NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support my proposal Healthcare for All. There are millions of people living in this world with either inadequate healthcare or none at all. This is a disgrace. Free healthcare must be available to everyone regardless of how well off they are. This proposal will require every country to set up a free health service for everyone. Poorer countries that cannot afford to do so will be given financial help from richer countries. There is plenty of money in the world and that will not be a problem. This proposal will greatly improve the lives of poorer people around the world who are in desperate need of healthcare and suffer unnecessarily from totally preventable illnesses.

There's no such thing as free healthcare. Someone has to pay for it.

You're thinking of 'stolen' healthcare. There's already a bill for this. Please refer to "The Right to Enslave" bill which has been proposed.

Hmm... The Gearheads, being a logical and practical bunch, believe that every human being who has pressing medical concerns and/or the need for standard preventative measures (vaccines, etc) should recieve care. On the other hand, if healthcare were completely subsidized by the government and no one had to pay for any service, none of the care would be particularly good, and we would never make real advances in medical research. For this reason, we believe that those who can pay, should. Those who have some means, but not enough to pay their bills immediately, can be given an installment payment plan at a low interest rate. Government subsidies will be available to those who truly can't afford their services. We do not want to see a large number of impoverished children and senior citizens dying from the flu or preventable diseases. We also don't want to give millionaires a free ride.

I still think the UN should be more focused on preventing wars rather than eliminating the incentive to become a doctor.

A state owned health service is far better than a privately owned service as while the state is trying to provide the best possible service all a private company is interested in is profit. In reply to Euphoric Misanthropia, a good doctor wants to help people and save their lives. Someone who only wants money should not become a doctor in the first place.

A state owned health service is far better than a privately owned service as while the state is trying to provide the best possible service all a private company is interested in is profit. In reply to Euphoric Misanthropia, a good doctor wants to help people and save their lives. Someone who only wants money should not become a doctor in the first place.

A state owned health service is far better than a privately owned service as while the state is trying to provide the best possible service all a private company is interested in is profit. In reply to Euphoric Misanthropia, a good doctor wants to help people and save their lives. Someone who only wants money should not become a doctor in the first place.

A state owned health service is far better than a privately owned service as while the state is trying to provide the best possible service all a private company is interested in is profit. In reply to Euphoric Misanthropia, a good doctor wants to help people and save their lives. Someone who only wants money should not become a doctor in the first place.

But countries wtih private healthcare such as the US have BETTER doctors and BETTER technology than comparable (developed) countries with state healthcare systems. We have some of the highest cancer survival rates of the industrialized world.

But countries wtih private healthcare such as the US have BETTER doctors and BETTER technology than comparable (developed) countries with state healthcare systems. We have some of the highest cancer survival rates of the industrialized world.

It's may be better in absolute, but in average the US medical system is one of the poorest of all developed nations.

But countries wtih private healthcare such as the US have BETTER doctors and BETTER technology than comparable (developed) countries with state healthcare systems. We have some of the highest cancer survival rates of the industrialized world.

It's may be better in absolute, but in average the US medical system is one of the poorest of all developed nations.

What do you mean "on average"?

Of course the POOREST American will have worse healthcare than hte POOREST Swede... our population is like 30x Sweden's. But the average American (who has health insurance through work, most workers do) probably gets better healthcare than the average Swede.

I would suggest that the effectiveness of a health care system will reflect on the average life expectancy of a developed nation quite clearly, though obviously certain exogenous factors with alert this slightly.

The US ranks 33rd overall for expected life span.

The US ranks 34th for infant mortality rates.

Clearly a nation with these kinds of rankings cannot be considered a leader in the field of health care.

I would suggest that the effectiveness of a health care system will reflect on the average life expectancy of a developed nation quite clearly, though obviously certain exogenous factors with alert this slightly.

The US ranks 33rd overall for expected life span.

The US ranks 34th for infant mortality rates.

Clearly a nation with these kinds of rankings cannot be considered a leader in the field of health care.

Yet we are the ones leading the world into biotechnology (Bush's ideas not withstanding). Our top clinics (Mayo, Massachusettes General, Johns Hopkins) have the highest cancer survival rates in the world, etc.

The reason our infant mortality is high is because we have so many teenage and drug-addict pregnancies.

The reason our life expectancy is relatively low is because we have so many people who are too lazy to get any exersize.

This has nothing to do with a healthsystem. Our high rates of obesity and diabetes plus our large population put our health system under much greater pressure than other one in the world.

A state owned health service is far better than a privately owned service as while the state is trying to provide the best possible service all a private company is interested in is profit. In reply to Euphoric Misanthropia, a good doctor wants to help people and save their lives. Someone who only wants money should not become a doctor in the first place.

