NationStates Jolt Archive

I live in the United States, and am very involved in the issue of reforming our mostly private health care system. My question is for the many people on this forum who live in countries with a single payer system: are you satisfied with it? Any major complaints? Any major accolades (outside of the fact that everyone is entitled to coverage)? I'd like to know how you feel.

I've never had any real problems, but I've only ever been to a hospital for major things twice I believe, but even so it was fine as far I can remember, as for local GP appointments, they are fine. I have never had problems enough with the national system that I wanted to pay for it at a private provider, it would have to be pretty bad for me to part with my money.

As for national healthcare generally, I think the right of every common person to have good health trumps the pseudo-intellectual elitist liberal dream of not being taxed... thank you very much.

One of the biggest complaints brought against public health care systems vs private health care systems is that you have to wait longer for the public system. This may be true in some cases but you have to consider numbers. A public system deals with everyone so everyone is potentially on the list. The private system deals with those who can afford it so shortens that list dramatically.

In regards my own experience of public health care? Very good. Luckily I haven't had to use it too often but when I have it's been fast and efficient. The problem is that (in the UK at least) they've introduced targets for everything and you can't operate a health care system as efficiently if it's trying to hit targets.

One of the biggest complaints brought against public health care systems vs private health care systems is that you have to wait longer for the public system. This may be true in some cases but you have to consider numbers. A public system deals with everyone so everyone is potentially on the list. The private system deals with those who can afford it so shortens that list dramatically.

In regards my own experience of public health care? Very good. Luckily I haven't had to use it too often but when I have it's been fast and efficient. The problem is that (in the UK at least) they've introduced targets for everything and you can't operate a health care system as efficiently if it's trying to hit targets.

Right. Besides, emergency cases are no more delayed than they are in our own system anyway, so while the wait is a LITTLE ANNOYING AT TIMES it's a HELL of a lot better than private healthcare. I'll take some extra waiting time and slightly higher taxes over insurance any day.

There are two types of universal health care systems you can have, and I have lived in countries with both. The NHS model, which is all health care is provided and paid for by tax-payers money. This unfortunately does lead to longer waiting times for non-urgent operations (though I have had very good service when I did get access) and far too much beaurocracy but nothing to pay upfront and a more accessible to everyone, including the poorest sections of society.

The second model which is seen across most of europe is a government-supported, run and (and compulsory) insurance policy. The actual healthcare service is privately provided (but, generally, by non-profit organisations), but paid for by the national insurance, often with an element paid up-front which is often partly or wholly reimbursed (the exact procedure varies). This will usually result in a more efficient service but with a greater financial burden (though income-related and a fraction of that from private) to the user, which means it doesn't always reach the most disadvantaged areas of society.

Which is better? I've had good service from both. Longer waiting times from the NHS, but I ended paying more to access it in the insurance model (but not much more). I think the issue with the NHS isn't the model, so much as how it's run. It does need to be sorted. Both however are better than private medical services.

Well, shucks, with all the religion threads, I thought it said "single PRAYER healthcare systems" :P

Well, shucks, with all the religion threads, I thought it said "single PRAYER healthcare systems" :P

So did I......

Well, shucks, with all the religion threads, I thought it said "single PRAYER healthcare systems" :P

I read "Single Player". I think I've been playing too many games lately.

I almost forgot! ++

In regards my own experience of public health care? Very good. Luckily I haven't had to use it too often but when I have it's been fast and efficient. The problem is that (in the UK at least) they've introduced targets for everything and you can't operate a health care system as efficiently if it's trying to hit targets.
Nevertheless, the NHS isn't the kind of thing anyone would ever think of introducing in the USA. We have socialised medicine, where hospitals are nationalised and all medical staff paid for by the state, whereby most American proposals seem to be grounded in the single payer model.

Well, shucks, with all the religion threads, I thought it said "single PRAYER healthcare systems" :P

I bet some religious folks would prefer that. :p Healing through the power of god, just like the good old days before all this heathen medicine! Seriously, I read it the same way. Yay for being semi-awake and caffeine deprived!

