Why is the US so opposed to free healthcare for all?

[pocketfullofshells]

I'm not a republican so it's not "republican thinking". Govt run health care is bad health care. Govt run anything is not the best we can do. The private sector has an incentive to not waste money because it affects them immediately.

Yes, goverment health care is horrible, unless of course you ask people with it...like go ask the Military if they would rather go out and just buy it on there own....or Seniors...or the poor...would they not all be more happy if they got to roll the dice, hope they get coverage, pay a ton, and then get dropped if they get sick...or have them denied care because the insurance company is fighting it and have 20 lawyers and you can't afford any?

I have freinds with goverment health care...you know where they go to the Dr? same place I do and others with private care...same Dr's even...

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Anyone dissing the NHS hould be aware that with the exception of cancer treatment care in the NHS exceeds every equivalent in the US.

Satisfaction rates with the NHS are at all time high and the people of the UK love the NHS which has worked welll for over 60 years. Politicians in the UK who talk about privatising the NHS find themselves isolated and rapidly running out of votes

That is the fact of the matter.

Of course there will be issues and mistakes in such a massive organisation (one of the world's biggest employers) but by and large the service is brilliant. (And let's not pretend the US service is problem free - even for those with insurance. Just look at the face of any middle class American woman over 40;-)

And anyone can access it. Anyone can walk into a doctor's surgery or hospital and get great care.

The UK does not leave 40% of its population bereft of care just because they are poor.

I guess the people of the UK must be much more decent than those in the US.

Let's face it, it wouldn't be difficult

Andy anyone who wants private healthcare can have that too if they choose.

 

[GenSeneca]

Satisfaction rates with the NHS are at all time high and the people of the UK love the NHS...

"Happiness In Slavery"

slave screams he thinks he knows what he wants
slave screams thinks he has something to say
slave screams he hears but doesn't want to listen
slave screams he's being beat into submission

don't open your eyes you won't like what you see
the devils of truth steal the souls of the free
don't open your eyes take it from me
I have found
you can find
happiness in slavery

slave screams he spends his life learning conformity
slave screams he claims he has his own identity
slave screams he's going to cause the system to fall
slave screams but he's glad to be chained to that wall

don't open your eyes you won't like what you see
the blind have been blessed with security
don't open your eyes take it from me
I have found
you can find
happiness in slavery

I don't know what I am I don't know where I've been
human junk just words and so much skin
stick my hands through the cage of this endless routine
just some flesh caught in this big broken machine

 

[PLC1]

Yes, goverment health care is horrible, unless of course you ask people with it...like go ask the Military if they would rather go out and just buy it on there own....or Seniors...or the poor...would they not all be more happy if they got to roll the dice, hope they get coverage, pay a ton, and then get dropped if they get sick...or have them denied care because the insurance company is fighting it and have 20 lawyers and you can't afford any?

I have freinds with goverment health care...you know where they go to the Dr? same place I do and others with private care...same Dr's even...

Yes, it is terrible the worst system imaginable, except for the system we have now.

How does a UHC system lower costs? I made some guesses. Does it matter?

The fact is that every civilized nation in the world has UHC, and they all pay less than we do. We can speculate on why that is, of course, and the answers might be of academic interest. The fact is that people those nations may have some complaints, but they don't want to adopt the non system that we "enjoy" here. The fact is that, whatever anecdotes you can find about doctors in one nation or another prescribing placebos for whatever reason, the outcomes are as good as or better than what we have in the US.

The only argument against UHC is that it is "socialism". Most nations do not have a real socialized medicine system. I understand that Spain does, and Spain still pays a lot less than we do.

Oh, and there is the convincing argument, which actually has been presented on this very forum, that all of the nations of the world are lying about how much health care is costing them.

 

[GenSeneca]

How does a UHC system lower costs? I made some guesses. Does it matter?

Yes, it does matter... You're being told that a combination of taxation and government control is the solution... We've been doing that incrementally for decades and the more government does to "fix" the problem, the worse the problem gets... Why hasn't it worked so far? If your answer is that we haven't gone far enough, haven't raised taxes enough, haven't given government enough control over the system... Why are our Public schools, run by government and paid for through taxation, such miserable failures? We definitely "pay more and get less" where our public schools are concerned and they operate on the same principle you're being told will "fix" our HC system.

 

[PLC1]

Yes, it does matter... You're being told that a combination of taxation and government control is the solution... We've been doing that incrementally for decades and the more government does to "fix" the problem, the worse the problem gets... Why hasn't it worked so far? If your answer is that we haven't gone far enough, haven't raised taxes enough, haven't given government enough control over the system... Why are our Public schools, run by government and paid for through taxation, such miserable failures? We definitely "pay more and get less" where our public schools are concerned and they operate on the same principle you're being told will "fix" our HC system.

Actually, I'm if I'm being told anything, it's that "socialized medicine" will never work. What I'm observing is that other nations are paying for health care in common, and all of them are paying less than we are.

Now, ideology and being told what is right and works is all well and good, but it seems to me that facts and observations trump ideology and someone's idea of how things work.

 

[GenSeneca]

...it seems to me that facts and observations trump ideology and someone's idea of how things work.

I agree... However, you're the one who is disregarding actual facts and observations about how UHC works, writing them off as nothing more than "anecdotes", and substituting your own ideological wishful thinking, i.e., your "guess", about how you think it works.

Now I repeat my question that you dodged...

