News Why not free universal healthcare if

[Benzoate]

why not free universal healthcare if ...

... the United States military and NASA is funded directly through our taxes? I must admit I am not very knowledgeable of what will happen to the quality of our healthcare system if funding was supported through taxes. I know socialized medicine works in some parts of the world and is terrible in other parts of the world. Frankly , I do not think we as taxpayers should forced to pay for others peoples health care costs just because they are to lazy to go out and exercise and keep a healthy diet. But on the other hand , if we can afford to send rockets and satellites to space and to planets that costs up to billions of billions of dollars in taxes, not to mentioned contiunue to expand new NASA programs like their Robotics programs, then why can't we provide universal healthcare to every citizen? Do we really need to continue to expand our military? We already supposedly have the best military in the world and in history.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Since all of the top Healthcare providers are at least part socialised, and very few are purely private and are not as well rated. I can only assume that like everywhere else, the same thing would happen, your healthcare overall would improve.

US GDP Military=3.9%
US GDP Healthcare=14%

 

[drankin]

I think we should keep health care as it is but that our government (taxes) should take care of certain life threatening things like cancer, transplants, and the like. If we did things this way our health care premiums would go down, probably signicantly since typcal health care plans wouldn't have to provide for these few but enormously expensive situations. But that is as close to socialized medicine I would ever buy in to.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yes after all a mix of social and private systems elsewhere are only doing much better. Who'd want that?

 

[drankin]

Yes after all a mix of social and private systems elsewhere are only doing much better. Who'd want that?

Please provide some examples of what "better" looks like and explain how it would work in the US. I've been to military hospitals, I know what Uncle Sam is capable and not capable of providing.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Please provide some examples of what "better" looks like and explain how it would work in the US. I've been to military hospitals, I know what Uncle Sam is capable and not capable of providing.

Well since you're not in the top 15 for Healthcare services, under the WHO statistics, primarily because of poor coverage, high infant mortality, and low overall mortality in comparison with Europe, then I'd say it's all very well but if people aren't getting the best healthcare in the world for whatever reason, then it means nothing.

The same way partial private and nationalised service works in every other country in the world, and of course even the most expensive systems in Europe are 6% less than your extraordinary 15.4% GDP.

 

[turbo]

Health care would improve (overall coverage, treatment of chronic and preventable diseases, etc) if it was universal, and the cost of health care would decrease. Private insurance companies are intent on maximizing their profits, and the very quickest, easiest way to do this it to delay payments to health-care providers or to deny payments outright. Generally, they do this through a series of red-tape arguments, in which they deny payment (or most of a payment) because they say that the doctor's bill for treatment does not meet their coding requirements. Coding is the most important function in a medical practice if the practice is to be financially stable. A coding specialist knows how to navigate the vagaries of the various insurance companies' coding requirements (sometimes varying by plan within insurance companies) in order to get the patients' treatments properly covered. Eliminate the private insurance companies, and most of the delay, denial, and financial friction in the US health-care system would be eliminated as well.

The insurance companies are parasites. Among the worst are Blue Cross - Blue Shield. When my wife was in a serious car accident, BC - BS denied every claim repeatedly, so that I had to resubmit claims over and over again, and they did not coordinate benefits, so that once her medical bills were well over the limit at which BS should have kicked in, I still had to submit each bill to BC, only to have it denied, and then have to re-submit it to BS, perhaps multiple times, before it was paid. At the time, I was in my 30's, working in a well-paying industrial job with what I thought was decent health insurance. If I had been unable to keep up with all the denials and obfuscations that the insurance company kept throwing at me, my wife and I would have been saddled with debt and bad credit for years. Repeat - health insurance companies are parasites. The most cost-effective way for them to make money is to deny or delay payment of legitimate claims, and that is how they operate.

 

[Benzoate]

Since all of the top Healthcare providers are at least part socialised, and very few are purely private and are not as well rated. I can only assume that like everywhere else, the same thing would happen, your healthcare overall would improve.

US GDP Military=3.9%
US GDP Healthcare=14%

I would like to see what sources you used to obtained to this information.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I would like to see what sources you used to obtained to this information.

Well the Health service statistic of GDP was from the WHO and the other was from wikipedia, which was out by .16% according to the CIA factbook.