The NHS model is more effective than a compulsory insurance system. The biggest problem is as others have already said, the setting of targets. The NSH has stopped being a part of our national infrastructure and a way of looking after our people, to being a political football. The de-politicisation of the NHS is a major issue.

It needs to be treated like the coastguard, or the highways, were funding comes from the state and the state sets the highest level of policy, but the actual management and technicalities are entrusted to those with knowledge of the technical issues.

The NHS model is more effective than a compulsory insurance system. The biggest problem is as others have already said, the setting of targets. The NSH has stopped being a part of our national infrastructure and a way of looking after our people, to being a political football. The de-politicisation of the NHS is a major issue.

It needs to be treated like the coastguard, or the highways, were funding comes from the state and the state sets the highest level of policy, but the actual management and technicalities are entrusted to those with knowledge of the technical issues.
Day to day issues should be run independently of government, but government must remain accountable for general policy.

I've never had a problem with the NHS not even with the supposed waiting times (which I don't think anyone I know has encountered), the fact that it saves money and will have a surplus this year is also nice

then again it would be nice to have an opposition party I can trust not to tear it to pieces at the first chance

As for national healthcare generally, I think the right of every common person to have good health trumps the pseudo-intellectual elitist liberal dream of not being taxed... thank you very much.

what he said

I have something called group health, and so far it has worked fine.

The NHS model is more effective than a compulsory insurance system. The biggest problem is as others have already said, the setting of targets. The NSH has stopped being a part of our national infrastructure and a way of looking after our people, to being a political football. The de-politicisation of the NHS is a major issue.

It needs to be treated like the coastguard, or the highways, were funding comes from the state and the state sets the highest level of policy, but the actual management and technicalities are entrusted to those with knowledge of the technical issues.

While targets is a problem, the biggest one is the short term nature of them. There's nothing inherently wrong with saying 'we want to reduce waiting lists by this much by that time'. What's wrong is that the way the NHS is run is changed so regularly with different initiatives/targets/etc being put up in short amounts of time that by the time people get used to one system it's being changed to another one.

There are inefficiencies in the NHS, but the people in it mainly need to be allowed to work out the kinks in a system rather than have the system constantly changing.

i have "used" the NHS twice for proper, big things, and continue to use it on an ongoing basis.

first of all i was involved in a bad car crash when i was 11. the NHS was excellent, as were the Police and Fire Brigade for cutting us out of the car. we spent a week in hospital and the service was not left wanting at all. my only gripe, in fact, was that i was in the Children's Ward and i felt i should have been on a 'grown up' ward :P

the second big time i used the NHS was when i had an abscess which needed surgery to drain and disinfect. again, no problems. in fact no waiting at all - i was seen same day as my doctor's appointment, put into a ward with a bed, treated well, had to be nil-by-mouth for a day and then had the surgery. went home the day after and was cared for with follow-up appointments at my local doctor's surgery. never had to pay a penny or sign anything (no bureaucracy)


i also continue to use the NHS in getting heavily subsidised prices for the medication i'm on. it costs me £12 ($25) for a 6 month supply of Citalopram.
my parents will soon be getting their meds free as they'll be over 60 in a little while.

i love being able to go to the doctors' without worry and without considering whether i can afford it. and i've never had problems with waiting lists, etc.


healthcare to me is verging on a right.
in my view the NHS is fucking brilliant and i wouldn't have anything else.

I've never had a problem with the NHS not even with the supposed waiting times (which I don't think anyone I know has encountered), the fact that it saves money and will have a surplus this year is also nice

then again it would be nice to have an opposition party I can trust not to tear it to pieces at the first chance



what he said

You mean the Tories? Why would Dave tear up the NHS? He's a namby-pamby puppet of the Sun!

You mean the Tories? Why would Dave tear up the NHS? He's a namby-pamby puppet of the Sun!

you don't honestly expect me to trust a Tory do you?!

I've found the Canadian system of Healthcare to be great and frankly I wouldn't ever live in a country without Universal Healthcare, but I've been hearing that we seem to have a shortage of doctors since many of them earn a degree here then go to the US to make more money at a private hospital...

I've been hearing that we seem to have a shortage of doctors since many of them earn a degree here then go to the US to make more money at a private hospital...

