News Why not free universal healthcare if

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benzoate
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universal
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of implementing free universal healthcare in the U.S., comparing it to funding for the military and NASA. Participants express concerns about the quality of healthcare under a tax-funded system, noting that while socialized medicine has mixed results globally, many top healthcare providers are partially socialized. There is a strong critique of private insurance companies, which are seen as profit-driven entities that complicate access to care through claim denials and delays. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of government responsibility for basic needs, with differing opinions on what should be provided for free. Ultimately, the debate highlights the complexities of healthcare funding and the potential benefits of a mixed system.
  • #91


misgfool said:
Apparently to measure performance of healthcare system you need to get statistics. We can measure performance as the queue length but I would see life expectancy, child mortality or average of sick days out of work a better indicator of the functioning healthcare system.
I'd not be so inclined. Life expectancy, in particular, depends on many variables totally unrelated to actions of health providers. Why not go directly to health specific metrics: cancer, heart disease, etc, survival rates? That is, if I contract cancer, survival rates are the numbers I want to know and not something that is skewed by people dying in car wrecks, genetic make up, diet, or some other life style aspect of the society.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92


drankin said:
Average wait is 220 days for surgery is 220 days!?? That certainly wouldn't work in the US.

My father-in-law had to have a kidney removed recently due to the beginnings of cancer. He was in and out within 4 days. No cancer now. 220 days and he wouldn't be with us.

You can tell absolutely any story you like with statistics. Clearly, life-saving surgeries do not have waiting lists of 220 days.

mheslep said:
Certainly a government can attempt to force a system where there is equality of some result, healthcare denial for instance. I decline to call waiting around for surgery for six months any kind of an acceptable result for mainstream healthcare.

You've failed to show me any statistics that show this in general.

Not sure what you mean by 'is regardless',

Nor do I: it doesn't make sense, I admit.

but that's my b), inclusion of private/market care, for people that refuse to tolerate the NHS. Health in the UK is not universally provided by the government. Nor would I completely accept that healthcare is universally available from the government in the UK, as that would mean a test at 100% of the population, and given the strains on the current system at partial use I believe NHS is incapable of supporting 100% use over time.

But that's just like saying "millionaires don't live in council houses, thus the council housing system is fundamentally flawed." Of course, if you have a lot of money, then you will go private. Why do you think people fly first class on planes? Because economy class won't get them to their destination? :rolleyes:

mheslep said:
And to EU healthcare in general during the same period: its increasingly provided by private/market sources, less by the government.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL08617092
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform#The_Netherlands

I don't see what you're trying to do here. I was talking about the UK, and refuting your points. You then dig up articles from other countries, and on wikipedia to prove [sic] your point.
 
  • #93


mheslep said:
I'd not be so inclined. Life expectancy, in particular, depends on many variables totally unrelated to actions of health providers. Why not go directly to health specific metrics: cancer, heart disease, etc, survival rates? That is, if I contract cancer, survival rates are the numbers I want to know and not something that is skewed by people dying in car wrecks, genetic make up, diet, or some other life style aspect of the society.

I see your point. However, if the entire nation has healthier lifestyle doesn't that mean that pre-emptive work done by public heathcare is providing very good results? This work done is much more cost-effective, which is of course what we seek the most, than treating already sick people. Surely private sector won't educate general public (not paying customers) of healthier living.
 
  • #94


cristo said:
...I don't see what you're trying to do here. I was talking about the UK, and refuting your points. You then dig up articles from other countries, and on wikipedia to prove [sic] your point.
I'm arguing my original statement: Universal government healthcare doesn't exist, anywhere.
 
  • #95


misgfool said:
... Surely private sector won't educate general public (not paying customers) of healthier living.
I get stuff frequently from my provider of non-tax deductible automotive insurance on how to be a better driver, and generally (I believe) the auto insurers in part sponsor the public campaigns to improve auto safety and inform on same. And my home insurer insists on smoke detectors and fire extinguishers for a good rate.
 