Ah seems to have gone up to 15.2

See this link, check out the figures for 2003.

http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2006/annex/06_annex2_en.pdf

4.06% military expenditure. From CIA factbook

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

I presume they are reliable enough.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

why not free universal healthcare if the United States military and NASA is funded directly through our taxes?

Using that hunk of logic, shouldn't everything be free for everyone?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Using that hunk of logic, shouldn't everything be free for everyone?

No just basically understood necessities, education, water, electricty, welfare programs, unless of course you consider accessible healthcare to be a luxury of course?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

No just basically understood necessities, education, water, electricty, welfare programs, unless of course you consider accessible healthcare to be a luxury of course?

Not food, clothing and shelter?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Not food, clothing and shelter?

Er not sure why you are asking this, are you assuming that that was meant to be an exhaustive list of basic needs? It wasn't. They were just examples.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Er not sure why you are asking this, are you assuming that that was meant to be an exhaustive list of basic needs? It wasn't. They were just examples.

So all basic needs should be free. Basic needs includes food, clothing, shelter, education, water, electricity, welfare, accessible healthcare, and this is not an exhaustive list. Can you give me an example of something that should not be free?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

So all basic needs should be free. Basic needs includes food, clothing, shelter, education, water, electricity, welfare, accessible healthcare, and this is not an exhaustive list. Can you give me an example of something that should not be free?

Alcohol.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Alcohol.

I repeat, with the logic of the OP, everything should be free to everyone.

why not free universal healthcare if the United States military and NASA is funded directly through our taxes?

 

[russ_watters]

Heck, I'm still trying to get my arms around the idea that there are people who believe all basic needs should be provided by the government. I didn't know anyone actually believed such a thing.

Could I see a logical explanation for why the government should provide such things for free, followed then by a logical explanation for how a goverenment could provide such things? In particular:

-What political theory holds that it is the responsibility of government to provide for all the basic needs of all citizens?
-Based on the history of economics, is there an example of a system that was capable of functioning (stable-ly) without the primary motivator for human activity (need) applying? Ie, if peoples' needs are met without any effort, why would people work?

History is chock-full of counterexamples, such as the pervasive medicrity of life in the USSR prior to its demise, and the lack of an increase in poverty rate with the slashing of welfare rolls in the US a few years ago. And western political theory is based on the concept of individual freedom, which necessarily must similarly include individual responsibility.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I repeat, with the logic of the OP, everything should be free to everyone.

No your just taking an absurd approach. There are some things that are considered basic requirements, and some things that aren't and some things that are luxuries. Just saying everything should be free is frankly just avoiding the issue. No one is saying everything should be free, but some things are more practical and beneficial if they are given to all, the right to healthcare is a basic right, in almost all countries in the West; not because every country is socialist, but because most people aren't obsessed with profit. Healthcare is not something that should be provided on the basis of wealth, that is frankly in this day and age a little worrying.

Vanesch I never said all basic needs should be free either, so where that came from is also a mystery.

I presume you pay for your electricity, water, food and so on. And likewise you would pay for your healthcare in taxes. The point is if you can't you aren't abandoned.

And yes free universal healthcare is absurd, I don't know any country that operates such a system. But the OP's point aside, I don't think anyone is suggesting it be free.

 

[russ_watters]

Well since you're not in the top 15 for Healthcare services, under the WHO statistics, primarily because of poor coverage, high infant mortality, and low overall mortality in comparison with Europe, then I'd say it's all very well but if people aren't getting the best healthcare in the world for whatever reason, then it means nothing.

I don't doubt that your assertions are true (with the exception of infant mortality), however, I would actually like to see the data. Do you have references for those claims?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I don't doubt that your assertions are true (with the exception of infant mortality), however, I would actually like to see the data. Do you have references for those claims?

Of course it's all on the WHO website. If you want to take a look just go there.

Of course when you have 1 in 6 people without health cover, then to be frank you would expect mortality to go down, and infant mortality to rise anyway. And I am joshing you not, infant mortality is higher in the US than in most European countries.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html

However here's a summary. Obviously lower is better for infant mortality.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Database.

 

[russ_watters]

Vanesch I never said all basic needs should be free either, so where that came from is also a mystery.

Flip back to post #11 where you stated explicitly that all "basically understood necessities" should be free, in response to a direct question by jimmy about whether "everything" should be free.

