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE2D9173EF93AA35755C0A9639582 60&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all

Race is also a big factor, as are genetics (specifically of race, as some diseases such as TaySachs are more present in Jews, MS in whites, and black people with coronary disease, Alzheimer's, etc.). Also, infant mortality rates are higher.
"
For half a century, the black infant mortality rate has been approximately double the white rate. This disparity is complex and cannot be explained solely by medical or socioeconomic factors.
We know that the mortality rate of infants of foreign-born black women in this country is significantly lower than for infants of native-born black mothers and that Hispanics, in spite of high poverty and very low education rates, have infant mortality similar to whites.
It is likely that this new trend among blacks in areas of the South is related, in some fashion, to chronic emotional stress secondary to persistent poverty, a feeling of hopelessness, racial discrimination and health conditions.
A comprehensive approach beyond just the medical model is called for.

Patrick Dowling, M.D.
Los Angeles, April 24, 2007
The writer is a professor and chairman of the department of family medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at U.C.L.A."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/opinion/l26south.html?hp
“HANOVER, N.H., Oct. 24 - Race aside, acute MI patients are more likely to die within 90 days of the event if they are treated at a hospital that has a disproportionately high number of black patients, researchers here reported today.”
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/AcuteCoronarySyndrome/1990?pfc=101&spc=230
“"In the short run, it will allow the hospital to look more carefully at their own data and improve things, but for individual patients who want to choose their own care, it can be more misleading than helpful," said Jeffrey Kirsch, chairman of anesthesiology at Oregon Health and Science University and chairman of the university's professional board.
But Kirsch believes that making certain information available to the public is a step in the right direction.
"It is a good way to get the process going, but it is not enough and not the right type of information," he said. He added that "we are still in the early stages of this process."


“Robert Kaplan, the Wasserman chairman of the Department of Health Services in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles, agrees.
"It is a bit hard to digest for the average consumer," he said. A methodological problem is that various things are done to adjust for risk, he added, but no adjustment is perfect.
Kaplan said that some of the other indicators in Hospital Compare, beyond mortality rates, may be of interest to the patient, especially those that relate to the quality of a patient's experience.
Even one of the collaborators on the database says the measures are more for hospitals than for individuals.
"We have been working with CMS for five or six years to come up with measures that people could trust," said Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist and professor of medicine and epidemiology and public health at Yale University. "But one thing that is true is that no one sees this measure as a means to select hospital when critically ill.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/08/20/hospital.deaths/index.html

“Urban public hospitals also provided less inpatient and emergency care in 2002 than in 1996, with for-profit hospitals now surpassing public hospitals in total admissions for the 100 largest cities.”
“Low poverty suburbs comprised only 26 percent of the total suburban population in 2000, yet more than 40 percent of all suburban hospital admissions, and outpatient and emergency department visits took place in these areas in 2002. Additionally, they accounted for far more specialty care resources than high poverty suburbs: 45 percent of all NICU beds, 60 percent of all suburban level 1 and level 2 trauma centers and more than half of all PET scanners. Between 1996 and 2002, there was a 2000 percent increase in hospital PET scanners in low poverty suburbs, from 3 to 62.” http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/Andrulis%20Hospitals%20Report-final.pdf

This seems to suggest that availability of public health care is not as good as private for-profit hospitals. It may have to do with the longer average length of stay than for-profit hospitals. http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/A...port-final.pdf I think it would make an interesting further study.


Also, the number of doctors per thousand people or whatever might not be that good an indicator of health simply because they don't need them, due to (say) better preventative health care and education etc ..

It could be, but probably not, in my opinion. Canada seems to have a history of not increasing their doctors or equipment per capita to meet their population.
http://www.nationalphysiciansurvey.c..._NPS_Feb05.pdf
http://www.nationalphysiciansurvey.c...elease_ENG.pdf
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/08/28/doctor-shortage.html
http://www.canada.com/national/globalnational/story.html?id=50304bc1-9c68-4cc8-8576-a57d41b508a9

Ah, only in America do they support the right of everyone to (have the weapons needed to) kill anyone but not the right of everyone to (have the resources needed to) be healthy ..

