Universal care

[Lucky... 0]

The WHO claims the world needs uni-care, when will the US figure it out?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080828/wl_nm/who_dc_4


"Virtually all advanced countries have universal health care systems but we don't think that should be limited to high-income countries," he added.

Except the US..... yea, we're right, the rest of the world is wrong.

[FallingOsh 0]

How do you suppose we handle issues like this?

Huge discrepancies also exist within countries, including Scotland where a boy born in the poor Glasgow suburb of Calton can expect to live to 54, 28 years less than one born in affluent Lenzie, just across town, it said.

I assume you want equal healthcare for all. Are you going to make more experienced doctors move to poorer neighborhoods?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

How do you suppose we handle issues like this?

Huge discrepancies also exist within countries, including Scotland where a boy born in the poor Glasgow suburb of Calton can expect to live to 54, 28 years less than one born in affluent Lenzie, just across town, it said.

I assume you want equal healthcare for all. Are you going to make more experienced doctors move to poorer neighborhoods?

WTF are you talking about? That's in the UK, I couldn't give a rat's ass about them. How about the US, or is the Republican model to ensure our Imperialization of the world by fixing them first?

I say uni care for American citizens.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

The WHO claims the world needs uni-care, when will the US figure it out?

When will you figure out that SAYING universal care would be good and is what we should have is hugely apart from coming up with a way to provide it to everyone?!

Do you honestly think that there is anyone around who is opposed to having as many people as possible have health coverage?

The debate is over how to provide it, and how to pay for it. That's it. Don't pretend that taxing people to death is a viable way to do it.

If we wanted, in the U.S., health care coverage like they have in European nations, we'd have to have an income tax rate over 50% like they do. Do you want that? I don't.

Quote

"Virtually all advanced countries have universal health care systems but we don't think that should be limited to high-income countries," he added.

Expensive things tend to be limited to "high income" anythings. These countries you mention, how many of them have zero- or negative-growth economies? Quite a few. How many of them have taxation at a level that Americans would tolerate. Like, none.

Oh, and I guess you don't entertain the arguments that the quality of care in countries with socialized medicine SUCKS...

Quote

Except the US..... yea, we're right, the rest of the world is wrong.

Well, the rest of the world is socialist. We don't want to be that. Sorry. Go move there if it's so much better. Mexicans move here because it's better than where they came from, after all.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

How do you suppose we handle issues like this?

Huge discrepancies also exist within countries, including Scotland where a boy born in the poor Glasgow suburb of Calton can expect to live to 54, 28 years less than one born in affluent Lenzie, just across town, it said.

I assume you want equal healthcare for all. Are you going to make more experienced doctors move to poorer neighborhoods?

Part and parcel of that is the notion that no matter how much money you have, how hard you've worked to become wealthy, there are places (Canada is one) that makes it ILLEGAL to pay for health care out of your own pocket in order to get the best care.

I guess that's why wealthy Canadians come here[/] to get top-level treatment. Let's all pretend we don't know that that goes on. Let's all be liberals who just want to repeat a zombie mantra of "Universal caaaare."

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[martin-o 0]

Quote

Oh, and I guess you don't entertain the arguments that the quality of care in countries with socialized medicine SUCKS...

I can somehow buy all the arguments about how universal health care (no one except American conservatives calls it socialized) threatens your economical freedom. But the argument that the quality of US health care is better then other industrialized countries are just plain wrong. I've read quite a few studies on the subject and I cant remember a single one where the US were used as a good example or had an really good rating. Yes, allot of the best specialist in many areas work in America, but that only accounts for a tiny tiny part of all the health care that is produced. The bulk (the type that you and me would receive) has been proved to lack in both quality and cost efficiency time and time again.

/Martin

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

How do you suppose we handle issues like this?

Huge discrepancies also exist within countries, including Scotland where a boy born in the poor Glasgow suburb of Calton can expect to live to 54, 28 years less than one born in affluent Lenzie, just across town, it said.

