NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you support a universal healthcare system or a more private, for profit system similar to what the US has in place?

I love your affordable medication, too.

Lol epic timewarp.

A working one, please. Hold the mayo.

What Ifreann said




Edit: A bit of time-warping (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdu7xoHU9DA) today I see

Well, I wouldn't get of the NHS, if that's what you mean.

A working one, please. Hold the mayo.

I'll admit I voted yes, though I want significant restrictions on use to limit overuse (there are people here who take their kids to a doctor weekly because they're paranoid, and it's free).

So I don't want it to be free. Let's impose a user fee you can have refunded if you have inadequate resources.

I also don't want the universal system to be mandatory. If I want to start a private clinic that charges a premium for my services, I should be able to, and patients should be permitted to pay extra for my services. They should also be permitted to buy insurance to cover those costs, should they want to.

Do you support a universal healthcare system or a more private, for profit system similar to what the US has in place?

How about a government sponsored system of health insurance ?

umm...I actually do work for an insurance company...

please don't take my job

I love my universal healthcare and my affordable medication.

I don't know, the UK and Canada have problems with their systems. the UK spends way too much, and Canada apparently does have a long waiting list at the Hospitals. While NHS may look good on Paper, in Reality, eh not so much. It just turns into another Bureaucratic system that is choked with Red Tapes and ton of Paperwork that is neither helpful nor efficient, and nor does it save money.

Then what was the fuss in the Summer of '07 when apparently your NHS overspent by billions of pounds?

How does that imply it is more costly than the US system ?

I don't know, the UK and Canada have problems with their systems. the UK spends way too much, and Canada apparently does have a long waiting list at the Hospitals. While NHS may look good on Paper, in Reality, eh not so much. It just turns into another Bureaucratic system that is choked with Red Tapes and ton of Paperwork that is neither helpful nor efficient, and nor does it save money.
We spend less as a percent of GDP than the USA.

We spend less as a percent of GDP than the USA.

Then what was the fuss in the Summer of '07 when apparently your NHS overspent by billions of pounds?

I don't know, the UK and Canada have problems with their systems. the UK spends way too much, and Canada apparently does have a long waiting list at the Hospitals.Beats the shit out of not getting admitted though.

I don't believe in giving people universal healthcare from the government. I think of it like this:

If the government forces you to share what is yours with society then it is essentially making you into a slave.

I am not entitled to the fruits of your labour and you're not entitled to what I earn either. This includes healthcare services or money for healthcare. Or money for anything really.

I am not against giving charity though.

I don't believe in giving people universal healthcare from the government. I think of it like this:

If the government forces you to share what is yours with society then it is essentially making you into a slave.

I am not entitled to the fruits of your labour and you're not entitled to what I earn either. This includes healthcare services or money for healthcare. Or money for anything really.

I am not against giving charity though.

So that's a no to tax in any form then?

No, no tax. What I earn is mine. Not anyone else's. I don't want to freeload off of you and you have no right to pay or purchase healthcare or healthcare related expenses with money I earned.

Beats the shit out of not getting admitted though.

Well in cases like this, it's Damn if you do, Damn if you don't. You can either die by not getting admitted, or die while in line. Whooo!

Well in cases like this, it's Damn if you do, Damn if you don't. You can either die by not getting admitted, or die while in line. Whooo!Well apart from the fact that people with emergencies tend to get treated as such and forgo waiting, at least those that get through don't have to pay through the nose in the off chance that they earn enough money to be admitted ;)

What if you didn't earn your money?Then you're obviously lazy.

Then what was the fuss in the Summer of '07 when apparently your NHS overspent by billions of pounds?
And that changes what?

No, no tax. What I earn is mine. Not anyone else's. I don't want to freeload off of you and you have no right to pay or purchase healthcare or healthcare related expenses with money I earned.

I assume that you never drive on public roads, then.

Well in cases like this, it's Damn if you do, Damn if you don't. You can either die by not getting admitted, or die while in line. Whooo!

Except for the fact that Canadian waiting times may well be a myth:

http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf

No, no tax. What I earn is mine. Not anyone else's. I don't want to freeload off of you and you have no right to pay or purchase healthcare or healthcare related expenses with money I earned.

What if you didn't earn your money?

I don't know, the UK and Canada have problems with their systems. the UK spends way too much, and Canada apparently does have a long waiting list at the Hospitals. While NHS may look good on Paper, in Reality, eh not so much. It just turns into another Bureaucratic system that is choked with Red Tapes and ton of Paperwork that is neither helpful nor efficient, and nor does it save money.
France and Japan have actually quite efficient universal systems. We should look to them for ideas.

I Canada people often seem to think that the only two options are the Canadian system or the US system, and neither seems to work particularly well.

If I want to start a private clinic that charges a premium for my services, I should be able to, and patients should be permitted to pay extra for my services. They should also be permitted to buy insurance to cover those costs, should they want to.
And then the entire system is subverted and the entire point of creating a universal system is undone.

Well in cases like this, it's Damn if you do, Damn if you don't. You can either die by not getting admitted, or die while in line. Whooo!
Or do both! (US system)

And then the entire system is subverted and the entire point of creating a universal system is undone.

What do you consider to be 'the entire point'?

I support universal healthcare.
Because for a country to function well it does so better when it's people are more physically healthy, thus hospitals are required. To deny this would result in expensive healthcare, thus the poorer parts of society would not be able to afford this and suffer from worsening health. To make a generalisation, the more affluent people tend to be more healthy having more money to afford a better diet, less risk of drugs, can afford to higher physicians for health experts advice etc. For the poorer parts of a society this would be unlikely to happen, thus they rely on hospitals.
It's true there are some issues with hospitals, but without them people in poor health relying on them would have greatly increased suffering.
Whether the healthcare is free or paid for is another matter that is more hotly disputed.

I don't know, the UK and Canada have problems with their systems. the UK spends way too much...
Surprisingly, a universal healthcare system is usually focused on people, rather than cash.

There may be problems with bureaucracy or budgets, and indeed we need to sort them out, but these problems are far outweighed by the massive benefits of a system like the NHS.

I am hugely comforted by the fact that anybody who is injured, no matter their social status or wealth, will get treated.

No-one is left to suffer simply because they don't have enough cash in their wallet.

And then the entire system is subverted and the entire point of creating a universal system is undone.
How's that? The system is still there, and anyone can go there and get treatement at no cost.

No one suffers from the addition of an extra level of private care. Plus, those people are now not in the queue waiting for public care, so the public system works faster.