Well, not to derail the thread, but....
There is no right to everyone to have health care in the United States, and there is no "right for everyone to have weapons needed to kill."

Only those who are law-abiding citizens (no felonies or domestic violence) free of mental illness or drug addiction are allowed to have firearms. Anyone can purchase a knife, sword, car (which kill more people every year than firearms), etc.

The Right to Bear Arms is intended for self-defense, hunting, sports shooting (in which I competitively participated in), etc. and even for the right to overthrow the government. There is no right to killing. Only in a few cases is homicide justified in the US legal system.

Oh, and apparently there's a shortage of physicians in the UK.


Anyway, I likely won't be responding, but I will probably get around to reading this later. I'm going out of town and won't be supposed to have internet access for the weekend.

Random_Looney,

I hope you don't mind, but I'll respond this way given the barrage of statistics and links:

1. You said "This is very true, but Americans typically seem to receive better access to immediate healthcare for a few reasons" yet I didn't see anything that supported that in your response.

You gave statistic that supported, again, the number of units of equipment, not their accessibility which was the point I was making: They can have the highest number of units and still not be of service to the public if the public cannot afford them.

You provided statistics for the number of mammograms, but again this is based on Canada alone, and no explanation is given as to why there is such a difference. Having a higher number by itself is not necessarily good. For example, if the procedures are performed unnecessarily, then that can be hurtful and wasteful.


2. I can agree on MRI scans. I examined my source (and here it is, I think I neglected to provide it: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/4/903) and they admit the U.S. might be under represented in terms for MRI machines based on the how the data was gathered in the source they used.

However, it still does not have the highest, and it falls below OECD average on the rest of the criteria, so I believe my point is made.


3. I believe you missed the point when it comes to # 3.

You say "While it is true that I would not want higher mortality rates, all things being equal, I do not believe the comparison stands. Mortality rates are highly flawed because of several factors. " But you didn't post any information that would refute the statistic I gave. The information you gave (e.g. difference in mortality based on race, different outcomes between the U.S. and Canada in patients hospitalized for heart failure, et cetera) don't really refute the fact presented.

The higher mortality rate in for-profits hospitals was entirely among U.S. hospitals. In other words, there were no Canadian hospitals involved in the statistic. They studied a sample of U.S. hospitals, divided them into for-profits and non-profits, and then looked at their mortality rates. For-profits had substantially higher mortality rates. Differences in mortality rates among races would only be relevant if you were able to show a specific race prefers a specific type of profit plan for Hospitals (e.g. "Blacks go to for-profit hospitals in higher numbers, thus their higher mortality rate is to blame").

So the fact that they had higher mortality rates still stands. The overall point being:

You said you believed the current American system is a less expensive system because "because of the difference between public and private investment.... private for-profit spending on healthcare can be taxed by the government". So you would have to show that the ~15% of for-profits hospitals that you can potentially tax (potentially because there could be millions of loop holes they might use to lower their contribution or remove it completely) makes up for the higher mortality (in terms of cost of a human life and the cost to the government in less taxable income from the deceased) as well as the higher spenditure of healthcare in the U.S.

I hope you don't mind, but I'll respond this way given the barrage of statistics and links:

1. You said "This is very true, but Americans typically seem to receive better access to immediate healthcare for a few reasons" yet I didn't see anything that supported that in your response.

Alright. I don’t mind at all, and I am probably at fault for either not providing appropriate support or explaining it adequately.


You gave statistic that supported, again, the number of units of equipment, not their accessibility which was the point I was making: They can have the highest number of units and still not be of service to the public if the public cannot afford them.