The average life expectancy assumes an average chance at being involved in life-shorteners like skydiving and street gangs. Low educational attainment has a causal relationship with low incomes, and for such people being a drug dealer or hoodlum pays better than the legitimate jobs they're qualified for plus offering better hours and uniforms than a place like McDonald's.

Free public college education or vocational training for everyone and an advertising campaign which points out that course of action pays better than being a drug-dealing gang member might help.

An entire college education can cost less than sending an adult to prison for six months.

Quote

I assume you want equal healthcare for all. Are you going to make more experienced doctors move to poorer neighborhoods?

Correlation doesn't imply causality. While life expectancies are radically different in poor and rich neighborhoods, crime has more to do with it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

An entire college education can cost less than sending an adult to prison for six months.

Uh, which college and what gold plated prison are you talking about?

I believe the prison costs are in the ballpark of 40k/year. (Florida was first hit, claims 19k) No one is getting a 4 year degree on 20k, not unless you ignore non tuition costs like food, shelter, etc.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Oh, and I guess you don't entertain the arguments that the quality of care in countries with socialized medicine SUCKS...

I can somehow buy all the arguments about how universal health care (no one except American conservatives calls it socialized) threatens your economical freedom. But the argument that the quality of US health care is better then other industrialized countries are just plain wrong. I've read quite a few studies on the subject and I cant remember a single one where the US were used as a good example or had an really good rating. Yes, allot of the best specialist in many areas work in America, but that only accounts for a tiny tiny part of all the health care that is produced. The bulk (the type that you and me would receive) has been proved to lack in both quality and cost efficiency time and time again.

/Martin

If you're talking about acute care, no one beats the US. If the question is about long term health, we're the wrong place, in large part because the people don't want to take 'their medicine' in the guise of more exercise, more vacation, less fast food.

And yes, the administrative processes suck. If you got a workable scheme to transition us to something better, great. But so far, no such beast.

It's noble of WHO to give a goal with absolutely no useful suggestions on how to achieve it.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

If you're talking about acute care, no one beats the US. If the question is about long term health, we're the wrong place, in large part because the people don't want to take 'their medicine' in the guise of more exercise, more vacation, less fast food.

And yes, the administrative processes suck. If you got a workable scheme to transition us to something better, great. But so far, no such beast.

It's noble of WHO to give a goal with absolutely no useful suggestions on how to achieve it.

Exactly! They might as well tell us how beneficial it would be if we just stopped having so much crime get committed. Gee, uh, thanks for the tip.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

An entire college education can cost less than sending an adult to prison for six months.

Uh, which college and what gold plated prison are you talking about?

Public. How about Metro State in Denver? About $5K/year in tuition.

Average jail costs non-rural places. California has exceeded $40K/year.

Quote

No one is getting a 4 year degree on 20k, not unless you ignore non tuition costs like food, shelter, etc.

One can attend school full-time and live on half-time semi-skilled (you're partway through a degree) wages in better than dormitory/prison conditions (room in a shared apartment or house instead of one of two or four bunks in the same sized room)

[bodypilot90 0]

You want the people that run amtrack to run health care. no thanks. Are YOU going to tell the doctor he must take a 30% paycut and be happy. Look at Canada takes what months to get a MRI. I can get one in hours or less in the USA. NO THANKS

[birdlike 0]

Quote

You want the people that run amtrack to run health care. no thanks. Are YOU going to tell the doctor he must take a 30% paycut and be happy. Look at Canada takes what months to get a MRI. I can get one in hours or less in the USA. NO THANKS

The biggest IRONY I can think of about "universal (government-run) health care" is that as much as the left, which champions it, HATES the way the government is run and doesn't trust it with anything, not even investigating terrorist threats to our very lives... this faction of the political spectrum CHEERS the idea of the government running a system entrusted with the maintenance of our very lives.

We hold that our medical information is of the utmost private nature. Then we see government computers getting LOST with all kinds of sensitive information -- who can trust them not to fuck up in a MONUMENTAL WAY with the most sensitive data on citizens imaginable? All because a stumblefuck government is put in charge when it hasn't been proved to be able to manage a motherfucking thing right in all these many years.