How's that? The system is still there, and anyone can go there and get treatement at no cost.
No, they can't. Same problem that is happening in other places that let this happen, I think England specifically. The doctor's realize they can set up a private practice and go back to charging an arm and a leg to give people yearly check ups and will then remove themselves from the public system making the point of creating said system pointless.

No one suffers from the addition of an extra level of private care.
Except those people who can't afford it.

Plus, those people are now not in the queue waiting for public care, so the public system works faster.
The private system is no faster than the public system except when there arn't enough doctors or doctors are allowed to opt out of the public system and go private thus making not enough doctors.

How's that? The system is still there, and anyone can go there and get treatement at no cost.

No one suffers from the addition of an extra level of private care. Plus, those people are now not in the queue waiting for public care, so the public system works faster.

No. Wrong. having a two-tier system makes waiting lists longer. But don't take my word for it:

http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/pdf/myth17_e.pdf

...parallel private systems don’t cut public waiting lists. In fact, research evidence shows they appear to lengthen waits for health-care in public systems.

No. Wrong. having a two-tier system makes waiting lists longer. But don't take my word for it:

http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/pdf/myth17_e.pdf
Just in case it isn't obvious. Taking doctors out of the public system makes fewer doctors in the public system and thus makes it longer to get access to one.

Private comapanys are always more efficent when NOT interferred or taken over by the government. That is my opinon and it is not likly to change.Complete the following sentence:

Proof for my allegation that _______________ can be found under ____________

Private comapanys are always more efficent when NOT interferred or taken over by the government. That is my opinon and it is not likly to change.

READ my sentence.Yeah, I noticed. It sucks when people admit they're close-minded fools.

Surprisingly, a universal healthcare system is usually focused on people, rather than cash.

There may be problems with bureaucracy or budgets, and indeed we need to sort them out, but these problems are far outweighed by the massive benefits of a system like the NHS.

I am hugely comforted by the fact that anybody who is injured, no matter their social status or wealth, will get treated.

No-one is left to suffer simply because they don't have enough cash in their wallet.

Exactly. However much we may moan about the NHS in the UK, I have never gone without treatment when I've needed it, and neither have I ever been in the situation of some US posters here who have started topics along the lines of "My symptoms are X, I don't want to go to the doctor unless I have to because it's too expensive, what's your diagnosis?"

READ my sentence.

So you admit that your opinions have no basis in reality? Good to know.

Complete the following sentence:

Proof for my allegation that _______________ can be found under ____________
READ my sentence.
Private comapanys are always more efficent when NOT interferred or taken over by the government. That is my opinon and it is not likly to change.

I am not entitled to the fruits of your labour and you're not entitled to what I earn either. This includes healthcare services or money for healthcare. Or money for anything really.
Then get the fuck off the roads, out of the schools, out of the public libraries, stop using the sewage system, the water lines etc etc etc...because they were paid for ou tof the public purse, and are a result of the fruits of other people's labour.

Being a part of society means that certain resources must necessarily be pooled in order to provide for the whole. To what extent is a balancing act, but claiming no 'money for anything' is impossibly simplistic and naive.

While I feel that the American healthcare system is in need of some serious reforms, I do not support universal healthcare, at least in the common conception. Rather, I feel that a new and unique solution must be developed to respond to America's unique challenges and opportunities, things including the sheer size of the country, the amount of medical research that occurs here in the US, and our collective ridiculous obsession with our own health (quite to an extensive degree).

of course I support universal health care for I do not live in a cave nor the US

to be honest its a silly question that doesn't even get asked in my glorious land of Capitalism

Being a part of society means that certain resources must necessarily be pooled in order to provide for the whole. To what extent is a balancing act, but claiming no 'money for anything' is impossibly simplistic and naive.
Whatever commie. I don't use it so I'm not paying for it; you can pry my taxes from my cold dead hands!

No.

The U.S. simply doesn't have the resources to give equal healthcare to 300 million people and keep a surplus. We're too much in debt as it is what with bloated government programs, the war, and irresponsible spending, and things such as that.

I would support a universal healthcare program in the U.S. if it would work. It won't, though, because there's simply too many people to cover and too few resources.

Also, destroying 15% of our GDP is a bad idea for the economy.

In the future, it might work, but I think we have more pressing issues at hand.

Nhs Ftw!

Whatever commie. I don't use it so I'm not paying for it; you can pry my taxes from my cold dead hands!

So you live in a shack in the woods, no water supply, you home school, and you never access any public service or property?

Good to know.

So you live in a shack in the woods, no water supply, you home school, and you never access any public service or property?

Good to know.
I live in the woods and drive my rusting old diesel powered Ford truck down the public roads at 25 mph to collect my social security check.

No.

The U.S. simply doesn't have the resources to give equal healthcare to 300 million people and keep a surplus. We're too much in debt as it is what with bloated government programs, the war, and irresponsible spending, and things such as that.

I would support a universal healthcare program in the U.S. if it would work. It won't, though, because there's simply too many people to cover and too few resources.

Also, destroying 15% of our GDP is a bad idea for the economy.

In the future, it might work, but I think we have more pressing issues at hand.

That's the whole point of "reform." You figure out ideas to avoid these sorts of problems and then implement the new system efficiently and effectively.

I live in the woods and drive my rusting old diesel powered Ford truck down the public roads at 25 mph to collect my social security check.

LOL

That's the whole point of "reform." You figure out ideas to avoid these sorts of problems and then implement the new system efficiently and effectively.
Good luck with that.

Good luck with that.

So don't even bother trying? Maybe the reason it's not getting done is people aren't dedicated to wanting a health care system reform.

READ my sentence.

http://www.geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/image/log1p15.gif

This is what an argument is shaped like. Handy flowcharts for the win!

Let's fill in the variables

Claim: Private good, public baaaaad, private good, public baaaad
Data: ???
Warrant: ???
Backing: ???
Reservations: Apparently you have none
Qualifier: I am always right, and don't need no qualifier.

If you're going to make a bold claim, back it up.

If friggin Cuba can afford, then I think the US can swing for Universal Health Care.
The U.S. has 29x more people to cover than Cuba.

No.

The U.S. simply doesn't have the resources to give equal healthcare to 300 million people and keep a surplus. We're too much in debt as it is what with bloated government programs, the war, and irresponsible spending, and things such as that.

I would support a universal healthcare program in the U.S. if it would work. It won't, though, because there's simply too many people to cover and too few resources.

Also, destroying 15% of our GDP is a bad idea for the economy.

In the future, it might work, but I think we have more pressing issues at hand.

If friggin Cuba can afford, then I think the US can swing for Universal Health Care.