I've never really believed this, it just seems like something a guy who spent years in med school accumulating horrendous debt so they can treat sick people wouldn't do

I've had more than my fair share of the Canadian Healthcare system. I find it adequate at best.

Maybe in certain areas the competence is better, but in suburban and other areas I've found it horrendous.

I'm not talking just about long waits for treatments and procedures, but just plain old incompetence.

I can give more details later, but suffice to say there are substantial problems - or else there wouldnt be a 'problem' in Canada with 'the wealthy' looking for other alternatives.

Also - you should be asking not just consumers, but also providors. You will get a much more insightful answer from a nurse than you would a patient.

I've never really believed this, it just seems like something a guy who spent years in med school accumulating horrendous debt so they can treat sick people wouldn't do

I know that my state is actively helping our hospitals recruit doctors from as far away as Montréal, due to a shortage of medical professionals here. My sister was in a hospital in Detroit recently and she remarked to me that most of the nurses were Canadian.

Heh, I live in the US, and I've never had any problem with doctors. They've all been competent, and waiting times are short, and service is great. I have no complaints.

I know that my state is actively helping our hospitals recruit doctors from as far away as Montréal, due to a shortage of medical professionals here. My sister was in a hospital in Detroit recently and she remarked to me that most of the nurses were Canadian.

oh well there goes some faith in humanity

Heh, I live in the US, and I've never had any problem with doctors. They've all been competent, and waiting times are short, and service is great. I have no complaints.

apart from paying?

apart from paying?

The co-pays aren't/weren't that much. Usually 10-30 bucks. Now, I haven't been a doctor (other than a dentist), for a few years, so I don't know if copays have increased or not (I'll have to ask my mom). I don't plan on seeing a doctor for a few years. I'm healthy, why should I waste the doctors time when he could be helping a sick person?

I live in the United States, and am very involved in the issue of reforming our mostly private health care system. My question is for the many people on this forum who live in countries with a single payer system: are you satisfied with it? Any major complaints? Any major accolades (outside of the fact that everyone is entitled to coverage)? I'd like to know how you feel.

Why don't you put it on your Christmas list, commie (http://67.15.182.229/NRC.html)

The co-pays aren't/weren't that much. Usually 10-30 bucks. Now, I haven't been a doctor (other than a dentist), for a few years, so I don't know if copays have increased or not (I'll have to ask my mom). I don't plan on seeing a doctor for a few years. I'm healthy, why should I waste the doctors time when he could be helping a sick person?

The problem isn't the copays, it's getting the healthcare insurance providers to pay the rest of the deductibles that's the problem.

Recently I just went to see my doctor for a fairly routine visit, and was prescribed medication for a general condition. It was simple, generic prescribed medication that a lot of people take.

Now my insurance is refusing to pay for the doctor visit and the prescription (which has already been processed, which means I now have no other recourse BUT to pay it). They claim that because of the type of medication, I must have diabetes, and because I never indicated in my list of "pre-diagnosed conditions", I was not covered for diabetes.

So, basically my HEALTHCARE INSURANCE PROVIDER is telling me that because I had a pre-existing condition concerning health, they were not going to cover me. And if I had told them about my condition, they would have rejected me as a carrier. So, in other words, I wasn't healthy enough to qualify for their health insurance. Go figure.

However, I do not have diabetes, nor have I ever. So when I informed my health care provider of this, they told me that they were going to send me a medical form to fill out in order to prove that I do not have diabetes (whatever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?). So now, I've been waiting for over two months for them to mail me this mysterious medical form, which they said such delays are normal. So now my doctor's office is currently showing that I am deliquent on payment for my previous visit.


Land of the Free indeed.

apart from paying?

I've never considered paying for my consumption to be a down-side.

I've never considered paying for my consumption to be a down-side.

Haha, yep. You still have to pay for health-care in other countries- in the form of taxes. Yuck.

I'd rather have choice to spend my money on health care, or, well, anything else for that matter. When I'm not sick, I don't want to pay for health care.

I've never considered paying for my consumption to be a down-side.