So then dropping back: please tell us explicitly what should be provided by the government. Ie, Should all basic necessities be provided by the government?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Flip back to post #11 where you stated explicitly that all "basically understood necessities" should be free, in response to a direct question by jimmy about whether "everything" should be free.

So then dropping back: please tell us explicitly what should be provided by the government. Ie, Should all basic necessities be provided by the government?

Misunderstanding I figured since we don't "pay" for our healthcare, I assumed that was what he was trying to compare. The fact is that's probably what the OP meant anyway, let's face it. Since AFAIK no healthcare provider raises funding out of thin air.

So then dropping back: please tell us explicitly what should be provided by the government. Ie, Should all basic necessities be provided by the government?

I really don't know where this is going, yes they should, but nowhere have I said for free, except in the sense I have taken the OP to mean. Electricity, education, heating, water, lighting should all be available. And IMO so should healthcare, private or national according to need.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course it's all on the WHO website. If you want to take a look just go there.

No, I don't want to spend six hours mulling through data myself. I'd like to actually see the data presented in a coherent form so I can look and easily verify your claim.

Of course when you have 1 in 6 people without health cover, then to be frank you would expect mortality to go down, and infant mortality to rise anyway. And I am joshing you not, infant mortality is higher in the US than in most European countries.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html

However here's a summary. Obviously lower is better for infant mortality.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Database.

I specifically mentioned infant mortality because when the numbers for developed countries are so low, differences in measurment methods and in amount of effort made to save low birth-weight babies far outweighs any actual difference in the quality of prenatal care.

Myths of US healthcare: http://drugwonks.com/2007/11/debunking_some_health_care_urban_myths.html
The Cuba vs US infant moratlity myth: http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000022.html
From the second link, the primary reason the US's statistics on infant morality are so "bad" is that we try harder than anyone else in the world to save premature infants and give birth and death certificates to infants that other countries would list as stillborn:

The problem is that international statistics on infant mortality are helpful in revealing large differences, but when it comes to small differences such as that between Cuba and the United States, often other factors are really behind the numbers.

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category -- the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old...

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

That's your own statistics. And I'm sorry but there are large differences between many European countries and yours, so I don't think the point is relevant.

If you ask me those web sites are just apologist web sites. You can spin it any way you want. But the WHO statistics are definitive and are broken down to take various factors into account, for example they now discount health concerns such as obesity and all others mentioned there, so again it's not really relevant to todays figures.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Fortunately, I am addicted to alcohol, so for me it is basic necessity. Normally I keep a bottle of medicinal alcohol with me in case of snake bites, and a snake. All at my own expense even though the United States military and NASA are funded directly through my taxes. Why aren't such basics free?

 

[russ_watters]

Also, infant mortality can't really be used as an argument for universal heath care in the US, since assistance, including just plain free care, is available for everyone in the US.

http://www.4woman.gov/faq/prenatal.htm#i

 

[russ_watters]

That's your own statistics.

Huh? I did not make any of the statistics myself.

And I'm sorry but there are large differences between many European countries and yours, so I don't think the point is relevant.

Define "large". The difference between the US and France (from your stats) is 2.2. The difference between the US and China is 15.7. Put another way, your odds of surviving being an infant are 99.78% in France, 99.36% in the US, and 97.79% in China.

When stats are of such a rare phenomena, small transients seem to have a much larger impact. The same can be seen with airplane crash stats, where from one year to the next your rate can go from 0 to 10 per million.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Huh? I did not make any of the statistics myself. Define "large". The difference between the US and France (from your stats) is 2.2. The difference between the US and China is 15.7. Put another way, your odds of surviving being an infant are 99.78% in France, 99.36% in the US, and 97.79% in China.

Well considering statistics have now been changed to take into account various concerns, I really don't think that the 2007 statistics are anything like the ones that report are talking about. Like I say, you can be an apologist all you like, but it's simply denying the problems you do have. Sounds like burying your head in the sand and refusing to admit your health system has any problems to me.

Fortunately, I am addicted to alcohol, so for me it is basic necessity. Normally I keep a bottle of medicinal alcohol with me in case of snake bites, and a snake. All at my own expense even though the United States military and NASA are funded directly through my taxes. Why aren't such basics free?

Well if you are addicted shouldn't you be going to see a Dr to get some psychiatric help?

That's a stupid question, one I don't feel the need to answer.