The U.S. has 29x more people to cover than Cuba.

The US is also 318.18 times wealthier than Cuba. I think we'll manage.

I support the kind of system that US Democrats are advocating - universal health insurance. It ensures that everybody can afford it, while still letting the market control the quality.

In fact, the real advantage is that it eliminates pricing as a way to compete for providing health services. It doesn't matter who charges more. The only option is to offer better service. Whoever has the better product will win.

I don't think the US has a properly private system. There's so many regulations, subsidies, agencies and pork barrelling involved it's not funny.

I think a real hands-off private system with the government only providing consumption subsidies to poor people and perhaps giving a hand in the dissemination of information about new drugs could work just fine and leave the taxpayer with a lot more cash.

But setting such a thing up is hard, given the nature of the product. The US has completely failed. And I think that a simple, socialised system would be better than what's currently going on there. Question is whether the politicians will be willing and able to keep it simple and results-orientated.

I think a real hands-off private system with the government only providing consumption subsidies to poor people and perhaps giving a hand in the dissemination of information about new drugs could work just fine and leave the taxpayer with a lot more cash.
It's what they do in Switzerland, I believe, although they ban foreign drugs.

The US is also 318.18 times wealthier than Cuba. I think we'll manage.
The U.S. government debt is also $9,206,074,926,544.

Until we pay off the debt, a universal healthcare plan would stretch the U.S.'s government resources to the limit.

No, I do not support universal health care. I do not expect other people to pay for me when I'm sick, and I won't pay for them.

It is each individual's responsibility to provide for themselves, with bit of help from friends and family if necessary, or even charities.

The U.S. government debt is also $9,206,074,926,544.

Until we pay off the debt, a universal healthcare plan would stretch the U.S.'s government resources to the limit.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

We're also #66 on the list. Who's ahead of us and has health care systems? France, Canada, UK, Norway...

Private comapanys are always more efficent when NOT interferred or taken over by the government. That is my opinon and it is not likly to change.
The question is: more efficient at WHAT? The insurance companies have a large bureaucracy dedicated to making sure that your health problems are NOT treated, since that is what is most profitable for them. And we pay extra to maintain that bureaucracy, which works entirely against us.

healthcar should be free:mp5:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

We're also #66 on the list. Who's ahead of us and has health care systems? France, Canada, UK, Norway...
And imagine how much higher that will be when the government is covering a population 1.9 times the size of France, Canada, UK and Norway combined.

I live in the woods and drive my rusting old diesel powered Ford truck down the public roads at 25 mph to collect my social security check.

I thought you lived in a van down by the river.:confused:

what do you american even pay tax for? surely the point of tax is to spread the cost of social goods such as health care and security. as every country provides security (pretty much) and the security industry provides lost of jobs and that, then what are you paying for? if only you had a decent democratic constitution you'd have health care by now. read Dahl's "how democratic is the american constitution" then "lies our teachers told us" can't remember who wrote that one

Health care should be free. Man, there are so many people who don't have any money, so they can't afford health care. We need free health care. So many people die from diseases that are curable.

No, no tax. What I earn is mine. Not anyone else's. I don't want to freeload off of you and you have no right to pay or purchase healthcare or healthcare related expenses with money I earned.

You'd pay anyway. Or do you think hospitals just eat the losses from emergency room treatments and expensive lifesaving medical practices on people with no healthcare? Nope. They figure that into the cost of every other service they offer and the health insurance industries figure it into the costs of the paying cutomers. You, my friend, are already paying for the pound of cure. SO why not pay for the ounce of prevention instead?

Edit: We already pay. The difference is that by promoting preventive medicine and allowing everyone to see a doctor on a regular basis is that we are saving money as opposed to the sick needing to be practically dying before they can go to the emergency room.

The UK system provides good health care at a much lower cost-per-capita than that in the US. I'd certainly argue for universal healthcare in the US.

The transition costs involved in such a change, however, might be crippling. I would propose a tax on junk food, and increased taxation on alcohol and tobacco, to help out during this period, and then maintain them. That might reduce the moral hazard element of universal healthcare, because you're taxing the actions that might lead to a bad outcome (and those who get such bad outcomes anyway, well, they haven't paid the sin taxes). If the new healthcare system is more efficient, as the UK experience implies it will be, then it won't matter that the sin taxes will not be producing as much revenue owing to people giving up the sins. Especially as that will in turn reduce healthcare costs in the first instance.

Just my 2 cents. Or seeing as I'm from the UK, maybe I should say 'just my 1p'.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

We're also #66 on the list. Who's ahead of us and has health care systems? France, Canada, UK, Norway...

...Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Mauritus, Albania, Cuba...

So you live in a shack in the woods, no water supply, you home school, and you never access any public service or property?

Good to know.

I don't think those behaviours are required of someone who thinks those services shouldn't be available. All he's saying is he's willing to go without them, but if they're there there's no point avoiding them unnecessarily.

Hypocrisy doesn't have dissuasive force.

No, they can't. Same problem that is happening in other places that let this happen, I think England specifically. The doctor's realize they can set up a private practice and go back to charging an arm and a leg to give people yearly check ups and will then remove themselves from the public system making the point of creating said system pointless.
The public system then isn't paying the doctors sufficiently.

Or, they could set up a system whereby doctors who required financial assistance to get through school would be indebted to the public system for a certain number of years. Canada does that now with foreign doctors - to be certified to work in some provinces you have to agree to spend 3 years in some remote town of the government's choosing (there are now South African doctors in many small communities).

If the doctors won't work in your system, then your system is a lousy place to work.
Except those people who can't afford it.
Those who can't afford it still get free care from the public system. Just because they can't afford the luxury service isn't harm. That's like saying I'm harmed by the ability of others to buy Ferraris, because I can't afford them.
The private system is no faster than the public system except when there arn't enough doctors or doctors are allowed to opt out of the public system and go private thus making not enough doctors.
Any scarce resource needs to be rationed. Price and waiting lists are the most common.

Look at gasoline. When the price is allowed to float freely, it rises when supplies are scarce. When prices are controlled, consumption remains constant so reduced supplies result in gas lines. Does no one remember 1979 anymore?

...Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Mauritus, Albania, Cuba...

That list is for public debt, not health care.

Yes, I want universal health care. Experiences of the last couple years have shown me that ours sucks.

what do you american even pay tax for? surely the point of tax is to spread the cost of social goods such as health care and security. as every country provides security (pretty much) and the security industry provides lost of jobs and that, then what are you paying for? if only you had a decent democratic constitution you'd have health care by now. read Dahl's "how democratic is the american constitution" then "lies our teachers told us" can't remember who wrote that one

That's what taxes in commie countries are for. Taxes in America are for funding bombing campaigns of commie countries.