I would ask the cheerleaders of government-run health care, Why do you suddenly trust government on THIS?

Here's an even better question:
If the next president and Congress are Republican, BUT they bring us a viable universal government-run health care plan and implement it, will you be so trusting? Or is it only Democrats who could ever do it right?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[martin-o 0]

Quote

If you're talking about acute care, no one beats the US.

Thats quite a statement. On what do you build that argument? I would be really interested to see a study rating acute care around the world. Please show me, I am sincerely curious (I work in an ER).

Quote

It's noble of WHO to give a goal with absolutely no useful suggestions on how to achieve it.

Yes I agree that some sort of universal health care is obviously superior to other types of health care funding. I didn't need this study to realize that but some might. Allot of science is focusing on finding problems rather than solving them, it's sort of the first step. But again I agree that the result of the above mentioned study is rather obvious.

[nanook 1]

Quote

(no one except American conservatives calls it socialized)

We call it "socialized" due to what has to happen for healthcare to become "Universal". We would have to nationalize a considerable amount of property, pay scales, some intellectual rights, pharmaceuticals will be R&D'ed like Govt contractors if they aren't nationalized. ect ect. . .

Socializing means giving government control of a major piece of the economy.

However, if the govt keeps everything private and just provide money, then it will at best be only twice the cost of the IRA to operate. That's not including the cost of contractor-style mesh of govt and private companies cooperating.

Personally, I would rather have other people work harder to pay their own insurance than I have to pay exta to provide them theirs.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[pirana 0]

I still don't get why people think financing of health care should be provided by the government It is not the most universal of needs. I'd put food above health care as a basic need. Why aren't the communists amongst us calling for universal food? Aquisition of all food should be financed and administrated by the government. If you want to be mothered, why not take it all the way?

What is it about health care that makes people think it should be provided for long term by the government? As a temporary safety net such as unemployment, fine. But other than that, people need to get off their but and fend a bit for themselves. With no incentives to do that we are headed toward a full-blown welfare state.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[birdlike 0]

Quote

I still don't get why people think financing of health care should be provided by the government It is not the most universal of needs. I'd put food above health care as a basic need. Why aren't the communists amongst us calling for universal food? Aquisition of all food should be financed and administrated by the government. If you want to be mothered, why not take it all the way?

What is it about health care that makes people think it should be provided for long term by the government? As a temporary safety net such as unemployment, fine. But other than that, people need to get off their but and fend a bit for themselves. With no incentives to do that we are headed toward a full-blown welfare state.

These points are excellent.

I hope you are not seriously expecting honest-to-goodness rebuttals to them. Liberals do not debate from a point of strength when you bring up rational questions and challenges to the illogic of their positions.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[martin-o 0]

This is two completely separate subjects.

1: Should a well functioning state provide health care to all its citizens?

2: Which is the best way to provide health care to all?

The first question has a moral character and I truly believe the answer is yes. Question number two however is more of a practical question. Whatever system is most effective in a specific place is the best one. I have my doubts about private insurance companies since their biggest incentive is not to give people health care ... but it is not a moral question so I I'll leave it at that.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

March 7, 2006—Much of the attention on waiting for health care focuses on surgical and diagnostic imaging wait lists. New data show that, at least in some cases, waiting to see a specialist also makes up a significant proportion of the overall waiting period for care. For example, in the case of hip and knee replacement patients, nearly one-third of the time between referral to a specialist and surgery was spent waiting for an initial visit to the orthopedic surgeon

http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_07mar2006_e

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/06/25/mri-ctreport.html

[birdlike 0]

Quote

This is two completely separate subjects.

1: Should a well functioning state provide health care to all its citizens?

2: Which is the best way to provide health care to all?

The first question has a moral character and I truly believe the answer is yes.

Well, I think that your statement is kind of tautological.

It's like saying, "Should we expect that in any utopian state, all of the people's needs will be met?" and of course, the answer is "yes."