Anyway I've got to go to bed, I'm getting tired. If you have any questions I'll answer them tomorrow or should I say today for me.

 

[russ_watters]

Misunderstanding I figured since we don't "pay" for our healthcare, I assumed that was what he was trying to compare. The fact is that's probably what the OP meant anyway, let's face it. Since AFAIK no healthcare provider raises funding out of thin air.

The word "free" is not the bone of contention, SD. Everyone understands that "free" really means provided by the government and paid for by our taxes.

The bone of contention is where you claimed every basic need should be provided by the government.

 

[russ_watters]

Well considering statistics have now been changed to take into account various concerns, I really don't think that the 2007 statistics are anything like the ones that report are talking about.

So then you acknowledge that the statistics, historically, have been flawed?

In any case, can you provde support for your claim that statistical methods were fixed between 2006 and 2007. Ie, is the data now collected by the WHO instead of being provided to it by individual countries?

Sounds like burying your head in the sand and refusing to admit your health system has any problems to me.

Please quote where I stated that the US healthcare system has no problems. I have never, ever, ever made such a claim.

 

[russ_watters]

Please quote where I stated that the US healthcare system has no problems. I have never, ever, ever made such a claim.

I'll make it nice and explicit: The US healthcare system, like all healthcare systems, has flaws. The flaws in a universal system are different from the flaws of a system where people get their own insurance, but essentially:

The US healthcare system provides a wonderfully high level of care (perhaps the best in the world) that is unfortunately, not evenly available. In addition, corporate lobbyists have too much influence on legislation of our system, which has resulted in laws adverse to the consumer and costs that are inflated beyond the improvements in level of care/inflation.

It is my opinion that the US should not have universal healthcare because it would create more problems than it would solve. The US should reduce the influence of lobbyists, allowing it to enact laws to better manage competition and avoid monopoly price controls and price fixing, as well as enact laws mandating optional employee healthcare options for all full time workers.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That's a stupid question, one I don't feel the need to answer.

The stupid question being "why isn't alcohol free". But it is the question that reveals the answer to the OP's question "why isn't healthcare free". Would you reserve to yourself the privilege of defining basic needs, and not allow me the same? If everyone could define what is basic and the government had to fund it, then everything would be free for everybody. That is impossible. So we have elected legislators who decide what to fund and what not to fund. They don't jump to my tune any more than yours. If you want them to fund your idea of basic needs, then you will need to show your legislators, to their satisfaction, not yours, that it is in their best interest to indulge you. So far, you have not accomplished this. I'm working day and night on the alcohol thing. I did get them to make it legal, but they won't foot the bill. I put the blame on me.

 

[Benzoate]

I have a proposal. Why not make a dual healthcare system , where healthcare is fully supported by the government and other portion of our healthcare system is supported by private insurance. This dual healthcare system would be analogous to our education system , which parents have the option of choosing to send their kid to a private or public school . the funding for healthcare doesn't have to be completely private or completely public.

 

[wildman]

I would like to see what sources you used to obtained to this information.

Canada's health care costs 1/3 of what it cost (per capita) as in the US. This is less than what our government pays per capita for health care. Actually, our government pays way too much for health for what it gets...The US government could probably offer basic universal health care and actually cut spending.

 

[mheslep]

Here's a http://bp0.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/Rzmah0RKkiI/AAAAAAAACxM/_yTMErbhbmE/s1600-h/le1.bmp" (pg 18), "How Does the U.S. Health-Care System Compare to Systems in Other Countries?" by U. Iowa researchers that also discuss the WHO rank:
Pg 4:

WHO Rankings
• Ranking methodology subjected to significant
criticism in academic circles (Science, Health
Economics)
• But oft cited as ‘authoritative’ nonetheless ...

The study also confirms that the WHO ranking for the US is partly based on 'inequitable' access, i.e., not only on the excellence of the medical system. Two different things.

 

[mheslep]

I have a proposal. Why not make a dual healthcare system , where healthcare is fully supported by the government and other portion of our healthcare system is supported by private insurance. This dual healthcare system would be analogous to our education system , which parents have the option of choosing to send their kid to a private or public school . the funding for healthcare doesn't have to be completely private or completely public.

Observation of the public school system leads me to argue the opposite, that throwing those most in need of help to the mercies of some government run system is abandoning them.