Those who can't afford it still get free care from the public system. Just because they can't afford the luxury service isn't harm. That's like saying I'm harmed by the ability of others to buy Ferraris, because I can't afford them.

Obviously you arn't getting the point. If doctors leave the public system, there will be less in the public system and we are right back to having to use the too expensive private system.

And health != cars. It's like saying you are harmed because the rich people are buying up all the land not exposed to nuclear radiation.



Look at gasoline. When the price is allowed to float freely, it rises when supplies are scarce. When prices are controlled, consumption remains constant so reduced supplies result in gas lines. Does no one remember 1979 anymore?
I didn't see where you proved higher prices = less consumption as opposed to just higher prices = higher prices.

Obviously you arn't getting the point. If doctors leave the public system, there will be less in the public system and we are right back to having to use the too expensive private system.


There aren't a fixed amount of doctors.

I don't know, the UK and Canada have problems with their systems. the UK spends way too much, and Canada apparently does have a long waiting list at the Hospitals. While NHS may look good on Paper, in Reality, eh not so much. It just turns into another Bureaucratic system that is choked with Red Tapes and ton of Paperwork that is neither helpful nor efficient, and nor does it save money.

I disagree. I don't live in a place with universal health care so I don't have great coverage on the systems, but it seems like they have become, politically, the equivalent of Social Security in the US. When it (Social Security) was first proposed, many condemned it as socialist. But now that it's been proven to work for over fifty years, even the most die-hard conservative politician doesn't talk about taking it away. Two years ago Bush wanted to privatize it, and even that idea was rejected. Bureaucratic? Yes. Ineffective? Often. Beneficial in the long run? Definitely.
I imagine universal health care is the same way. If it actually gets started here, in fifty or so years callng for its removal will be political suicide. It will bring about a "paradigm shift." (Having just read Thomas Kuhn and actually learning what that phrase means, I am trying to use it as much as possible.)

I imagine universal health care is the same way. If it actually gets started here, in fifty or so years callng for its removal will be political suicide.
As the case now is here in the UK.

Even when the Tories and Labour foolishly tinker around with letting private contractors take some services away from the NHS, nobody would suggest scrapping the whole thing.

I disagree. I don't live in a place with universal health care so I don't have great coverage on the systems, but it seems like they have become, politically, the equivalent of Social Security in the US. When it (Social Security) was first proposed, many condemned it as socialist. But now that it's been proven to work for over fifty years, even the most die-hard conservative politician doesn't talk about taking it away. Two years ago Bush wanted to privatize it, and even that idea was rejected. Bureaucratic? Yes. Ineffective? Often. Beneficial in the long run? Definitely.
I imagine universal health care is the same way. If it actually gets started here, in fifty or so years callng for its removal will be political suicide. It will bring about a "paradigm shift." (Having just read Thomas Kuhn and actually learning what that phrase means, I am trying to use it as much as possible.)

Possibly. People think they deserve everything handed to them on a silver plate, I guess.

That's why it'd be better never to implement universal health care in the first place. It is simply not the role of government and theft.

Even when the Tories and Labour foolishly tinker around with letting private contractors take some services away from the NHS, nobody would suggest scrapping the whole thing.
That's not necessarily a good thing. I'd want government to stay open to alternatives and better options, and just because a setup is popular and it would be politically inconvenient to get rid of it isn't a very good justification for refusing to get something better.

Particularly if you end up in a situation further down the line where the country basically can't afford not to change it, as was the case with the German welfare system, or various labour regulations in France. Governments break, you get lots of chaos, strikes and everyone hates everyone. And then you end up needing a Thatcher to do something that really should have been uncontroversially done 15 or 20 years ago.

That's not necessarily a good thing. I'd want government to stay open to alternatives and better options, and just because a setup is popular and it would be politically inconvenient to get rid of it isn't a very good justification for refusing to get something better.

Particularly if you end up in a situation further down the line where the country basically can't afford not to change it, as was the case with the German welfare system, or various labour regulations in France. Governments break, you get lots of chaos, strikes and everyone hates everyone. And then you end up needing a Thatcher to do something that really should have been uncontroversially done 15 or 20 years ago.
That's true, there is a danger that today's reform becomes tomorrow's unchanging status quo.
However, to bring back my "paradigm shift" analogy: the gradual build-up of "anomalies" leads to a complete overhaul of the system, into something that is better. Once this something becomes the standard, it collects anomalies of its own, but it is still better than the thing that preceded it. Even if universal health care doesn't keep me living forever, as it should, it will still be superior to the current system.

Everyone deserves easy access to high-quality healthcare. I don't see why it should be free for all.

That’s not necessarily a good thing. I’d want government to stay open to alternatives and better options, and just because a setup is popular and it would be politically inconvenient to get rid of it isn’t a very good justification for refusing to get something better.
Sure, but I don’t see how private contractors can take care of healthcare better than publicly-funded services if the focus must maintain (as I believe it must) on human beings rather than profit margins.

Possibly. People think they deserve everything handed to them on a silver plate, I guess.

So you rather pay one entity more money that you would pay another entity for the same level of service?

No thanks.
Taxes are high enough without those sickly freeloaders in NGC 4414 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4414) siphoning off our government's funds.

No thanks.
Taxes are high enough without those sickly freeloaders in NGC 4414 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4414) siphoning off our government's funds.

lolol

No thanks.
Taxes are high enough without those sickly freeloaders in NGC 4414 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4414) siphoning off our government's funds.

What I'd like to see is a proposal for catholic health care.
It technically means the same thing as universal, but it'd been interesting to see it how long it's debated before people realize the legislation is not designed to kill off Protestants.

Sure, but I don’t see how private contractors can take care of healthcare better than publicly-funded services if the focus must maintain (as I believe it must) on human beings rather than profit margins.
Because either medical professionals focus on human beings or not. Their personal lives don't change much regardless of who employs them. Just because I work for a private rather than a public hospital doesn't mean I stop trying to cure my patients.

Their bosses on the other hand don't focus on human beings either way. In a public system, their focus is on keeping the various interest groups happy while promoting their own careers. Perhaps the best way to do this is to cure people. In the private hospital, the manager tries to keep the various interest groups happy while promoting their own careers. Again, the best way to do this is to cure people.