Quote

Question number two however is more of a practical question. Whatever system is most effective in a specific place is the best one.

That is a fallacious argument, which fails to take into account that many things can be made more effective or efficient at a far greater cost than society would want to bear.

Look at how we could cut down on crime if we put the National Guard on every street corner with belt-fed .50 cals and ordered all citizens to remain in their homes except to go to and from jobs, and to never come together in groups larger than two.

Effective at combating crime? You betcha. Recommendable? I dare say, um, NO.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[martin-o 0]

Quote

Well, I think that your statement is kind of tautological.

It's like saying, "Should we expect that in any utopian state, all of the people's needs will be met?" and of course, the answer is "yes."

No it's not an utopia, it's the way of almost all of the industrialized world.

Quote

That is a fallacious argument, which fails to take into account that many things can be made more effective or efficient at a far greater cost than society would want to bear.

Look at how we could cut down on crime if we put the National Guard on every street corner with belt-fed .50 cals and ordered all citizens to remain in their homes except to go to and from jobs, and to never come together in groups larger than two.

Effective at combating crime? You betcha. Recommendable? I dare say, um, NO.

Now you are just trying to misunderstand me. I'm just trying to say that the way a state provide health care for all should be done in whatever way fits that state/culture best. This question don't have the same moral implication.

/Martin

[birdlike 0]

Quote

No it's not an utopia, it's the way of almost all of the industrialized world.

If it's so great, why do Canadians come to the U.S.?
Why are British teeth so fugly?

Quote

Quote

That is a fallacious argument, which fails to take into account that many things can be made more effective or efficient at a far greater cost than society would want to bear.

Look at how we could cut down on crime if we put the National Guard on every street corner with belt-fed .50 cals and ordered all citizens to remain in their homes except to go to and from jobs, and to never come together in groups larger than two.

Effective at combating crime? You betcha. Recommendable? I dare say, um, NO.

Now you are just trying to misunderstand me. I'm just trying to say that the way a state provide health care for all should be done in whatever way fits that state/culture best. This question don't have the same moral implication.

/Martin

No, I don't do that. I may get argumentative; sometimes you may not see the way I am opting to illustrate my point. But one thing I do not do is just nay-say to be a dick, or a thorn in people's sides. Believe it or not, my aim here is to discuss things, and like in the scientific method, peel away the bullshit so we can get to true understanding. Sometimes I make sport of it, but I never act in deliberate bad faith or deliberately "misunderstand" someone to bolster what I have been shown is a fallacy in my own argument. I would sooner concede, "I was wrong; you were right" (and have) than just be a bullshitter for the hell of it.

In this case, I was using that example because I took you to mean that whatever is necessary to deliver this vaunted "universal care" is what should be done. If that was not your meaning, fine.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[martin-o 0]

Quote

If it's so great, why do Canadians come to the U.S.? Why are British teeth so fugly?

cheap dollars and bad genes ... but I smell clichés here.

[birdlike 0]

One of the BEST Simpsons episodes ever... Lisa needed braces. The sadistic dentist/orthodontist (with a wicked German-type accent) tries to persuade Ralph Wiggum to brush his teeth more often... so he forces him to look at "a picture book."

"The Big Book of British Smiles"

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[lawrocket 3]

The US "needs" universal care? You know, my 4 year old son also says he "needs" things. Like, "I NEED a cookie." No, Conor. You "want" a cookie.

15 percent of Americans have no health insurance. How many skydivers have no health insurance? You know, the folks who can afford to drop a grand a month on jumps and equipment, but cannot afford health insurance? They are among this group who face debilitating costs from that tib/fib, thus proving the need for commie care.

By the way, the rest of the world is not "right," nor is the rest of the world "wrong." The rest of the world can do what it wants. The want to do socialized health care? Let em. They want to pass a 35 hour work week? By all means, be my guest! They want to arrange health care professional vacations for August? Sweet!

Here in the good ole U.S. of A., we will allow people to work 80 hours per week, if they wish.

My wife is hotter than your wife.