 

[mheslep]

Here's the breakdown on the 47million uninsured:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin"

STATEMENT 2 Some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance.

This number from the Census Bureau is often cited as evidence that the health system is failing for many American families. Yet by masking tremendous heterogeneity in personal circumstances, the figure exaggerates the magnitude of the problem.

To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens. Many are illegal immigrants. Even if we had national health insurance, they would probably not be covered.

The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government’s health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.[~about 9million]

The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.

Of course, millions of Americans have trouble getting health insurance. But they number far less than 47 million, and they make up only a few percent of the population of 300 million.

Any reform should carefully focus on this group to avoid disrupting the vast majority for whom the system is working. We do not nationalize an industry simply because a small percentage of the work force is unemployed. Similarly, we should be wary of sweeping reforms of our health system if they are motivated by the fact that a small percentage of the population is uninsured.

 

[mheslep]

... I specifically mentioned infant mortality because when the numbers for developed countries are so low, differences in measurement methods and in amount of effort made to save low birth-weight babies far outweighs any actual difference in the quality of prenatal care.

Myths of US healthcare: http://drugwonks.com/2007/11/debunking_some_health_care_urban_myths.html
The Cuba vs US infant moratlity myth: http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000022.html
From the second link, the primary reason the US's statistics on infant morality are so "bad" is that we try harder than anyone else in the world to save premature infants and give birth and death certificates to infants that other countries would list as stillborn:

I also suspect the abortion rate (EU higher vs US lower) has some influence on mortality (per Evo on another thread).

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The word "free" is not the bone of contention, SD. Everyone understands that "free" really means provided by the government and paid for by our taxes.

The bone of contention is where you claimed every basic need should be provided by the government.

I didn't.

So then you acknowledge that the statistics, historically, have been flawed?

In any case, can you provde support for your claim that statistical methods were fixed between 2006 and 2007. Ie, is the data now collected by the WHO instead of being provided to it by individual countries? Please quote where I stated that the US healthcare system has no problems. I have never, ever, ever made such a claim.

I already have on another thread, and frankly am kind of bored of this. If you want to play the semantic game then feel free, but I think the statistics speak for themselves and are pretty clear. You can believe what you like, I'm not really that bothered to be frank.

Also, infant mortality can't really be used as an argument for universal heath care in the US, since assistance, including just plain free care, is available for everyone in the US.

http://www.4woman.gov/faq/prenatal.htm#i

Yes apparently nothing can, if you manipulate everything and spin it it all looks rosey.

The stupid question being "why isn't alcohol free". But it is the question that reveals the answer to the OP's question "why isn't healthcare free". Would you reserve to yourself the privilege of defining basic needs, and not allow me the same? If everyone could define what is basic and the government had to fund it, then everything would be free for everybody. That is impossible. So we have elected legislators who decide what to fund and what not to fund. They don't jump to my tune any more than yours. If you want them to fund your idea of basic needs, then you will need to show your legislators, to their satisfaction, not yours, that it is in their best interest to indulge you. So far, you have not accomplished this. I'm working day and night on the alcohol thing. I did get them to make it legal, but they won't foot the bill. I put the blame on me.

I don't know why you insist on comparing alcohol to healthcare for all, really, one is accepted as a basic need in every Western country except the US. I don't need to convince anyone of anything, I don't live in the US. I just feel somewhat saddened that a country places profit over providing healthcare for whatever minority it is who can't get it. That people forgo treatment because of the expense, that people chose lesser cheaper treatments like wise, that half of your expense is incurred from insurance and legal claims, that your expense itself means you pay either similar amounts or more than most Western countries out of your taxes anyway, that any number be it 15% or otherwise are denied medical care, is frankly pretty lame. And personally I don't agree that obesity, smoking and other factors that place a burden on healthcare shouldn't be included in the statistics, but meh, I suppose if you moan enough.

Observation of the public school system leads me to argue the opposite, that throwing those most in need of help to the mercies of some government run system is abandoning them.

Yes of course the fact that the top 15 Healthcare providers are all at least part nationalised of course has nothing to do with it? Healthcare for those who need it, private or nationalised and in any circumstance rich or poor is abandoning them. Care to justify that? Sounds like the opposite is the case to me.