The only difference is in the interests of the stakeholder groups. A public hospital needs to provide jobs, be an equal opportunity employer, promote various programs the health minister came up with and so on. As such it may be in the interest to spend a little more money on things that are primarily meant to keep some groups happy. The private hospital meanwhile has stakeholders (namely the owners) who want to see money being made. One way to do that is to cut costs, and not engage in the sorts of expenditures the public manager just made.

You can push both to extremes, but I wouldn't say that public health services care any more about people than private ones. To both the patients are a means to another end, as it were.

And this is assuming that there isn't any price-fixing of wages in the industry, as socialised systems in some countries tend to get involved in, directly or indirectly. Because when brain drain starts to set in, the public systems tend to lose out first in such situations.

Do you support a universal healthcare system or a more private, for profit system similar to what the US has in place?

I would support a universal system.

In an area where we need to be saving lives and reducing suffering, the free market, which has lead to death and suffering, should not be allowed.

On the other hand, with the government currently in place, I'm not sure I want to give all the control to them, health care might end up being even worse!

I didn't see where you proved higher prices = less consumption as opposed to just higher prices = higher prices.
Oh, forgive me for not justifying price elasticity.

People buy less stuff when it costs more. People use stuff indescriminately when it's free.

Get back to me on nationalized healthcare AFTER Medicare stops paying out 1/4 of its payouts to fraudulent claims.

Do you support a universal healthcare system or a more private, for profit system similar to what the US has in place?

Why not both? Universal healthcare through a private, for profit system.

Get back to me on nationalized healthcare AFTER Medicare stops paying out 1/4 of its payouts to fraudulent claims.
If Medicare covered everybody, there wouldn't be any fraudluent claims.

Oh, forgive me for not justifying price elasticity.

People buy less stuff when it costs more. People use stuff indescriminately when it's free.
So gas was free at one point, when did I miss that? And did you take into account the existence of things you must consume? Just because gas prices go up doesn't mean anyone is going to stop buying gas.

If Medicare covered everybody, there wouldn't be any fraudluent claims.

Medicare cures greed? It's mostly the doctors making the fraudulent claims.

Medicare cures greed? It's mostly the doctors making the fraudulent claims.
You can't claim something fraudulently when everybody has a right to it.

You can't claim something fraudulently when everybody has a right to it.


Speakee Englitch?

a Doctor gives someobody a treatment which costs $50. He then bills the government $200 for that treatment, plus another $100 for a treatment he didn't even do. That's a fraudulent claim.

Tell me how being entitled to free healthcare will stop that.

Speakee Englitch?

a Doctor gives someobody a treatment which costs $50. He then bills the government $200 for that treatment, plus another $100 for a treatment he didn't even do. That's a fraudulent claim.
I'm speaking from a British viewpoint. Most benefit fraud is generally associated with people claiming things they aren't entitled to.

Tell me how being entitled to free healthcare will stop that.
If that's the case, I see no reason why a doctor would or could not do that to a private insurer, as their relationship with public and private insurers are identical.

I'm speaking from a British viewpoint. Most benefit fraud is generally associated with people claiming things they aren't entitled to. Ah. That's there, this is here. I have no argument with the UK's health system if it works for them. The problem is what works for the UK or Canada may not work the same way here.


If that's the case, I see no reason why a doctor would or could not do that to a private insurer, as their relationship with public and private insurers are identical.
It's easier to defraud the American government than a private American insurer because there's considerably less oversight - private insurers care about "their" money, whereas the government's (well, those over here who favor such things) policy is "throw more money at it till the problem appears to disappear." Since it's not "their" money, how much of they waste isn't important to them. Just to us, because it's our taxes.

Oh, forgive me for not justifying price elasticity.

People buy less stuff when it costs more. People use stuff indescriminately when it's free.

Health care is a highly inelastic market. The nature of health care usually means that people will only use it when they need it, and many of the expenditures are for services that present the consumer with the choice of buy or die. People can consume these services, or they can risk death, loss of work etc. As a result, people buy them irrespective of their prices.

It's easier to defraud the American government than a private American insurer because there's considerably less oversight - private insurers care about "their" money, whereas the government's (well, those over here who favor such things) policy is "throw more money at it till the problem appears to disappear." Since it's not "their" money, how much of they waste isn't important to them. Just to us, because it's our taxes.
If private insurers can have procedures combat fraud, I see no reason why a public one can't employ the same procedures, since the two have the same relationship with doctors.

If Medicare covered everybody, there wouldn't be any fraudluent claims.
What? Doctors will quit treating phantom patients to make a few bucks? Transportation services will quit transporting the same phantoms to make a few bucks?

I don't see why universal coverage means zero fraud.

What? Doctors will quit treating phantom patients to make a few bucks? Transportation services will quit transporting the same phantoms to make a few bucks?

I don't see why universal coverage means zero fraud.

He's talking about a different kind of fraud: real people getting services that they're not supposed to. That is the current issue that "plagues" Medicaire/Medicaid in the US.

If normal insurance companies can watch for phantom patients, so can the government.

If private insurers can have procedures combat fraud, I see no reason why a public one can't employ the same procedures, since the two have the same relationship with doctors.
My guess is because the incentive just isn't there to keep costs down. Try to make some bureaucrat accountant care about saving a few dollars when it means they have to go to a little extra effort.

He's talking about a different kind of fraud: real people getting services that they're not supposed to. That is the current issue that "plagues" Medicaire/Medicaid in the US.

If normal insurance companies can watch for phantom patients, so can the government.
Sure legalizing what was illegal always cuts the rate of malfeasance. But we've opened up the discussion to the fact that there's a whole range of other ways to defraud the government.

If the government forces you to share what is yours with society then it is essentially making you into a slave.

I am not entitled to the fruits of your labour and you're not entitled to what I earn either. This includes healthcare services or money for healthcare. Or money for anything really.
Most people aren't dogmatic libertarians though. Blathering on about the fruits of your labour is just empty rhetoric, I'd sooner look at the the results on society than a load of ideology.

No.

The U.S. simply doesn't have the resources to give equal healthcare to 300 million people and keep a surplus.
I've never understood that argument. Yes, you have 300 million people but you also have more taxpayers and more medical professionals. I'm no expert on economics, but I can't see how there's any real difference in introducing universal healthcare in a country with 3 million, 30 million or 300 million people. Particularly when we're talking about rich, developed western countries.

Anyway, I'm very much in favour of universal healthcare. I think that the NHS, for all its faults, is a good system. There are things wrong with it such as the bureaucracy, how the money is spent, some of the management, ect. That needs to be sorted out, but that doesn't mean you scrap the whole system. I like the way that pretty much everyone can get essential medical treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

http://www.oheschools.org/ohech3pg2.html

A short overview of why the free market model fails in terms of providing health care.