But countries wtih private healthcare such as the US have BETTER doctors and BETTER technology than comparable (developed) countries with state healthcare systems. We have some of the highest cancer survival rates of the industrialized world.

Better doctors and better technology does NOT mean better healthcare. Most US doctors are controlled by HMOs, which puts strict restrictions on what they can and cannot do. This seriously affects their quality of healthcare.

Also, people with no insurance in the US cannot receive healthcare, unless they want to pay exhorbitant prices for it. They cannot receive the medication they need, they cannot receive general checkups, dental care, etc. that they need because they would have to pay exhorbitant prices for it. Thus, 1,000,000s of Americans go WITHOUT healthcare.

Also, the US healthcare system is extremely prejudice. If you're overweight, you are denied healthcare. If you smoke, or do drugs, you are denied healthcare. If you have psychological problems, or health problems, you are denied healthcare. If you are elderly, you are denied healthcare. If you fall within other "risk groups" you are denied healthcare.

Socialized medicine does not do this. With socialized medicine, EVERYONE is entitled to healthcare. Take China, for example -- my RL girlfriend is Chinese. She gets much better healthcare than I do. She lives in Guangzhou. Her parents are farmers, and they've always been farmers. They also receive decent healthcare, even though they live in a remote region far from any cities. What I'm saying is that EVERYONE is entitled to FREE HEALTHCARE in China, regardless of location, income, age, etc.

France is reknowned for their excellent quality of socialized medicine. So is Sweden. Their healthcare systems are much better than the US's system.

Yeah right. I'm Chinese. My grandparents live in Shanghai. My grandmother actually had to take a plane to the US to get glaucoma surgery a few years ago because she didn't trust the Chinese doctors not to make her go blind.

ALMOST ALL American workers are covered through work.

Apparently 44 million american's have no health care... that's more people than the entire Canadaian population.

Better doctors and better technology does NOT mean better healthcare. Most US doctors are controlled by HMOs, which puts strict restrictions on what they can and cannot do. This seriously affects their quality of healthcare.

Also, people with no insurance in the US cannot receive healthcare, unless they want to pay exhorbitant prices for it. They cannot receive the medication they need, they cannot receive general checkups, dental care, etc. that they need because they would have to pay exhorbitant prices for it. Thus, 1,000,000s of Americans go WITHOUT healthcare.

Also, the US healthcare system is extremely prejudice. If you're overweight, you are denied healthcare. If you smoke, or do drugs, you are denied healthcare. If you have psychological problems, or health problems, you are denied healthcare. If you are elderly, you are denied healthcare. If you fall within other "risk groups" you are denied healthcare.

Socialized medicine does not do this. With socialized medicine, EVERYONE is entitled to healthcare. Take China, for example -- my RL girlfriend is Chinese. She gets much better healthcare than I do. She lives in Guangzhou. Her parents are farmers, and they've always been farmers. They also receive decent healthcare, even though they live in a remote region far from any cities. What I'm saying is that EVERYONE is entitled to FREE HEALTHCARE in China, regardless of location, income, age, etc.

France is reknowned for their excellent quality of socialized medicine. So is Sweden. Their healthcare systems are much better than the US's system.

All these things are either blatantly untrue or gross exaggerations of what actually happens. First, if you're poor, you most likely qualify for Medicare, our national health insurance plan that takes care of patients with almost all diseases. If you do not qualify for Medicare but cannot afford a procedure, you can often pay using a low-interest installment plan. For the most part, it is illegal for an insurance company to deny service to you on the basis of a pre-existing condition. I, personally, have asthma, chronic allergies, and migraines, and I am fully covered, despite having recently changed companies. It is true that many Americans go without health insurance, but not that they will not be able to receive medical care.

Yes, universal health care is a very good idea. But in most nations with it, some element of private health care is making in roads. What must be controlled is the level in which private companies make policies over human lives. The government (ie. the people) MUST maintain control.

As for the US...certainly you have the best facilities, but are they accessable to all? Or only to those who can afford them?

Grotia is firm on this matter. Health care must...nay, WILL be free. It is not a negotiable matter. Human lives count more than the size of a bank account.

[quote]
All these things are either blatantly untrue or gross exaggerations of what actually happens. First, if you're poor, you most likely qualify for Medicare, our national health insurance plan that takes care of patients with almost all diseases. If you do not qualify for Medicare but cannot afford a procedure, you can often pay using a low-interest installment plan. For the most part, it is illegal for an insurance company to deny service to you on the basis of a pre-existing condition. I, personally, have asthma, chronic allergies, and migraines, and I am fully covered, despite having recently changed companies. It is true that many Americans go without health insurance, but not that they will not be able to receive medical care.