Last edited:
  • #96


cristo said:
...You've failed to show me any statistics that show this in general...
Yes I clearly did, you criticized them for being old.
 
  • #97


cristo said:
...But that's just like saying "millionaires don't live in council houses, thus the council housing system is fundamentally flawed." Of course, if you have a lot of money, then you will go private. Why do you think people fly first class on planes? Because economy class won't get them to their destination? ...
The analogy would be that the 'council housing system is not universal'. I wasn't arguing here that NHS is fundamentally flawed*, just that it and other such systems are not what they are often claimed to be: universal.

*Though I do think it is an inefficient way to deliver health care.
 
  • #98


mheslep said:
The analogy would be that the 'council housing system is not universal'.

You are taking the term "universal healthcare" here to mean that everyone must use it. To use the term in that sense here is ridiculous. The fact is that everyone has the same opportunity to use the NHS. Whether they choose to or not is entirely up to them.
 
  • #99


cristo said:
You are taking the term "universal healthcare" here to mean that everyone must use it. To use the term in that sense here is ridiculous. The fact is that everyone has the same opportunity to use the NHS. Whether they choose to or not is entirely up to them.
'must' -> 'can'. And you're back to equality of some result again, in this case equality of 'NHS'. NHS does not equal health care, as 220 day waiting periods demonstrate.
 
  • #100


Canadian born physician David Gratzner essay on health care

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
...I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don’t want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didn’t spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical school—my mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right.

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.

I decided to write about what I saw. By day, I attended classes and visited patients; at night, I worked on a book. Unfortunately, statistics on Canadian health care’s weaknesses were hard to come by, and even finding people willing to criticize the system was difficult, such was the emotional support that it then enjoyed. One family friend, diagnosed with cancer, was told to wait for potentially lifesaving chemotherapy. I called to see if I could write about his plight. Worried about repercussions, he asked me to change his name. A bit later, he asked if I could change his sex in the story, and maybe his town. Finally, he asked if I could change the illness, too...

Nor were the problems I identified unique to Canada—they characterized all government-run health-care systems. Consider the recent British controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an appointment with a specialist, only to have it canceled—48 times. More than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months. A while back, I toured a public hospital in Washington, D.C., with Tim Evans, a senior fellow at the Centre for the New Europe. The hospital was dark and dingy, but Evans observed that it was cleaner than anything in his native England.
 
  • #101


mheslep said:
'must' -> 'can'. And you're back to equality of some result again, in this case equality of 'NHS'. NHS does not equal health care, as 220 day waiting periods demonstrate.

Replacing words in sentences completely changes their meaning. We're just going round in circles, and you aren't making any relevant comments. Can you read what I'm saying, or are you just choosing to ignore it? Why can you not see that these two comments are different:

1. Every citizen has the opportunity to take up NHS healthcare;
1. Every citizen must take up their offer of NHS healthcare?

Furthermore, your 220 day waiting list that quote was, firstly, based on statistics which were released in 2000 and, secondly, highly misleading. What one needs to look at is waiting lists for different types of surgery, at least based on risk.

However, it's quite apparent that you do not believe in nationalised, free, healthcare, which explains why you try to present misconstrued data. I also don't wish to enter into a "my countries healthcare system is better than yours" 'discussion.' Thus, it is pointless for me to continue this discussion.
 
  • #102


misgfool said:
However, if the entire nation has healthier lifestyle doesn't that mean that pre-emptive work done by public heathcare is providing very good results?

Not necesarilly.

French have low level of heart diseases, which is attributed to diet and wine, it has nothing to do with healthcare - it is just a lifestyle.

