| |
|
| |
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:16 PM |
| Define communism, and tell me how on Earth it relates to Universal Healthcare. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:17 PM |
Because universal healthcare only calls for a giant tax hike? Or perhaps because universal healthcare has been proven to be inefficient, the most expensive, and have the longest waiting periods? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:20 PM |
| THANK YOU! Universal healthcare does not give people pay relative to their skill, so healthcare quality drops. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:22 PM |
>Tax hike Hey, it's not like we overpay our tax dollars for the military as it is... oh wait.
>Inefficient Dude, nine out of ten countries on the WHO's list of best healthcare systems utilize UHC.
>Expensive Eh, I don't think so. We spend the most per capita on our current healthcare system (like 18%, give or take. of our GDP), and it's not doing too well. Others such as Canada that utilize UHC spend as little as like 10% of their GDP on healthcare. So it looks like in the long run, it'll be beneficial to us economically.
>Longest waiting periods [citation] |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:24 PM |
Universal healthcare has been proven to be of the lowest quality and efficiency since competition no longer matters in government subsidies(such as the issue with college loans and prices).
Since it also offers no competition now that everyone can has "free" healthcare, hospitals can simply hike up prices of medication all at the expense of the tax payers and inflation. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:27 PM |
>lowest quality and efficiency since competition no longer matters in government subsidies
The WHO would like to disagree on the quality and efficiency front, but whatever. And I can speak from experience that the Japanese government (utilizing UHC) actually very carefully watches over the quality of care offered by healthcare companies. Because the government now assumes the role of the quality checker, competition can still exist and be alive and well, while companies can still pump out quality products that utilize some awesome state of the art tech.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:31 PM |
| @Known please give me some sources? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
TheMyrco
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15105 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:46 PM |
By the way KnownSonata Canada has a total of just over 34 million compared to U.S.A at well over 314 million. So that is 9.13 Americans per Canadian
The GDP difference is 15.09trillion to 1.736 trillion, which totals at U.S.A having an average of 8.6 Canadian GDP
So you have to adjust your healthcare costs to include the population differences.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:50 PM |
| My point was that universal healthcare, if implemented properly, has been shown to be less expensive than the current system used by the United States. By guaranteeing universal health care similar to systems already implemented, the United States would be able to reduce the costs of health care, meaning that a greater amount of money would be available to the country. By saving money, the United States will be doing good for its citizens, and hence, its society! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pepper0
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 12032 |
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:53 PM |
The only way to implement, so called 'universal healthcare', would be to increase competition in the health insurance market. Therefore, government cannot take it over. It will only result in something worse if it does so.
If you want health care for everyone, capitalism is the answer. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:54 PM |
| Health care needs to be reformed, but not universal. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:56 PM |
For the umpteen billionth time, UHC and quality of healthcare are not mutually exclusive (read posts above)
And no, a method that is solely capitalistic will result in many people being left out of the system
According to an April 19th, 2012 Reuters news article titled ‘One in Four Americans Without Health Coverage: Study’ written by David Morgan, 26% of adults aged between 19 to 64 are without health insurance; a percentage that equals about 48 million people when measured against the U.S. Census data.
Link to the article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/us-usa-healthcare-insurance-idUSBRE83I17420120419 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pepper0
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 12032 |
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:56 PM |
Health care needs to be reformed, but not universal. --- That is why I support Paul Ryan's budget proposal, since medicare reform is included. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:57 PM |
What would you rather have? People who at least receive SOME degree of healthcare, or people not being able to get to the healthcare in the first place because they can't afford it? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Or not having government subsidizing healthcare so that simple economics of competition drive down the price of healthcare so that more families can afford efficient, quality healthcare with a much smaller chance of dead due to the inability to receive aid on time.
Entire story you had there ------------------------------------------------------------ She probably wouldn't of even been able to get the surgery on time if it was Universal Healthcare. Simply allowing competition and free market economics to work the price of healthcare would probably of been low enough for her or her family to pay for it. Here is a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uPdkhMVdMQ&list=UU0uVZd8N7FfIZnPu0y7o95A&index=4&feature=plcp Around 7 minutes
http://csis.org/blog/oecd-figures-health-care-gdp This is from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010, we spent about 16% of our GDP on healthcare. This is way above every other country utilizing UHC. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Again it does not adjust to compare quality, efficiency, population to gdp, population to population, or gdp to gdp.
And again, UHC and quality healthcare are not mutually exclusive! If I may quote the book The Healing of America by T.R. Reid: "In essence, Japan's market for medical services is a competitive free market operation under the firm hand of government regulation. This is something like the market for home telephone service in the US." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That book was also written during the Japanese recession. It is a shame you don't have more sources. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pepper0
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 12032 |
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 06:58 PM |
And no, a method that is solely capitalistic will result in many people being left out of the system ---- Fallacy.
Capitalism will result in higher quality, and lower prices, more competition, and more efficiency. It has been proven throughout the centuries. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 07:01 PM |
| You also have to take in account the higher tax rates in Canada. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 07:04 PM |
What would you rather have? People who at least receive SOME degree of healthcare, or people not being able to get to the healthcare in the first place because they can't afford it? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Or not having government subsidizing healthcare so that simple economics of competition drive down the price of healthcare so that more families can afford efficient, quality healthcare with a much smaller chance of dead due to the inability to receive aid on time.
The government subsidizing HC doesn't necessarily mean that HC will suddenly become complete garbage.
Among the key points of UHC is to allow families to receive and afford "efficient, quality healthcare".
And the idea that the economics of competition would drive down prices is a moot point, considering how many Americans under the current system struggle to get enough money to afford the non-Universal Healthcare of the United States.
>She probably wouldn't of even been able to get the surgery on time if it was Universal Healthcare. Simply allowing competition and free market economics to work the price of healthcare would probably of been low enough for her or her family to pay for it.
See: above
>Written during the Japanese recession Relevant, why? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Nov 2012 07:07 PM |
>Capitalism will result in higher quality, and lower prices, more competition, and more efficiency. It has been proven throughout the centuries.
Uhh, you haven't excused the fact that the current capitalistic system leaves out the 48 million Americans mentioned in my statistic.
And I don't think the current conditions of our healthcare system (which mind you ranks #37 or something like that on the WHO's list of best healthcare systems) uphold the idea that capitalism will lead to any of the traits you listed. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|