As far as I see it health is someone so important to our wellbeing, and such a human right, that to let the profit sector in on it is a disservice to humanity, and giving the impression that those who manage to exploit more in life deserve better health. Talk about rewarding to guttersnipe of society...

Health care is a highly inelastic market. The nature of health care usually means that people will only use it when they need it, and many of the expenditures are for services that present the consumer with the choice of buy or die. People can consume these services, or they can risk death, loss of work etc. As a result, people buy them irrespective of their prices.
That's not what I see at all. I see parents taking their kids to the doctor every time they get a runny nose or skin their knees. People are overusing the system because it's free to them.

It's a classic tragedy of the commons. The cost is shared equally, so individuals abuse it.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13413848']
...There are things wrong with it such as the bureaucracy, how the money is spent, some of the management, ect. That needs to be sorted out, but that doesn't mean you scrap the whole system. I like the way that pretty much everyone can get essential medical treatment regardless of their ability to pay.
This statement is exactly true when applied to the health care system in the United States. One doesn't scrap everything to make a few adjustments in something that is fundamentally sound.

Although, we do know how to abbreviate et cetera. I guess it's our Latin heritage.

That's not what I see at all. I see parents taking their kids to the doctor every time they get a runny nose or skin their knees. People are overusing the system because it's free to them.

It's a classic tragedy of the commons. The cost is shared equally, so individuals abuse it.

That doesn't happen though. It simply doesn't.

That doesn't happen though. It simply doesn't.
Then why do I see it happen?

I can't say I've ever seen this measured, though, so I doubt either of us can support our claims with data.

That's not what I see at all. I see parents taking their kids to the doctor every time they get a runny nose or skin their knees. People are overusing the system because it's free to them.

It's a classic tragedy of the commons. The cost is shared equally, so individuals abuse it.

Those people would be taking their kids to the doctor for a runny nose or skinning their knees whether they had to pay for it or not. My mom is a nurse here in the US, and she sees the same kind of neurotic behavior displayed by parents all the time.

Those people would be taking their kids to the doctor for a runny nose or skinning their knees whether they had to pay for it or not. My mom is a nurse here in the US, and she sees the same kind of neurotic behavior displayed by parents all the time.
They wouldn't if they couldn't afford it. Prices would force poor neurotic parents out of the market. Neuroses would then be a luxury, and the neurotic would pay for the demand they were creating.

They wouldn't if they couldn't afford it. Prices would force poor neurotic parents out of the market. Neuroses would then be a luxury, and the neurotic would pay for the demand they were creating.

So unless healthcare is way out of the price of your average middle class suburban family, neurotic mothers will keep taking their larva to the doctor for trivial things. They pay for it, but so what? They keep on doing it, whether they pay for it personally or through their taxes.

So unless healthcare is way out of the price of your average middle class suburban family, neurotic mothers will keep taking their larva to the doctor for trivial things. They pay for it, but so what? They keep on doing it, whether they pay for it personally or through their taxes.But if they pay through their taxes, the cost for their neuroses is shared.

Also, creative pricing schemes (overly frequent visits carry an escalating cost unless something bad is actually discovered) could help out that fifth unnecessary visit out of reach for that average family.

But if they pay through their taxes, the cost for their neuroses is shared.

Also, creative pricing schemes (overly frequent visits carry an escalating cost unless something bad is actually discovered) could help out that fifth unnecessary visit out of reach for that average family.

Maybe the doctor should instead be prescribing something for the mother...

What? Doctors will quit treating phantom patients to make a few bucks? Transportation services will quit transporting the same phantoms to make a few bucks?

I don't see why universal coverage means zero fraud.
I was talking about a different kind of fraud, although I can't see why this kind would be any different under private or public insurance plans.

This statement is exactly true when applied to the health care system in the United States. One doesn't scrap everything to make a few adjustments in something that is fundamentally sound.
Depends on whether you're in the system or not. I need surgery and medication which I have no prospect of being able to afford; but my condition is not immediately life-threatening, so what to do? Just die a little younger, I guess.

But if they pay through their taxes, the cost for their neuroses is shared.

Also, creative pricing schemes (overly frequent visits carry an escalating cost unless something bad is actually discovered) could help out that fifth unnecessary visit out of reach for that average family.

At which point you may have the "boy who cried wolf" problem of parents becoming unwilling to take their kids to the doctor when there is something seriously wrong because they can't afford it (even if the cost it reduced if something bad is found... parents may be unwilling in case it's not something bad).

You're always going to have a few neurotics/hypochondriacs, frankly, I suspect their impact is minimal comparative to all those who really need healthcare but can't afford it under a private system.

Universal healthcare is a human right, and sometimes with these things you have to accept a minority may end up abusing what the vast majority benefit from. This is unfortunatly always the case, be you talking about healthcare and welfare to freedom of speech, the justice system or any other government service/function.

umm...I actually do work for an insurance company...

please don't take my job

I was going to say something incredibly obscene, but I'm somewhat impressed that you had the guts to admit it. As such, you will be perhaps the one insurance agent on earth that I don't yell at today.

I don't believe in giving people universal healthcare from the government. I think of it like this:

If the government forces you to share what is yours with society then it is essentially making you into a slave.

I am not entitled to the fruits of your labour and you're not entitled to what I earn either. This includes healthcare services or money for healthcare. Or money for anything really.

I am not against giving charity though.

You might need to find a different country to live in, friend, cause I'm pretty sure that taxes aren't optional.

Also... it's making you into a slave? One of the points of a governed society is to share resources to strengthen the group as a whole.

France and Japan have actually quite efficient universal systems. We should look to them for ideas.

So do Denmark and Sweden and a lot of other places, but then you start having to whisper that nasty word "socialism" and it tends to make Americans reach for their guns. Their semi-automatic modified assault rifle shoulder-mounted grenade launching guns. Cause we got a right to defend ourselves from burglars, dammit.

No, they can't. Same problem that is happening in other places that let this happen, I think England specifically. The doctor's realize they can set up a private practice and go back to charging an arm and a leg to give people yearly check ups and will then remove themselves from the public system making the point of creating said system pointless.

True, it's gonna happen, but public education doesn't seem to have gone away. I agree that the standard of care may fall to that low level (and I say this AS a public school teacher), but at the end of the day, it's a better solution than letting people die in the street.

Then get the fuck off the roads, out of the schools, out of the public libraries, stop using the sewage system, the water lines etc etc etc...because they were paid for ou tof the public purse, and are a result of the fruits of other people's labour.