Here's a http://bp0.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/Rzmah0RKkiI/AAAAAAAACxM/_yTMErbhbmE/s1600-h/le1.bmp" (pg 18), "How Does the U.S. Health-Care System Compare to Systems in Other Countries?" by U. Iowa researchers that also discuss the WHO rank:
Pg 4:

The study also confirms that the WHO ranking for the US is partly based on 'inequitable' access, i.e., not only on the excellence of the medical system. Two different things.

This is basically ignore where the stats appear unfavourable or explain them away and focus on where we do well. It seems to me that if you don't like the WHO system, that's more to do with it not suiting everyone, but being a best fit for all. And also of course the fact that it shows any areas where there are concerns.

 

[vanesch]

Vanesch I never said all basic needs should be free either, so where that came from is also a mystery.

I guess you mean: Russ, I never ...

 

[vanesch]

Heck, I'm still trying to get my arms around the idea that there are people who believe all basic needs should be provided by the government. I didn't know anyone actually believed such a thing.

Could I see a logical explanation for why the government should provide such things for free, followed then by a logical explanation for how a goverenment could provide such things? In particular:

-What political theory holds that it is the responsibility of government to provide for all the basic needs of all citizens?
-Based on the history of economics, is there an example of a system that was capable of functioning (stable-ly) without the primary motivator for human activity (need) applying? Ie, if peoples' needs are met without any effort, why would people work?

History is chock-full of counterexamples, such as the pervasive medicrity of life in the USSR prior to its demise, and the lack of an increase in poverty rate with the slashing of welfare rolls in the US a few years ago. And western political theory is based on the concept of individual freedom, which necessarily must similarly include individual responsibility.

One thing is sure: a system that provides for ALL NEEDS for FREE has been tried, it's called communism, and we've seen that it doesn't work very well.

But I think the gist of this discussion is: can we morally accept in a modern society, that there are people who aren't able to provide in their BASIC needs (that means that they are put in a life-threatening situation, otherwise the needs aren't basic), and that we let them just rotten, while others are enjoying crazily superfluous luxuries ? Is it morally acceptable that a 5-year old kid is not getting any food, has no clothes, must walk in the rain and hasn't any place to hide, just because his parents are poor ?

As such it is a moral/political question: you can answer yes or no to the above question and related questions. But answering "no, that's not acceptable" is not an absurd viewpoint. And from there on, you can go further. Because of course there's no such thing as a free lunch. So IF you want to provide that kid with a coat, some place to live, a piece of bread, etc... then this must come from somewhere. So one can decide politically that it are those that are pretty wealthy that should give a small part of what they have to take care of that kid. Or you can decide that it should be his (poor) relatives, who should, I don't know, sell their organs or so to do so. All these are political choices, that shape the society one lives in. Of course it has a price. Of course, overall wealth will probably decrease a bit (according to some economic theories) if we do that. Yes, we will be a bit less rich if we do so. Yes, the economy will work a bit less good if we tax, take away some motivation, etc...

But it may be a political choice that that is an acceptable price to pay in order to solve some moral dilemma. It may also be a political choice that we're not going to sacrifice any economical competitiveness, and if that means that some kids must die of hunger, well then that's an acceptable price. All these are choices. Political choices.

The only thing that is required is that people are well-informed about what each choice, good and bad, holds in for them and for society.

So it might be a political choice that the most basic needs are maybe not provided for free to everybody, but are at least somehow guaranteed by the collectivity. If you are really so poor as not to be able to afford a coat, well, we'll try to give you one. If you are cold and you don't know where to sleep this night, well we'll try to find you a roof for the night (not a house!) Etc. But not a car, an airplane, caviar or whatever! These are non-essential goods: they are not life-threatening if you don't have them.
The advantage of such a viewpoint is that life becomes a bit less scary. You know that if ever something bad happens to you, at least you will not lie there rotting on the road, while people walk by. You know that there will be a minimum of solidarity. The disadvantage is that people will not be scared to death of being poor, and work their asses off to avoid it. So you grind a bit the motivation to produce. The economy will do a bit less well. It is all a choice of what kind of world we like to live in.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I guess you mean: Russ, I never ...

Oops, apologies? I was probably reading another thread. :S

One thing is sure: a system that provides for ALL NEEDS for FREE has been tried, it's called communism, and we've seen that it doesn't work very well.