In civilised countries, we don't treat health issues as market issues, so concepts such as consumption do not apply in the same way. For the users of the system, it doesn't really apply at all.

The problem isn't the copays, it's getting the healthcare insurance providers to pay the rest of the deductibles that's the problem.

Recently I just went to see my doctor for a fairly routine visit, and was prescribed medication for a general condition. It was simple, generic prescribed medication that a lot of people take.

Now my insurance is refusing to pay for the doctor visit and the prescription (which has already been processed, which means I now have no other recourse BUT to pay it). They claim that because of the type of medication, I must have diabetes, and because I never indicated in my list of "pre-diagnosed conditions", I was not covered for diabetes.

So, basically my HEALTHCARE INSURANCE PROVIDER is telling me that because I had a pre-existing condition concerning health, they were not going to cover me. And if I had told them about my condition, they would have rejected me as a carrier. So, in other words, I wasn't healthy enough to qualify for their health insurance. Go figure.

However, I do not have diabetes, nor have I ever. So when I informed my health care provider of this, they told me that they were going to send me a medical form to fill out in order to prove that I do not have diabetes (whatever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?). So now, I've been waiting for over two months for them to mail me this mysterious medical form, which they said such delays are normal. So now my doctor's office is currently showing that I am deliquent on payment for my previous visit.


Land of the Free indeed.


hmmm - they find evidence that you may not have been honest about your health. Rather than cancel your coverage,arrest you or send a hit squad - they ask for clarifiacation and give you the opportunity to present evidence that you indeed were honest when you completed your request for coverage.

Yes - that is surely evidence that the whole system is fatally flawed and must be scrapped. :headbang:

Free health care is a human right, nuff said.

hmmm - they find evidence that you may not have been honest about your health. Rather than cancel your coverage,arrest you or send a hit squad - they ask for clarifiacation and give you the opportunity to present evidence that you indeed were honest when you completed your request for coverage.

Yes - that is surely evidence that the whole system is fatally flawed and must be scrapped. :headbang:

There is no evidence that I have diabetes of any kind. None. My doctor was appalled when he found out that they came to that conclusion. It's nothing more than a mere pathetic attempt on their part to not cover my healthcare that I PAY them for on a monthly basis.

Plus there's plenty of other scenarios where the healthcare providers down right refuse to cover people's healthcare because they consider the life-saving medication as "experimental." And a lot of people are DENIED healthcare because of their pre-existing conditions. I mean, really? You're going to deny someone health care because they're not healthy enough? Isn't that the whole concept of healthcare insurance? To provide those in need the healthcare they require? Oh no, wait, it's not, is it? It's about making a profit at the expense of people's health and lives.

Personally, I'd rather not have my personal health in the hands of a private PROFIT MAKING company who increases profit by minimizing actual health care assistance. It seems like a completely contradictory idea to me.

I've never had any real problems, but I've only ever been to a hospital for major things twice I believe, but even so it was fine as far I can remember, as for local GP appointments, they are fine. I have never had problems enough with the national system that I wanted to pay for it at a private provider, it would have to be pretty bad for me to part with my money.

As for national healthcare generally, I think the right of every common person to have good health trumps the pseudo-intellectual elitist liberal dream of not being taxed... thank you very much.

Wouldn't that be conservative?

I think the government should just pay for it, but you can pick where you go. Which many Americans don't seem to get. "I want to choose my own doctor! The quality will go down because I'm not choosing." No, you're a fooking idiot. You do choose, but don't pay for it. How anyone can not want that is beyond me.

... As for national healthcare generally, I think the right of every common person to have good health trumps the pseudo-intellectual elitist liberal dream of not being taxed... thank you very much.

Can't I have both? :(

Meh, the NHS as I've seen it:

Pros:
Staff treat you like a human, not a statistic on a graph
Comprehensive
Free! (Well, technically a con, but eh...)
My local clinic is still around (I don't live in a city)

Cons:
Long waiting times
Many clinics are closing
Inefficient use of money
Overpaid top staff

The times I've had to use the NHS, I've been thankful for it, and I don't believe in scrapping our welfare state (just massively reducing it) anyway. However, I've not lived ina country with a private healthcare system, so I don't have another experience.