While you make a good point about affordability, the fact that they are available and running means they are there to provide better immediate care whereas Canadians have been shown having to wait. However, I don’t see this as an issue for immediate or acute healthcare treatment (rather than preventative), because MRI/MSCT/ and/or PET scans are available if deemed necessary for emergency room treatment. Because these requests are legally obligated to be fulfilled….
“In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1395dd.html

“Advanced computer technology
has cut the time for the procedure from 1 hour
to 20 minutes, and with 28 MRIs serving the Buffalo
area and intense competition among providers, prices
are dropping. In the US, marketplace dynamics are still
very much a part of health care.
According to MRI technical staff, Erie County Medical
Center sees an average of 20 Canadians a month —
“30 in a good month” — and all take advantage of the
lower prices. Similarly, British Columbians are going to
Bellingham, Wash., where St. Joseph’s Hospital alone
does about 60 MRI scans for Canadians each year.”
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/157/6/767.pdf

If you consider affordability… the differences in pricing seem to be less based on medical issues, and moreso from the different legal systems the two countries use. What I have seen/heard time and time again are that the two largest preventable drains on the US healthcare system, which can be reduced without necessarily affecting healthcare quality, are legal issues. Specifically in the area of tort law.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926744.800-some-pharma-companies-are-dramatically-overcharging-americans.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=soundbites

“However, GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims—
which make up the largest part of insurers’ costs—appear to be the primary
driver of rate increases in the long run.”

“Insurers’ losses, declines in investment income, a less competitive climate,
and climbing reinsurance rates have all contributed to rising premium
rates. First, among our seven sample states, insurers’ losses have increased
rapidly in some states, increasing the amount that insurers expect to pay
out on future claims. Second, on the national level insurers’ investment
income has decreased, so that insurance companies must increasingly rely
on premiums to cover costs. Third, some large medical malpractice
insurers have left the market in some states because selling policies was no
longer profitable, reducing the downward competitive pressure on
premium rates that existed through most of the 1990s.”
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03702.pdf
Due to less insurance company competition in the market driving up costs of healthcare to consumers, I don’t think that reducing the amount of insurance companies through a nationalized setup would be beneficial.

You provided statistics for the number of mammograms, but again this is based on Canada alone, and no explanation is given as to why there is such a difference. Having a higher number by itself is not necessarily good. For example, if the procedures are performed unnecessarily, then that can be hurtful and wasteful.
While I agree, they theoretically could be harmful, I don’t see how that is relevant as the study pertains to generally medically accepted standards of mammography.

“American women aged 50–69 were more likely than Canadian women of the same age to have had a recent mammogram. Using data from a 2002–2003 Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health, the report also shows that 82% of American women aged 50–69 reported that they had a mammogram in the last two years, compared to 74% of Canadian women in the same age group. "
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPa...ia_13jan2005_e

“Women age 40 and older should have mammograms every 1 to 2 years.”
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/screening-mammograms

Also, for support of the generally better immediate healthcare:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/fraser-report.html?ref=rss




2. I can agree on MRI scans. I examined my source (and here it is, I think I neglected to provide it: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi.../full/24/4/903) and they admit the U.S. might be under represented in terms for MRI machines based on the how the data was gathered in the source they used.

However, it still does not have the highest, and it falls below OECD average on the rest of the criteria, so I believe my point is made.
Well, the only two issues I see there are the lower amount of beds per capita and the fewer doctors per capita than the average, but I only see evidence of widespread shortages of either in the case of an epidemic.
Other than the future potential physician shortage as the “baby boomer” generation begins to need more healthcare (which is an issue of medical schools capping admissions, and not one of healthcare itself… rather education), I don’t know why you cite these issues.
Canada seems to have a shortage of doctors whereas the US doesn’t appear to yet.

3. I believe you missed the point when it comes to # 3.

You say "While it is true that I would not want higher mortality rates, all things being equal, I do not believe the comparison stands. Mortality rates are highly flawed because of several factors. " But you didn't post any information that would refute the statistic I gave. The information you gave (e.g. difference in mortality based on race, different outcomes between the U.S. and Canada in patients hospitalized for heart failure, et cetera) don't really refute the fact presented.