You're completely out of touch. I have asthma and a heart condition and migraines. When I lost my job, and my Cobra ran out, I applied to three different companies for medical insurance, and all companies turned me down because of my "pre-existing conditions." It's common practice for medical insurance companies to turn down applicants because of pre-existing conditions.

So, I highly doubt that you were truthful on your application, if you claim that you have all those, and you weren't turned down. Or your workplace changed companies. If so, then you won't become ineligible due to pre-existing conditions.

Yeah right. I'm Chinese. My grandparents live in Shanghai. My grandmother actually had to take a plane to the US to get glaucoma surgery a few years ago because she didn't trust the Chinese doctors not to make her go blind.

ALMOST ALL American workers are covered through work.

It really depends on where you go. As I said, my gf has no problems with her doctors, nor her medical care. However, my friend in Tianjin doesn't trust her doctors at all. Until she went to a different clinic, where they were more accomodating. You can't base an entire nation's healthcare on your grandmother's experience. That's like hating all women because one girl broke your heart. Or hating all men because one guy slapped you.

As for "ALMOST ALL" -- that's bullcaca. What about migrant workers? None of them are covered. What about part-time or high school students? Very few of them are covered. What about temp workers? Not many temp agencies have medical benefits for their employees. Those examples alone render your "ALMOST ALL" assertion moot.

[quote="Grotia"]As for the US...certainly you have the best facilities, but are they accessable to all? Or only to those who can afford them?[\quote]

They're not accessible to all. They're accessible to very few.

What about the homeless person who needs medical care? They're not accessible to him. What about the inner city kid who needs medical care? They're not accessible to him. What about the person who cannot afford to pay health insurance? They're not accessible to him. Medical facilities in America are accessible to VERY FEW.

The medical system in America is controlled by HMOs and the drug companies. It's not free enterprise. It's corporate controlled. If you truly want to make healthcare and medical facilities accessible to all, then you must take the control from the corporations and place it in the hands of the government.

As I said, my gf has no problems with her doctors, nor her medical care.

Pfffft, yeah right! Like AS IF you've got a gurlfrend, d00d! Who are you trying to fool? Maybe TGM will believe you, BUT I DON'T!!11!

When I lost my job, and my Cobra ran out,

HAW HAW! COBRAS CAN'T RUN OUT BECAUSE THEY ARE SNAEKS AND DON'T HAEV LEGS U HAVE BEAN COURT OUT TELLING FIBS!!

Also, if your Cobra ran out, YOU BETTER GO AND CATCH IT!!!

Also also, have you got Snake Escape Insurance? Because you're going to need it! How about Snake Pubic Liability Insurance? That snake could bite somebody, and it'd be YOUR FAULT!

Also also also, are some people who complain about taxes saying that INSURANCE is a good thing? Because insurance is a RIP OFF MANG! I've payed for health insurance for DECADES and I've NEVER GOTTEN SICK, consequently I NEVER GOT ANY BENEFIT FROM IT!! Some lucky bastards get cancer or a heart attack or some intractable disease and get ZILLIONS in health insurance benefits like lying around in hospital eating yummy food and talking to the pretty nurses, and I'M PAYING FOR IT!!! WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR SOMEBODY ELSE'S HOSPITAL HOLIDAY BY MY HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS???/?

You're completely out of touch. I have asthma and a heart condition and migraines. When I lost my job, and my Cobra ran out, I applied to three different companies for medical insurance, and all companies turned me down because of my "pre-existing conditions." It's common practice for medical insurance companies to turn down applicants because of pre-existing conditions.

So, I highly doubt that you were truthful on your application, if you claim that you have all those, and you weren't turned down. Or your workplace changed companies. If so, then you won't become ineligible due to pre-existing conditions.

I was shocked by what you said, as I was pretty sure there was a law, so I did my resesarch. HIPPA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, protects US citizens in the case of pre-existing conditions. While insurance companies can issue exemptions to coverage based on pre-existing condtions, those cannot last for more than 12 months. Furthermore, an insurance company cannot issue rules for eligibility based on the health or medical condition of an individual. Check it out yourself: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/hipaa/hipaa1/content/more.asp. If you read the full report, the section regarding discrimination is on page 144, section 9802. While HIPAA does not ensure that you will be covered, it goes to great lengths to protect you.

You're completely out of touch. I have asthma and a heart condition and migraines. When I lost my job, and my Cobra ran out, I applied to three different companies for medical insurance, and all companies turned me down because of my "pre-existing conditions." It's common practice for medical insurance companies to turn down applicants because of pre-existing conditions.