For a state run hospital its good. The problem is, the rest of healthcare has to compete with a state trust, so becomes really expensive...

Free health care is a human right, nuff said.

If its my human right for healthcare, then its also my human right not to have my things forcibly taken from me by an authority I didn't choose to rule over me. State priveleges are not rights, they are not things that should or can be granted to every single human being. They are privileges, and should remain so.

Why don't you put it on your Christmas list, commie (http://67.15.182.229/NRC.html)

Oh, for cryin' out loud!:rolleyes::headbang:

In BC, Canada, I've had no real problems with healthcare. I've had to wait a hell of a long time to get prescriptions, but that is about it. I've heard that allot of hospitals have become significantly less sanitary since the government now enforces privatized janitorial services (some are being compared to average Mexican hospitals). My local hospital doesn't seem much worse, but meh.

If its my human right for healthcare, then its also my human right not to have my things forcibly taken from me by an authority I didn't choose to rule over me. State priveleges are not rights, they are not things that should or can be granted to every single human being. They are privileges, and should remain so.
Sorry, the authority of the state trumps all individual rights, they will and do take away your property through taxation and if you resist then you will be jailed, ever tried to haggle with a store owner to detract the tax from an item? Individual rights are a liberal fantasy, the only constant is collective authority.

Oh, for cryin' out loud!:rolleyes::headbang:

I won’t allow you to plow the virgin field of her mind and plant your socialist seed in her innocent prairie!

The thing that we have to realize when we talk about the American healthcare system is not that it's actually a private system. Rather, it's the hybrid bastard-child of the Johnsonian Great Society programs, in which inducements were provided to employers in order to get them to provide their employees with health insurance. It's a bizarre, ass-backward system, designed for a different era, and executed with very poor mechanics. In effect, it is a government healthcare program, just administered in the most ass-backward manner imaginable.

Truthfully, I'd rather have a single-payer insurance system, rather than what we've got now. At least then the bureaucratic nightmare, and the internal contradictions of our current system would be resolved.

Sorry, the authority of the state trumps all individual rights, they will and do take away your property through taxation and if you resist then you will be jailed, ever tried to haggle with a store owner to detract the tax from an item? Individual rights are a liberal fantasy, the only constant is collective authority.

BS.

The state can take its 'authority' and shove it up its ass.

Free health care is a human right, nuff said.

Oh really? Who says? Where's that written?

And 'free' heal care isn't free. It is payed for through your taxes, and the taxes of everyone else in the country. Its freeloading off the backs of everyone else.

BS.

The state can take its 'authority' and shove it up its ass.
You're talking to a brick wall.

In the magical fairy land of AP/EA, there's only two ways to deal with those who hold dissenting opinions: Ignore them if you're not in power, or shoot them (under some pathetic justification that it's in defense of the revolution, or whatever) if you are.

it's the hybrid bastard-child of the Johnsonian Great Society programs, in which inducements were provided to employers in order to get them to provide their employees with health insurance. .

ummm. nooo. Your history is quote incorrect. During the 2nd workd war with stict price and wage controls extra benefits were onle of the few ways that employers could attract employees. Later unions discovered that benefits are not taxable - so often instead of additional pay they negotiated for additional benefits. The federal government never provided inducements to employers to provide these benefits. They still don't.

There is no evidence that I have diabetes of any kind. None.
They claim that because of the type of medication, I must have diabetes,

Main Entry: con·sis·ten·cy
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsis-tən(t)-sē\
Function: noun: agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another or a whole : correspondence; specifically : ability to be asserted together without contradiction.



... a lot of people are DENIED healthcare because of their pre-existing conditions. I mean, really? You're going to deny someone health care because they're not healthy enough? Isn't that the whole concept of healthcare insurance? To provide those in need the healthcare they require?

umm, no. You are mistaken. Health insurance does not deny health care - only privders can do that. health care can only deny coverage - and even then only before insurance is extended. Once in effect they must pay for treatment within the pre-determined circumstances of the policy.