The higher mortality rate in for-profits hospitals was entirely among U.S. hospitals. In other words, there were no Canadian hospitals involved in the statistic. They studied a sample of U.S. hospitals, divided them into for-profits and non-profits, and then looked at their mortality rates. For-profits had substantially higher mortality rates. Differences in mortality rates among races would only be relevant if you were able to show a specific race prefers a specific type of profit plan for Hospitals (e.g. "Blacks go to for-profit hospitals in higher numbers, thus their higher mortality rate is to blame").

So the fact that they had higher mortality rates still stands. The overall point being:

You said you believed the current American system is a less expensive system because "because of the difference between public and private investment.... private for-profit spending on healthcare can be taxed by the government". So you would have to show that the ~15% of for-profits hospitals that you can potentially tax (potentially because there could be millions of loop holes they might use to lower their contribution or remove it completely) makes up for the higher mortality (in terms of cost of a human life and the cost to the government in less taxable income from the deceased) as well as the higher spenditure of healthcare in the U.S.

Well, another issue is that I’ve seen public medical centers tend to have a broader range of specialists available for treatment, and that even with adjustments, it is impossible to completely adjust for severity of illness in statistics. Even so, however…

You’re using the US system, where government programs can outsource to private insurance. If, as in Canada, there were a prohibition on private health care alternatives to socialized healthcare (6/10 provinces in Canada), I have reason to believe this would negatively affect the US economy, citing the “less competitive climate” from the GAO report.

“As in Quebec and the other Canadian provinces, the health care system in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom is financed mainly through general taxation. Unlike Quebec and five other provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Prince Edward Island),(4) Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom do not prohibit duplicate private health care insurance.(5)”
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0571-e.htm


“While funded by the government, Medicare and
Medicaid use private insurers when it is efficient to do so. Medicare and Medicaid
purchase services from private managed care plans and make extensive use of private
insurers as administrative claims payment agents. By utilizing the private market as
appropriate, public programs are able to offer beneficiaries a wide array of options.” http://finance.senate.gov/healthsummit2008/Statements/Karen%20Davis%20Testimony.pdf

2. It’s a moot point because I don’t see any statistics backing up the claim that about fifteen percent of for-profit hospitals are potentially taxable. Also, only approximately a very conservatively estimated 42.2% of Americans pay income tax.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

So for this to be valid, you would also need to show that the difference between hospital mortality rates affected individuals who paid more income tax than the combined savings to the federal government under the current system plus the taxes garnered from the number of insurance company personnel working and paying income tax as well as factor in doctors’ income. Even so, it wouldn’t mean that a nationalized/socialized system would be more efficient economically. In fact, if you compare private insurance charges versus medicare, you will notice that
“Private insurance was billed for 35 percent of all hospitalizations,
which is comparable to the 1997 figure of 37 percent. The mean
charge for privately insured hospital stays was $16,900” wheras “Medicare continues to be billed for 34 percent of all hospitalizations, with a mean charge of $24,900.”
(pages 37 and 39 here:
http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/factbk7/factbk7.pdf )

I really can't see much of an argument against it. As it is here, there are incentives to go for private health care, if you go to the ER you can pick your own doctor, better rooms, shorter waiting list for non essential surgery and government subsidies. But, as someone who cannot afford private health insurance, I can walk into the ER and see a GP just as quick, I just don't get to pick who, for a normal doctors appointment, I don't have to have the cash (this is only because of my age and having a nice doctor, some have to pay then reclaim the money), get discounts on my meds, which are numerous at times, also covered for mental health services (which I've used).
However, it also benefits those with money. A friend of mine receives roughly $10000 worth of blood products a month. Add in the cost of a bed for the day every month and it's quite a lot. Now, this persons family is in a higher tax bracket, does not get the little things like I mentioned above, but this sort of thing is covered regardless of economic standing.

Taxes.
My ass.
Raped.
My ass gets tax raped.