So, I highly doubt that you were truthful on your application, if you claim that you have all those, and you weren't turned down. Or your workplace changed companies. If so, then you won't become ineligible due to pre-existing conditions.

I was shocked by what you said, as I was pretty sure there was a law, so I did my resesarch. HIPPA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, protects US citizens in the case of pre-existing conditions. While insurance companies can issue exemptions to coverage based on pre-existing condtions, those cannot last for more than 12 months. Furthermore, an insurance company cannot issue rules for eligibility based on the health or medical condition of an individual. Check it out yourself: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/hipaa/hipaa1/content/more.asp. If you read the full report, the section regarding discrimination is on page 144, section 9802. While HIPAA does not ensure that you will be covered, it goes to great lengths to protect you.

The problem with these laws is that they are practically unenforcable. Who's going to take his case and fight the insurance company for him? No lawyer will take the case because the chances of winning are slim. Insurance companies have armies of lawyers, and they can keep this court case going on for years if they want.

Not to mention the fact that they infringe on the right of insurance companies to decide to whom they will offer their service and under what conditions.

Eli has universal coverage. The other countries need to pay for their own.

Not to mention the fact that they infringe on the right of insurance companies to decide to whom they will offer their service and under what conditions.

Actually, (amerikan) insurance companies are scamming their customers. The insurance companies do all of this work to figure out how much to charge, so that they can cover any claims and make a profit. Thus, when an event happens that causes policy holders to file claims the money to pay those claims has already been paid to the insurance company by the policy holders. But then the insurance company raises your rates, saying they need the money to cover the claims. This is a bold faced lie, since the amount of money needed to cover those claims has already been worked into the price of the policy. They use the claim as a reason to raise the rates and increase their profits. So, in effect the insurance company makes money when you make a claim.

If they actually did need to raise your rates to cover the price of the claims then they are doing a horrible job of calculating the risk associated with the policies that they are selling, and therefore should not be allowed to sell insurance in the first place.

several flaws with universal health care.

First off the limiting factors keeping people from wasting the time of doctors is the cost. It is a limited resource and allowing people to come in for any sniffle or ache causes delays in people with serious problems being served.

Secondly people die every day from disease, This reduces the amount of carbon-dioxide expelled into the environment by several means:

Even in the most rural of communities people use fuel to support their life. Whether it be fossil or burning wood. each death represents a reduction in this demand on the environement. The only way I would support the universal healthcare is if there is a mandetory reduction in population for the sake of the spotted owl and the polar ice caps.

I propose that we make a mandetory reduction in popupulation of countries. This should be a decrease in population by at least 50% by the year 2053. This will reduce mans impact on the environement dramatically. It will also reduce the cost of housing for the poor and availability of food for the starving.

We didn't vote in your poll for the following reason:

We wish every nation did ensure adequate healthcare for all of their people (as we do), though such healthcare is hardly "free". But we think that, given the wide disparity of views concerning government's proper role in providing social services, this matter should be left up to the member nations.

During the recent debate over the "Bill of No Rights", we expressed both a belief that the U.N. should allow us to govern ourselves as our people wish, and a willingness to extend the same right to other nations. We'll stand by that.

A state owned health service is far better than a privately owned service as while the state is trying to provide the best possible service all a private company is interested in is profit. In reply to Euphoric Misanthropia, a good doctor wants to help people and save their lives. Someone who only wants money should not become a doctor in the first place.

But countries wtih private healthcare such as the US have BETTER doctors and BETTER technology than comparable (developed) countries with state healthcare systems. We have some of the highest cancer survival rates of the industrialized world.

Better doctors and better technology does NOT mean better healthcare. Most US doctors are controlled by HMOs, which puts strict restrictions on what they can and cannot do. This seriously affects their quality of healthcare.

Also, people with no insurance in the US cannot receive healthcare, unless they want to pay exhorbitant prices for it. They cannot receive the medication they need, they cannot receive general checkups, dental care, etc. that they need because they would have to pay exhorbitant prices for it. Thus, 1,000,000s of Americans go WITHOUT healthcare.

Also, the US healthcare system is extremely prejudice. If you're overweight, you are denied healthcare. If you smoke, or do drugs, you are denied healthcare. If you have psychological problems, or health problems, you are denied healthcare. If you are elderly, you are denied healthcare. If you fall within other "risk groups" you are denied healthcare.