Insurance is NOT about providing a free ride. Insurance is about spreading the cost of a substantial risk between people of similar risk. If someone is of higher risk then they would have a disproportionate benefit compared to the others - so they either get placed among a pool of similarly higher risk people who have higher expenses to share or they get declined.

With health insurance - once you are covered you cannot be denied coverage even if your health changes. Trouble is - many people never want coverage until it is too late - ie- they don't want to share in the costs until after they already they have costs to share... It would be similar to looking for car insurance after your crash. Pretty stupid - eh?

So far as experemental goes - give me a break. Maybe you want them to pay for witch doctors and faith healers too?



Oh no, wait, it's not, is it? It's about making a profit at the expense of people's health and lives.

Personally, I'd rather not have my personal health in the hands of a private PROFIT MAKING company who increases profit by minimizing actual health care assistance. It seems like a completely contradictory idea to me.

LOL. That argument is pretty tired. Is that the best you can come up with? "profit is baaaad - profit eeez eeevil! (at least when other people get it -my profit is always deserved and justified!) I only want to be served by slaves who work for food and altruistic good vibes! Everything would be better without eebil profits! Just imagine how much more magnificent a bottle of Dom would be if we removed all profit and it was provided for free by the state along with all other wines!"

Barf.


.

In civilised countries, we don't treat health issues as market issues, so concepts such as consumption do not apply in the same way. For the users of the system, it doesn't really apply at all.

Really - so nobody provides healthcare in your 'civilized' countries? You see - in the real world everything has to be paid for - ever since slavery was abolished.

I'd rather have choice to spend my money on health care, or, well, anything else for that matter. When I'm not sick, I don't want to pay for health care.

I suppose you only want to pay for car repairs after you've been in an accident also... so therefore you don't have car insurance either, right?

Free health care is a human right, nuff said.

So is free lawn care, free haircuts and free pony rides!

BS.

The state can take its 'authority' and shove it up its ass.

Is that what you write on yout 1040 in lieu of a check?

You're talking to a brick wall.

In the magical fairy land of AP/EA, .....

Alabama Poultry and Egg Association?

http://www.alabamapoultry.org/history.html

ummm. nooo. Your history is quote incorrect. During the 2nd workd war with stict price and wage controls extra benefits were onle of the few ways that employers could attract employees. Later unions discovered that benefits are not taxable - so often instead of additional pay they negotiated for additional benefits. The federal government never provided inducements to employers to provide these benefits. They still don't.

Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, anyone?

Furthermore, it remains that tax breaks are provided to employers to provide their employees with healthcare programs.

I'd rather have choice to spend my money on health care, or, well, anything else for that matter. When I'm not sick, I don't want to pay for health care.
*cough*insurance?*cough*

Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, anyone?

Furthermore, it remains that tax breaks are provided to employers to provide their employees with healthcare programs.


The act you mention essentially standardized and created HMO insurance. (IMHO one of the worst things to ever come along in the medical insurance field) It required employers to offer it alongside indeminty insurance. Employers get no tax or other federal benefit for offering HMO or indemnity insurance beyond any normal labor expenses. The 1973 act did not change that and it is no different today.

strike two...

Really - so nobody provides healthcare in your 'civilized' countries? You see - in the real world everything has to be paid for - ever since slavery was abolished.

The state provides for it. By removing the medical system from the market, health is not subject to vagaries such as supply and demand. This has several benefits over a private system. One is that the end user does not have to worry about financial considerations when dealing with such important issues as the health of our children. Another is that it costs substantially less.

The state provides for it. By removing the medical system from the market, health is not subject to vagaries such as supply and demand. This has several benefits over a private system. One is that the end user does not have to worry about financial considerations when dealing with such important issues as the health of our children. Another is that it costs substantially less.

LOL - they pay for it with magic fairy gold? And it costs substantially less?? Well - I suppose you DO get what you pay for afterall!

And - give me a fucking break. Appeal for the poor helpless children? That's a joke, right? Because I don't see long lines of neglected children in the US waiting for their healthcare.... Dieing from pnemonia on streetcorners for lack of insurance.