Note, that even if the example I gave (about low level of heart diseases and the reason behind) is wrong, my point is still valid :smile:
 
  • #103


misgfool said:
I see your point. However, if the entire nation has healthier lifestyle doesn't that mean that pre-emptive work done by public heathcare is providing very good results? This work done is much more cost-effective, which is of course what we seek the most, than treating already sick people. Surely private sector won't educate general public (not paying customers) of healthier living.
I agree with most of this, though I don't know how to correlate a healthier nation with pre-emptive care. Still it certainly makes sense that pre-emptive care probably is effective and desirable. I don't know that it has to be free at the point of access to enable it. There's an old RAND study on this around somewhere.
 
  • #104


cristo said:
...I also don't wish to enter into a "my countries healthcare system is better than yours" 'discussion.' Thus, it is pointless for me to continue this discussion.
I haven't mentioned US healthcare in this resurrected thread, not once; there's much wrong with US healthcare - medical errors, excessive cost. My statements here address the frequently floated, but unexamined, wonders of 'universal' heath care abroad.
 
  • #105


mheslep said:
I get stuff frequently from my provider of non-tax deductible automotive insurance on how to be a better driver, and generally (I believe) the auto insurers in part sponsor the public campaigns to improve auto safety and inform on same. And my home insurer insists on smoke detectors and fire extinguishers for a good rate.

Yes, but you are a client for your insurance company. The company wants to collect fees from you and avoid paying in case of an accident. However a company that does not have you as a client does not care of your wellbeing.

mheslep said:
I agree with most of this, though I don't know how to correlate a healthier nation with pre-emptive care. Still it certainly makes sense that pre-emptive care probably is effective and desirable. I don't know that it has to be free at the point of access to enable it. There's an old RAND study on this around somewhere.

I think it is in the interest of the state to have healthy, working and productive citizens. It should be free because for private sector it is more profitable to treat patients. So for it there is a conflict of interest and it is prone to select the most profitable option.
 
  • #106
Borek said:
French have low level of heart diseases, which is attributed to diet and wine, it has nothing to do with healthcare - it is just a lifestyle.

Health officials have clear impact to lifestyle. I for one try to listen reasonable sounding advice regarding things like my diet, physical exercise and rest. Since I was brought up in school medical inspection world, for example I go to the dentist every year to have my teeth checked even if I have no problems as a pre-emptive measure. Actually in my university days (yes, the good old) 2 years ago, the price of dental check was 4€. And I almost got the female dentist to go out with me, but no it wasn't my day. Now as an official ex-student it's about 40€.

I also believe that France has the worlds highest mortality rate in alcohol related liver cirrhosis. Naturally I have a another claim from the government of Hong Kong to support my claim. I bet that in the end this all is traceable to some statistical fact.

http://resources.edb.gov.hk/biology/english/health/definition_health/alcoholism.html

Borek said:
Note, that even if the example I gave (about low level of heart diseases and the reason behind) is wrong, my point is still valid :smile:

I guess you never lose a debate :smile:. But where is the challenge and the joy of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat?
 
  • #107


misgfool said:
Yes, but you are a client for your insurance company. The company wants to collect fees from you and avoid paying in case of an accident. However a company that does not have you as a client does not care of your wellbeing.
? My insurer is the only one that's relevant. Why should I, or anyone, care about some other company?

I think it is in the interest of the state to have healthy, working and productive citizens.
The state? It is just as much in the interest of every individual to be healthy, working, and productive.

It should be free because for private sector it is more profitable to treat patients. So for it there is a conflict of interest and it is prone to select the most profitable option.
Well that's just reiterating the point I refuted above. To my mind it is desirable to have a) an insurer and GP for which it is profitable to keep me healthy, and b) in the event I do get sick to have a well paid medical profession for which it is profitable to treat me, rather than shove me into the dirty corner.
 
  • #108


mheslep said:
...

I think that our viewpoints differ too much to reach any meaningful conclusion. Therefore I forfeit. You win.
 

Similar threads

Replies
65
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 107 ·
4
Replies
107
Views
31K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
11K