Socialized medicine does not do this. With socialized medicine, EVERYONE is entitled to healthcare. Take China, for example -- my RL girlfriend is Chinese. She gets much better healthcare than I do. She lives in Guangzhou. Her parents are farmers, and they've always been farmers. They also receive decent healthcare, even though they live in a remote region far from any cities. What I'm saying is that EVERYONE is entitled to FREE HEALTHCARE in China, regardless of location, income, age, etc.

France is reknowned for their excellent quality of socialized medicine. So is Sweden. Their healthcare systems are much better than the US's system.


This is completely untrue:

Also, the US healthcare system is extremely prejudice. If you're overweight, you are denied healthcare. If you smoke, or do drugs, you are denied healthcare. If you have psychological problems, or health problems, you are denied healthcare. If you are elderly, you are denied healthcare. If you fall within other "risk groups" you are denied healthcare.

I smoke and I am (as of today) 27 pound overweight. I have health insurance. I have a co-pay of $10 per visit to the doctor. I have mental health coverage should I need it; this includes hospitalization, counseling and rehabilitation if I should ever find myself addicted to alcohol, drugs or begin to suffer from mental illness. I have dental coverage. I do not have coverage for eye care, it's not part of the package.

The elderly do have medical coverage. They can also have personal or private insurance, which is expensive, to go along with their Medicare insurance. "Risk" groups include persons with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc., but that does not mean they cannot be covered at all. They can be and are. It may cost them more money. My father falls under the "Risk" category - he had a heart attack 26 years ago and therefore pays a lot more than average for his health insurance.

You've made an error in your sweeping generalizations. True, the healthcare system in the United States needs revamping. If you have a lot of money, you can get the most expensive, but not necessarily best of, care. This is also true of the other nations you mention. There are those who fall between the cracks, but the extremely poor do receive medical care. In my opinion, cradle to grave coverage is not the way to go. Free healthcare laddled out by the government does not work well either.

One thing that can occur from Free health care is waiting lists:
You must wait till they can help you.
Maybe months from when you need it, but others are there before you and therefore are first. Its fact in some countries
But I'll admit it might be the way for all

American health care while not perfect is better in this way.
Also the prices for doctors helps pay for further development into technological areas.
Thus making more efficient and helpful technologies and medicine needed.

Extra money like this cannot be found using universal because there is no extra. Since Govt pays, no more money comes into the country through this.

While quote unquote "free" health is a nice idea, it doesn't always work out that well.

So I must decline this proposal and vote against.
Good day,
Commonwealth of BastardSword

I meant to mention before that when I changed insurance companies (or rather, when my father changed insurance companies: as a college student, I am still under my family's insurance plan) it was because his company changed insurers. On the other hand, I am about to head to graduate school, and choosing one with good medical insurance for students is important to me. I have learned that Cornell, where I plan to attend, has excellent free insurance for its students that even includes a prescription copay. They have a notice on the application that they are legally not allowed to reject you on the basis of any pre-existing conditions.

I do think that there should be free public health care for all children. While an adult can choose whether he wants to risk his life by not getting insurance, a child can't. At the very least, immunizations against childhood illnesses should be covered.

I live in Canada. I live in Alberta. Here it is mandatory for health-care coverage. $44/month just to see a doctor at a hospital. Ambulance Rides are $250 each. Prescriptions come out of my pocket. Dental work also out of my pocket. I've never needed to have any medical aid so why pay for it? The other side of the coin is, if I'm in an accident...even paying for health care, the medical bills will ruin me financially...the ultimate catch-22.

A state owned health service is far better than a privately owned service as while the state is trying to provide the best possible service all a private company is interested in is profit. In reply to Euphoric Misanthropia, a good doctor wants to help people and save their lives. Someone who only wants money should not become a doctor in the first place.

How nice and unsupported. Try again when you have some facts, rather than knee-jerk emotionalism.

How nice and unsupported. Try again when you have some facts, rather than knee-jerk emotionalism.

Actually I believe there were some studies done in Britain after the introduction of a two-tiered medical system that showed while certain facilities and segments of the population were far better off, on the whole there was a slight decline in average level of health care.

This should be obvious if a nations health care service is already fully utilized- the movement of surgeons and specialist to pay for service centers clearly leaves a gap that isn't filled in the public institutions. Compounding this is a tendency for all institutions to have more of an 'eye on the bottom line', so to speak. While it isn't clear cut, statistically nations with public health care have a better level of service: certainly when it comes to life expectancy and infant mortality rates (which are often used to guage the level of medical service).

Point of Interest- The US is 33rd over all in terms of life expectancy, and 34th in infant mortality. This seems odd to me for a nation that is clearly the world's economic superpower.

I still think the UN should be more focused on preventing wars rather than eliminating the incentive to become a doctor.

amen :o