Being a part of society means that certain resources must necessarily be pooled in order to provide for the whole. To what extent is a balancing act, but claiming no 'money for anything' is impossibly simplistic and naive.

Careful, man, he could own a ranch in Montana. :-/

You seriously need to learn how to use the multi-quote function.

So do Denmark and Sweden and a lot of other places, but then you start having to whisper that nasty word "socialism" and it tends to make Americans reach for their guns.
Rather more pressing question is: do you really trust the US Congress to get anything good, working, efficient and sustainable happening?

Sure, Sweden might be able to do it with a broad consensus in the population and parliament, a willingness to put in, fewer and weaker lobby groups and a willingness to employ excellent professionals to design the system. But do you think Washington could replicate that?

Until we pay off the debt

Cue hysterical laughing fit.

Get back to me on nationalized healthcare AFTER Medicare stops paying out 1/4 of its payouts to fraudulent claims.

And on the flip side, I've spent the past year having weekly chats with my PPO company wherein they try to escape paying for every single claim.

They wouldn't if they couldn't afford it. Prices would force poor neurotic parents out of the market. Neuroses would then be a luxury, and the neurotic would pay for the demand they were creating.

It's true, only people with money can afford to be neurotic. Poor people with neuroses sleep in bus stops and talk to themselves until they get dragged off to John George psych where they'll be knifed by another patient within a few days.

There is a multi-quote function? Damn it, how did I miss that.

Blue button beside quote. :)

But if they pay through their taxes, the cost for their neuroses is shared.

Also, creative pricing schemes (overly frequent visits carry an escalating cost unless something bad is actually discovered) could help out that fifth unnecessary visit out of reach for that average family.

Yeah, that's definitely the biggest issue plaguing the health care system today. Paranoid mothers.

Yeah, that's definitely the biggest issue plaguing the health care system today. Paranoid mothers.

You can hit the little button with quote marks in it to 'collect' different posts and therefore answer them in one post instead of having to make several posts in a row, if you're going to remark on more than one post in a thread.

You seriously need to learn how to use the multi-quote function.

You seriously need to find something more serious to stress over than my predilection for responding as I read. Seriously.

Blue button beside quote. :)
OMFG.

So there we go. 15,000-something posts in, and I learn about the multi-quote function. Now where's that smiley...:headbang:

You seriously need to learn how to use the multi-quote function.

There is a multi-quote function? Damn it, how did I miss that.

You seriously need to find something more serious to stress over than my predilection for responding as I read. Seriously.

Pffft, no I don't. If I only have trivial matters to stress over then my life is awesome.

OMFG.

So there we go. 15,000-something posts in, and I learn about the multi-quote function. Now where's that smiley...:headbang:

More like 12,000 ;)

More like 12,000 ;)
Add the 3000+ for the original Leonstein account, and we're getting there.

No thanks.
Taxes are high enough without those sickly freeloaders in NGC 4414 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4414) siphoning off our government's funds.
"People of Sol 3: Kindly rename your Miss Universe pageant."

Depends on whether you're in the system or not. I need surgery and medication which I have no prospect of being able to afford; but my condition is not immediately life-threatening, so what to do? Just die a little younger, I guess.
Your situation still doesn't call for an all or nothing overhaul. You are in the minority of citizens where it comes to coverage. I'm absolutely certain that adjustments, rather than massive change, can cover people in all circumstances.

Now, if you tell me that you are the VP of a major corporation and choose not to have health care so that you can save a couple dollars a month, all bets are off. All that meaning people that already have reasonable access to health care but reject it aren't part of the problem.

That's not what I see at all. I see parents taking their kids to the doctor every time they get a runny nose or skin their knees. People are overusing the system because it's free to them.

It's a classic tragedy of the commons. The cost is shared equally, so individuals abuse it.

Oh boy. Using economic theory to attempt to predict human behaviour. W00t!

Let me try:

If people purchase private insurance, they are more likely to engage in moral hazard (http://www.oheschools.org/ohech3pg3.html):

Moral hazard

Having insurance can change the way in which we act. Imagine you are in a cinema and the film is just about to start. Then you remember that you have left your bicycle unlocked. What do you do? If you have comprehensive insurance which will compensate you against any loss you are much more likely to carry on watching the film. Your attitudes have been changed by the fact that you have got insurance - this is what economists call moral hazard. Moral hazard can affect any insurance market but is a particularly serious problem for health care insurance. Consumers who are insured have an incentive to over-consume health care - to demand operations and treatments which they would not choose if they were directly paying for them. They may also not bother to follow a healthy lifestyle or to get preventative check-ups. As a result when they do fall ill, the cost of treatment is higher than it would otherwise have been.

Doctors too are affected by moral hazard. They know that the costs of treatment are covered by insurance so the temptation is to over-treat and over-prescribe medicines for their patients. Moral hazard thus leads to an inefficiently large quantity of resources being allocated to health care.

Government big enough to provide everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.

I'm not saying that people don't deserve healthcare or that a man's life should depend on how much he makes but I don't want some pencil-necked paper pusher deciding whether or not my parents will get non-emergency medical care after the age of 80 or withholding treatment on a member of my family just because the disease is rare. Doctors and patients should be the only people involved in those choices, not governments or accountants.

I'll tell you this, I'd sooner trust a business than a government because the business will never rob me of my freedom, they don't have the power to legislate, only lobby.

Oh boy. Using economic theory to attempt to predict human behaviour. W00t!

Let me try:

If people purchase private insurance, they are more likely to engage in moral hazard (http://www.oheschools.org/ohech3pg3.html):
But it's being funded. The people consuming the care are paying for the care.

There's nothing wrong with that guy leaving his bicycle unattended beacuse he's paying someone for the convenience of not having to worry about it.

OMFG.

So there we go. 15,000-something posts in, and I learn about the multi-quote function. Now where's that smiley...:headbang:
I discovered it only recently, as well, but before that I just opened the different quoted responses in different windows and would paste them al together when I was done.

It wasn't much extra work.

We need to maintain our current private healthcare system in the United States, but need to regulate prices a lot more.

When the government pays, it pays even more than people will. Ever since the government started Medicare, medical prices jacked up. Insurance prices need regulation by some healthcare regulation committee, along with tort reform that stops needless lawsuits against hospitals and doctors. Then the healthcare regulation committee can also regulate actually hospital bills as soon as tort reform is accomplished and insurance prices are lowered.

But it's being funded. The people consuming the care are paying for the care.

There's nothing wrong with that guy leaving his bicycle unattended beacuse he's paying someone for the convenience of not having to worry about it.