If a combination of taxation and government control is the solution... Why hasn't it worked so far? Why hasn't that formula worked to improve the quality and reduce the cost of our public school system?

 

[PLC1]

I agree... However, you're the one who is disregarding actual facts and observations about how UHC works, writing them off as nothing more than "anecdotes", and substituting your own ideological wishful thinking, i.e., your "guess", about how you think it works.

Now I repeat my question that you dodged...

If a combination of taxation and government control is the solution... Why hasn't it worked so far? Why hasn't that formula worked to improve the quality and reduce the cost of our public school system?

Well, it does seem to be working in Europe, Canada, Australia, so obviously it is not in fact a "combination of taxation and government control." It must be something else. I've already posted a few possibilities, none of which is ' combination of taxation and government control." Maybe one of the other ideas is correct. I don't really know. What I do know is what I keep saying:

Everyone else pays less.

Now, if you're paying twice as much as all of your neighbors for cable TV, and not getting any more channels, would you:

A. continue to declare your plan to be the best, or,

B. change to one of their plans?

 

[Alias]

Actually, I'm if I'm being told anything, it's that "socialized medicine" will never work. What I'm observing is that other nations are paying for health care in common, and all of them are paying less than we are.

Now, ideology and being told what is right and works is all well and good, but it seems to me that facts and observations trump ideology and someone's idea of how things work.

Usually the way things work in this world is if you pay less you get less. If they are paying less than I am for health care then I don't want to get less care or worse care.

 

[dogtowner]

Well, it does seem to be working in Europe, Canada, Australia, so obviously it is not in fact a "combination of taxation and government control." It must be something else. I've already posted a few possibilities, none of which is ' combination of taxation and government control." Maybe one of the other ideas is correct. I don't really know. What I do know is what I keep saying:

Everyone else pays less.

Now, if you're paying twice as much as all of your neighbors for cable TV, and not getting any more channels, would you:

A. continue to declare your plan to be the best, or,

B. change to one of their plans?

a look at this you might find interesting...

its a little to deliberate to pull snips from but lets sum it up with the concluding paragraph..

Middlemen and marketing costs have long been viewed with suspicion by critics of commerce. But these practices are usually signs of market sophistication, not waste. The gains from abolishing private insurance and its overhead costs are an illusion. TANSTAAFL, or “There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch.”

 

[PLC1]

a look at this you might find interesting...

its a little to deliberate to pull snips from but lets sum it up with the concluding paragraph..

TANSTAAFL is a good principle, one we need to remember. We also need to consider the rising costs of medical care in the US. We have already reached a crisis point, at which there is a significant and growing portion of the population that does not have access to more than emergency room procedures.

The bottom line is we can no longer afford the system of medical care that we have now. UHC is not a perfect idea. It is much less expensive than what we have now.

 

[dogtowner]

TANSTAAFL is a good principle, one we need to remember. We also need to consider the rising costs of medical care in the US. We have already reached a crisis point, at which there is a significant and growing portion of the population that does not have access to more than emergency room procedures.

The bottom line is we can no longer afford the system of medical care that we have now. UHC is not a perfect idea. It is much less expensive than what we have now.

thats what I was trying to find some research on when I found that article. It gave some insight regarding this which kind of dovetails with reports that Europe is facing a great challenge keeping up as it's population is aging and costs jacking as we've seen in recent years. Point seems to keep coming back to a declining gap between here and there.

I really need some better research regarding the highlighted. Just not taking it at face value.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Europe has a problem because American bankers stole a trillion dollars and then conned European banks into buying their bad loans.

And yet again the poor have to pay for the sins of the rich.

 

[GenSeneca]

Well, it does seem to be working in Europe, Canada, Australia, so obviously it is not in fact a "combination of taxation and government control."

What evidence do you have that it is something other than a combination of taxation and government control?

It must be something else.

What that "something else" is, you have absolutely no idea, you readily admit to your ignorance, and yet consider yourself to be offering a logical and well reasoned argument.

I've already posted a few possibilities, none of which is ' combination of taxation and government control."

None of your "possibilities" are actual "facts and observations", instead they are all your own ideological conceptions of how you think things work. Perhaps if you could admit that, not to me but to yourself, then you would find the intellectual curiosity to search for answers.

Maybe one of the other ideas is correct. I don't really know.

That's the biggest issue here, you don't know but think it's a good idea anyway. And while you have the intellectual honesty to admit your ignorance on the subject, you completely lack the intellectual curiosity to find the answers to the questions you don't know.

What I do know is what I keep saying:

Everyone else pays less.

That means absolutely nothing unless you can also offer facts and observations to explain why/how such a result is possible.

Now, if you're paying twice as much as all of your neighbors for cable TV, and not getting any more channels, would you:

A. continue to declare your plan to be the best, or,

B. change to one of their plans?

Again, it seems beyond your intellectual aptitude to ask the obvious rational questions of why and how, so you offer your own ideological beliefs in place of actual facts and observations.

Earlier you offered the suppositional explanation that it was possible because they "shared the costs" but such a conclusion can't stand up to even the mildest of intellectual scrutiny: If the cost is X, then the cost is X. Whether that cost is paid by one segment of the population or spread across the entire population, will not change the fact that the cost is still X.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Americans who oppose state provided healthcare do it because they are either vicious or stupid or both.

The rich who opposes it are vicious and then rest that they manipulate are stupid and often vicious too.