But I think the gist of this discussion is: can we morally accept in a modern society, that there are people who aren't able to provide in their BASIC needs (that means that they are put in a life-threatening situation, otherwise the needs aren't basic), and that we let them just rotten, while others are enjoying crazily superfluous luxuries ? Is it morally acceptable that a 5-year old kid is not getting any food, has no clothes, must walk in the rain and hasn't any place to hide, just because his parents are poor ?

As such it is a moral/political question: you can answer yes or no to the above question and related questions. But answering "no, that's not acceptable" is not an absurd viewpoint. And from there on, you can go further. Because of course there's no such thing as a free lunch. So IF you want to provide that kid with a coat, some place to live, a piece of bread, etc... then this must come from somewhere. So one can decide politically that it are those that are pretty wealthy that should give a small part of what they have to take care of that kid. Or you can decide that it should be his (poor) relatives, who should, I don't know, sell their organs or so to do so. All these are political choices, that shape the society one lives in. Of course it has a price. Of course, overall wealth will probably decrease a bit (according to some economic theories) if we do that. Yes, we will be a bit less rich if we do so. Yes, the economy will work a bit less good if we tax, take away some motivation, etc...

But it may be a political choice that that is an acceptable price to pay in order to solve some moral dilemma. It may also be a political choice that we're not going to sacrifice any economical competitiveness, and if that means that some kids must die of hunger, well then that's an acceptable price. All these are choices. Political choices.

The only thing that is required is that people are well-informed about what each choice, good and bad, holds in for them and for society.

So it might be a political choice that the most basic needs are maybe not provided for free to everybody, but are at least somehow guaranteed by the collectivity. If you are really so poor as not to be able to afford a coat, well, we'll try to give you one. If you are cold and you don't know where to sleep this night, well we'll try to find you a roof for the night (not a house!) Etc. But not a car, an airplane, caviar or whatever! These are non-essential goods: they are not life-threatening if you don't have them.
The advantage of such a viewpoint is that life becomes a bit less scary. You know that if ever something bad happens to you, at least you will not lie there rotting on the road, while people walk by. You know that there will be a minimum of solidarity. The disadvantage is that people will not be scared to death of being poor, and work their asses off to avoid it. So you grind a bit the motivation to produce. The economy will do a bit less well. It is all a choice of what kind of world we like to live in.

It's a question of balancing gains with loses. If you help some people there will always be those who seek to exploit it. On the other hand at least the vast majority are given help. That is I think the most important concern. Does it help more than it hinders. As for incentives, well to be honest I can see why that may be more of a problem in welfare systems, and yes there are some people who exploit such systems, but I'm not sure that line of thought applies equally to healthcare. I don't think people really think about how much they appreciate free health care, until they need it, and of course it's not totally free anyway, you're paying for it; unlike welfare, where technically those receiving it are not at the time when they claim it. In this country it's a real pain in the arse to claim for dole. To try and claim without actively seeking employment, which you must provide evidence of is extremely difficult. As for exploiting healthcare? People don't generally and those that do get flagged as a time waster and hypochondriac, they'll insist you ring the help lines and use the 24/7 internet support for your complaint, where advice up to the medical research level is available if necessary.

 

[vanesch]

Here's the breakdown on the 47million uninsured:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin"

The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.

This is why a minimum insurance is mandatory in most European countries, and is by some considered as a kind of tax. Because it is considered irresponsible and stupid NOT to have a minimum insurance "if you can afford it", that is, if you have an income. So it is calculated in a similar way as your income tax (but called part of social security).
In other words, one doesn't give you the choice of making the stupid decision not to take a minimum coverage.

 

[Supercritical]

In my opinion, things life life expectancy shouldn't be relied upon to make comparisons between countries' healthcare.

Medicine's principal purpose is to improve the condition of sick people. A culture's diet and lifestyle may be naturally conducive to long life, but that doesn't reflect on a good healthcare system. A better metric is finding how much a healthcare system improves a nation's health. This would mean finding healthcare's "delta L" for life expectancy rather than just analyzing "L." So if you look, for instance, at cancer survival rates, the US has the best system. The US has the best "delta L" out of those countries. This likely means that a healthy person (good diet, exercise, etc.) could expect to live longer in the United States than in Europe (at the very least when it comes to cancer).

This kind of "control" does not exist in real life, however, as Americans tend to lead less healthy lifestyles. And a good "delta L" can not always override lower "initial conditions."