That doesn't change the fact that more bicycles are then required, as one has just been removed from the system. So, we can see how the free market system would decrease the available supply.

You also didn't reply to the fact that doctors will tend to over-treat. Another way the free market wastes resources.

I have my own insurance policy for emergency medical expenses. I don't want some f****** bureaucrat deciding whether I get coverage. I've been screwed by Worker's Comp enough to know that the doctors work for the guy who's paying. If you're not paying, the doctor isn't working in your best interests. My insurance policy is with a good company that has performed to my complete satisfaction. I don't want to be taxed double my premium for half the healthcare quality.

Besides, where is the federal government of the United States constitutionally authorised to offer such a service? other countries may be different, of course, but here the feds are SUPPOSED to deal with very little of our private lives. Border security, International relations,and a small number of other specific duties are granted to the government here. After seing how they're SCREWING the social security system, I don't want to trust them with EVEN MORE power. They haven't even shown competence in their OFFICIAL CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES!!!

Considering that government involvement in industry tends to destroy competition and innovation, I am against mucking with the free market when it comes to health care. Maybe America dosen't have better health care than a few small socialist countries in Europe, but the huge majority of new medicine and medical technology comes straight out of the big, evil American drug companies ass'. Maybe the drug companies charge too much for certain medicines but do you have any idea how much it costs to do a 4-year double blind study? $Billions$. When you price control drugs, you might as well take all the incentive away from scientists and doctors who are working for money (how evil!) and put your faith in people's good will to help one another.

Now, if you tell me that you are the VP of a major corporation and choose not to have health care so that you can save a couple dollars a month, all bets are off.
No, I'm a teacher. Colleges now avoid hiring permanent tenure-track professors precisely to avoid giving health benefits. I have been without insurance for a dozen years now, and seldom go to doctors. My medical condition is very rare (I finally got a diagnosis last week, from a doctor in Toronto-- thank you Canada) so I don't know if I really would have gotten any effective treatment anyway, but it sort of sucks not to even be able to try to do anything about it.

There is a multi-quote function? Damn it, how did I miss that.

I've never been able to make it work for me.

That doesn't change the fact that more bicycles are then required, as one has just been removed from the system. So, we can see how the free market system would decrease the available supply.
So does wilfull destruction of one's own property. Is that immoral, too?
You also didn't reply to the fact that doctors will tend to over-treat. Another way the free market wastes resources.
That's not a waste of resources. That's a voluntary exchange of resources.

Trade isn't loss.

No, I'm a teacher. Colleges now avoid hiring permanent tenure-track professors precisely to avoid giving health benefits. I have been without insurance for a dozen years now, and seldom go to doctors. My medical condition is very rare (I finally got a diagnosis last week, from a doctor in Toronto-- thank you Canada) so I don't know if I really would have gotten any effective treatment anyway, but it sort of sucks not to even be able to try to do anything about it.

When I taught at Georgia Tech, I had to insist that I wanted to be an adjunct, rather than tenure track. Is it disciplines? Or colleges? I didn't see GIT being cheap with their faculty.

Anyhow, I was going to post a quote from Kaiser to show that there were reasonable individual plans available but they don't support anything but IE 5.5 and above. MS only went to 5.2 on the Mac; neither Safari, nor Firefox meets the requirement. But go to their homepage and see what they quote you. I have one daughter that is a part time student and part time musician. She makes enough for the individual plan.

Government big enough to provide everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.

I'm not saying that people don't deserve healthcare or that a man's life should depend on how much he makes but I don't want some pencil-necked paper pusher deciding whether or not my parents will get non-emergency medical care after the age of 80 or withholding treatment on a member of my family just because the disease is rare. Doctors and patients should be the only people involved in those choices, not governments or accountants.

I'll tell you this, I'd sooner trust a business than a government because the business will never rob me of my freedom, they don't have the power to legislate, only lobby.

Some pencil necked paper pusher already decides that. You don't think that insurance companies have terrible bureaucracies trying to fuck you out of coverage?

I'll tell you this, I'd sooner trust a business than a government because the business will never rob me of my freedom, they don't have the power to legislate, only lobby.
But businesses may very well rob you of your life. That's what happens when you turn healthcare into a business or something to make money off of instead of what it should be, something which helps people regardless of money. And if a business can make a lot of money having you die instead of treating you, they may very well do it.

But businesses may very well rob you of your life. That's what happens when you turn healthcare into a business or something to make money off of instead of what it should be, something which helps people regardless of money. And if a business can make a lot of money having you die instead of treating you, they may very well do it.
But that's already true anyway, since people aren't altruistic.

Considering that government involvement in industry tends to destroy competition and innovation, I am against mucking with the free market when it comes to health care. Maybe America dosen't have better health care than a few small socialist countries in Europe, but the huge majority of new medicine and medical technology comes straight out of the big, evil American drug companies ass'. Maybe the drug companies charge too much for certain medicines but do you have any idea how much it costs to do a 4-year double blind study? $Billions$. When you price control drugs, you might as well take all the incentive away from scientists and doctors who are working for money (how evil!) and put your faith in people's good will to help one another.

Barring the fact there's a not insignificant number of non-US medical advances also being made, having a universal healthcare provision doesn't preclude companies doing medical research. A government run healthcare system still needs to buy drugs from somewhere, and medical material etc... also I believe a lot of funding for medical research does tend to come out of charities (like Cancer Research).

Considering that government involvement in industry tends to destroy competition and innovation, I am against mucking with the free market when it comes to health care. Maybe America dosen't have better health care than a few small socialist countries in Europe, but the huge majority of new medicine and medical technology comes straight out of the big, evil American drug companies ass'. Maybe the drug companies charge too much for certain medicines but do you have any idea how much it costs to do a 4-year double blind study? $Billions$. When you price control drugs, you might as well take all the incentive away from scientists and doctors who are working for money (how evil!) and put your faith in people's good will to help one another.
American doesn't have better health care than most of the 1st world, and some of the second/third world, and the government still pays more per capita for health care than those countries.

You mean the scientists and doctors in universities? The ones in the medical industry only release medical advances that are beneficial for their pocket book, not for the health of the people.

When I taught at Georgia Tech, I had to insist that I wanted to be an adjunct, rather than tenure track. Is it disciplines? Or colleges? I didn't see GIT being cheap with their faculty.
I have no idea what things are like in Georgia. In Michigan the budgets are continually squeezed.

Anyhow, I was going to post a quote from Kaiser to show that there were reasonable individual plans available
The individual plans do not cover any disease you already have. This would not do anything for me.