Funny thing - their parents pay for their health care and insurance (you know - like your nanny state) - and when parents are unable to pay there are plenty of children's hospitals providing free service. Even beyond that the state does cover when all else fails. You see - most in America feel that the first choice in any matter should be personal responsibility - not dependance on the state.

Sorry - the appeal for the poor defenseless children is a bogus argument and I will only laugh at you for being reduced to it.

LOL - they pay for it with magic fairy gold? And it costs substantially less?? Well - I suppose you DO get what you pay for afterall!

The state pays for it with money. And it does cost substantially less, and is better than or equal to the US system in terms of most aspects of health care, while the US private system is marginally better in very few aspects, and substantially more expensive.

And - give me a fucking break. Appeal for the poor helpless children? That's a joke, right? Because I don't see long lines of neglected children in the US waiting for their healthcare.... Dieing from pnemonia on streetcorners for lack of insurance.

Funny thing - their parents pay for their health care and insurance (you know - like your nanny state) - and when parents are unable to pay there are plenty of children's hospitals providing free service. Even beyond that the state does cover when all else fails. You see - most in America feel that the first choice in any matter should be personal responsibility - not dependance on the state.

Sorry - the appeal for the poor defenseless children is a bogus argument and I will only laugh at you for being reduced to it.[/QUOTE]

I was using the health of children as an example. The same logic applies to the health of any other person in the community. It has nothing to do with my argument.

The state provides for it. By removing the medical system from the market, health is not subject to vagaries such as supply and demand.

You still have to pay doctors well enough to make sure they don't leave there posistions. You still have to pay people well enough so they want to go to school and become doctors. You still have to pay drug companies enough so they can hire top scientists.

You can't escape the free market, only delay it for awhile.

.
Sorry - the appeal for the poor defenseless children is a bogus argument and I will only laugh at you for being reduced to it.

Only to Satan.

I'm not for socialized medicine, but there should be a safety net for poor children.

The state pays for it with money. And it does cost substantially less, and is better than or equal to the US system in terms of most aspects of health care, while the US private system is marginally better in very few aspects, and substantially more expensive.



that it is the sam or not is subjective my friend - very subjective but at least you acknowledge that there is money involved at some point. And just where do you think it comes from? (hint - not faeries...)

Only to Satan.

I'm not for socialized medicine, but there should be a safety net for poor children.

Are you thick? Did I not point out in the post you quoted that there IS ALREADY?!?!?!

In New Zealand we've been trying for years to implement the British system, which is probably the most successful in the world. However our system is quite underfunded and we have huge shortages in every area (staff wise), because one, training isn't free, and even though the NZ courses are amongst the best in the world, they are very long, and every medical graduate pretty much just runs off to Australia where the money is better.
No system is perfect and different systems work better for different countries, but a government has to back up a good universal healthcare system with other public services, such as free tertiary education.
:D:D:D

You still have to pay doctors well enough to make sure they don't leave there posistions. You still have to pay people well enough so they want to go to school and become doctors. You still have to pay drug companies enough so they can hire top scientists.

You can't escape the free market, only delay it for awhile.

And somehow, we manage to do that without having to privatise our healthcare system. I assume that this is because the public healthcare system works.

that it is the sam or not is subjective my friend - very subjective but at least you acknowledge that there is money involved at some point. And just where do you think it comes from? (hint - not faeries...)

Actually, the comparisons I made between the US system and public healthcare systems is a matter of fact, not subjective opinion. Look up any one of the many international comparisons available on the internet.

And it is obvious that the money the state spends is raised through taxes. It is still substantially cheaper than the US model.

Are you thick?

Only in the pants.


Did I not point out in the post you quoted that there IS ALREADY?!?!?!

Most of those current plans are a joke and funded poorly.

Actually, the comparisons I made between the US system and public healthcare systems is a matter of fact, not subjective opinion. Look up any one of the many international comparisons available on the internet.

And it is obvious that the money the state spends is raised through taxes. It is still substantially cheaper than the US model.

take a close look at the international comparisons and tell me exactly how they define 'quality'. They are very subjective.

Most of those current plans are a joke and funded poorly.

Really? Prove that they are funded poorly. I'll let you off the hook on prooving that they are humorous but you can for bonus points if you want.