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well that's why the evidence on the other thread has been reviewed to give a table of the 19 wealthy Western countries, hurrah. When you take out diet and smoking and all those other things that cause masses of related illnesses you come 16th out of 19. Not a great improvement but still. And European countries still come out on top.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/nov/14/politics.medicineandhealth

I suppose I better link it, or someone will accuse me of not backing that statement up for want of a few button clicks to the GD thread.

 

[Benzoate]

You know , I think a free healthcare system is more essential than a free education for obvious reasons that I will not mentioned. And I am no champion of anti-intellectualism . I think if people are put in life threatening situations that the individual has no absolutely control over, then I think its the government's obligation to protect that individual. Wouldn't you want our police to protect us from criminals who threaten a person's civil liberties and his life. Well, I would want my government to everything in its power to insure that my life is threatened. If you get shot by an individual , then its not your fault but the police's department fault for failing to restrain that individual from society.

This question is slightly off my topic, but were does all that bail money go get a criminal out of jail?!? I think the bail money should go to the victim or victim's family members instead of to the police department, but the police department failed to protect the individual and therefore the individual should receive the bail money. Which means the victim would now pay for their own emergency care caused by the criminal



Other than that, IF you are solely responsible for the decaying of your health , then you should be the only person who has to pay for their own health costs.

 

[drankin]

We certainly have some work to do in the US regarding health care. I would be nice if there were hospitals adequately staffed, sufficiently funded, at the ready, available to any person in need without cost. As American we understand that this has a cost. I believe the point of contention we have is we would rather pay insurance premiums to a private company than pay higher tax. Either way it is expensive but we all know that private industry can make a buck go a lot further than our government can. What we need is a way to prevent the medical industry from exploiting their position in the US. The way a medical insurance company will often deny perfectly ligitimate claims is an example. I pay more than $500/mo right now for my family for medical insurance which is likely less than I would be paying in taxes for a socialized medical system that would be of a lesser quality. My only problem with this system is how an insurance company can easily deny a claim.

Canada has socialized medical system (I don't know the details of it) but I've heard that a scheduled visit to a doctor can be months out. It is nice that medication is cheaper though.

We do have problems in our current system. But I believe they could be remedied without a socialized medical system.

I've suggested earlier a reform we might all be able to accept. The government could cover the cost of certain life threatening medical situations (ie., cancer, transplants). These are extremely costly to our health insurance companies and are probably a significant contributor to our high premiums. Knock those out of the equation and health insurance may be a lot less expensive and available to all classes. Health insurance is not a "right" in this country though it would be nice if it were less expensive.

 

[drankin]

You know , I think a free healthcare system is more essential than a free education for obvious reasons that I will not mentioned. And I am no champion of anti-intellectualism . I think if people are put in life threatening situations that the individual has no absolutely control over, then I think its the government's obligation to protect that individual. Wouldn't you want our police to protect us from criminals who threaten a person's civil liberties and his life. Well, I would want my government to everything in its power to insure that my life is threatened. If you get shot by an individual , then its not your fault but the police's department fault for failing to restrain that individual from society.

This question is slightly off my topic, but were does all that bail money go get a criminal out of jail?!? I think the bail money should go to the victim or victim's family members instead of to the police department, but the police department failed to protect the individual and therefore the individual should receive the bail money. Which means the victim would now pay for their own emergency care caused by the criminal



Other than that, IF you are solely responsible for the decaying of your health , then you should be the only person who has to pay for their own health costs.

Bail money is to offset the cost of having to chase down someone who doesn't show up in court. If that person shows up in court, the bail money is returned to the individual who posted it. You don't go giving someones bail money to someone else, that would be stealing. Just because you are put in jail to await your court date, doesn't mean you are even guilty. To take someones bail money would be unjust.

Now, back to the topic.

 

[ShawnD]

So then dropping back: please tell us explicitly what should be provided by the government.

Try to understand that there's a big difference between British law and American law. American laws seem to be very explicit, whereas British-style laws are wishy washy and have phrasing like "reasonable force" or "reasonable doubt". It's impossible to give a list of exactly what should be provided by the government, because that just isn't how British laws work.

 

[Poop-Loops]

American Law is exactly the same. That's why we have a Supreme Court. To interpret the law and make sure it itself is not illegal.