Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[Thorne]

I'm not big on these kinds of political wrangles, personally, but I do have a comment regarding governments taking over health care systems.

I won't trust any such takeover unless ALL government employees and, most especially, ALL elected officials are enrolled completely in the same system as everyone else must use. No special perks for fat-cat Congressmen, no private clinics for bureaucrats, no sweetheart prescription deals for anyone. Everyone gets treated the same. There are too many instances in this country, and especially in the communist countries, where the people who make the rules are exempt from them.

If I know that I'm getting the same level of care as a Senator, at the same cost, then I'll trust a government controlled system. Otherwise, it's just another panacea to help control the masses.

[MMI]

I'm not big on these kinds of political wrangles, personally, but I do have a comment regarding governments taking over health care systems.

...

If I know that I'm getting the same level of care as a Senator, at the same cost, then I'll trust a government controlled system. Otherwise, it's just another panacea to help control the masses.

Scaredey-cat nonsense, Thorne. Why do you assume free (well, paid-for by taxes, actually) health treatment will be so inferior that your rulers will avoid it? Why do you pefer a system that cures its sick only if they can pay for it? Over here in the UK, many of our "rulers" do use the NHS. And many don't. The reasons they usually cite for not using the NHS (especially the left-wing politicians) include, they must avoid the waiting lists because they are "very important people", or they are using their freedom to choose, or because of the security risks. But no matter what, they have a vested interest in keeping the NHS going because they would be voted out of office if they didn't. Here, everyone has a right to the best healthcare possible, even if he is poor.

In the UK we have a private healthcare system as well as a state-run system. The "private" doctors are mostly NHS doctors moonlighting after a hard day's work in the state-owned hospital. Often they use NHS facilities to supply their "private" services because the private sector cannot afford them, or it's not commercially viable to purchase them.

Staffing is worse in the private system, too, because, once the doctors have gone home, only a few nurses are left. If there's an emergancy at night, doctors have to be called in, or the patient taken to an NHS hospital, where there are doctors (if ony junior ones) available at all hours.

Private operations are usually only of the less complex kind because of the lack of facilities, and, perhaps, because it would be too dangerous to let a surgeon who has already been operating all day in one hospital loose on a paying patient in a private one. So the major operations are carried out by the NHS anyway.

When operations go wrong in a private hospital, the patient is frequently brought to an NHS hospital for corrective surgery. I doubt it ever happens the other way round.

NHS has its faults, like any other system - as denuseri points out, they all do. And in the majority of cases, the reason is funding, not training - although standards may vary a bit, not staffing, nor the will to heal. In the UK, funding problems have lowered the standard of healthcare considerably. Everything has to be costed now. We have dirty hospitals because we skimp on cleaners, some drugs are not available on the NHS because cheaper, less effective ones are available. The administration is top-heavy because the overpaid fat cats at the top are more intersted in their careers than in their patients. And lawyers are getting in on the act too, so more and more funds that could go into health care are lining solicitors' pockets instead. But we have considerable success too. In the US (so far as I know) you have superb facilities that even we Brits will travel to use if we have the money and the NHS can't deal with our problem. But there's the rub. We - and Americans - need money to be treated in the US system. Americans who don't have money, can rely on health insurance schemes. Except they are costly, and there are so many exclusions, such as, if you're likely to fall ill, you won't be covered. If you do fall ill, you won't be covered again. And whatever happens, you're only covered for so much. After that, I gather you have to rely on the government-funded or charitable systems that are no better than a third-world country would provide.

Isn't that a mark of shame for the world's richest country?

[Muskan]

I'm not big on these kinds of political wrangles, personally, but I do have a comment regarding governments taking over health care systems.

I won't trust any such takeover unless ALL government employees and, most especially, ALL elected officials are enrolled completely in the same system as everyone else must use. No special perks for fat-cat Congressmen, no private clinics for bureaucrats, no sweetheart prescription deals for anyone. Everyone gets treated the same. There are too many instances in this country, and especially in the communist countries, where the people who make the rules are exempt from them.

If I know that I'm getting the same level of care as a Senator, at the same cost, then I'll trust a government controlled system. Otherwise, it's just another panacea to help control the masses.

When they even fails to provide Food for All, how can they dream of something like Universal Health program?

Even Now people like the socialistic dystopian dreams.

Any Collective-Welfare program, be it American or British or Indian always fails because of the natural corruption collectivism causes.

[wmrs2]

I'm not big on these kinds of political wrangles, personally, but I do have a comment regarding governments taking over health care systems.

I won't trust any such takeover unless ALL government employees and, most especially, ALL elected officials are enrolled completely in the same system as everyone else must use. No special perks for fat-cat Congressmen, no private clinics for bureaucrats, no sweetheart prescription deals for anyone. Everyone gets treated the same. There are too many instances in this country, and especially in the communist countries, where the people who make the rules are exempt from them.

If I know that I'm getting the same level of care as a Senator, at the same cost, then I'll trust a government controlled system. Otherwise, it's just another panacea to help control the masses.

Thorne, there are many great remarks made on this thread but your remark has as great of merit as any. As you point out, as long as there is a political system in any country, there will be sweet heart deals for those in power. Of course, it is possible to live in a country where the poor are in power and the hard working wealthy land owners are hanged or beheaded. But that sounds a little extreme but it has happened.

Every time I think my mind is made up about universal health care, I hear a very logical opposing view to what I believe. The ant and the grasshopper, at first thought I would like to allow the grasshopper to starve, after all, he should have planned better for the winter. This applies to those who bought homes that they could not afford. I am willing to let them sleep on the streets at first;but like the ant, I feel sorry for them.

If it were possible to have utopia health care, I would be for it. Sense I don't think it is possible, I am against it. The health care we have is the best in the world. I planned for health care when I entered the job market at the level I was happy with. My insurance company just paid a $200,000 yearly health bill for me. If health care was totally a government monopoly, I am sure that I would be dead. So would millions of others like me also. I am happy that there was the freedom to plan for my health care instead of trusting to Joe politician. It just has not worked very well to surrender your freedoms to the government in terms of health care. We have the right to health care if we have the wisdom to search in pursuit of happiness but the fellow who drunk beer at the bar while I studied in college does not have this right by his own choice.

Don't get me wrong, I like grasshoppers but it is hard not to step on them when they are all over the floor. Sometimes you must simply sweep them out the door. Seriously, I don't know what course to follow. Thanks everybody for offering your opinions to us that don't know.

[Thorne]

It just has not worked very well to surrender your freedoms to the government in terms of health care.

I would have to say it's a bad idea to surrender your freedoms in terms of anything!

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

The health care we have is the best in the world. I planned for health care when I entered the job market at the level I was happy with. My insurance company just paid a $200,000 yearly health bill for me. If health care was totally a government monopoly, I am sure that I would be dead.
.

A couple of questions

1) How do you measure how good our health care system is; infant mortality? life span? What metrics are you using to back up your declaration that this system is the best?

2) If you lost your job and ran out of COBRA coverage how would that $200k health bill be paid?

[wmrs2]

A couple of questions

1) How do you measure how good our health care system is; infant mortality? life span? What metrics are you using to back up your declaration that this system is the best?

2) If you lost your job and ran out of COBRA coverage how would that $200k health bill be paid?

I am not sure that I can defend the declaration that this system is the best and I really don't know if Oboma's health plan is better or not. The health plan I have is really good for me. I have medicare and a secondary plan. I am retired and it is doubtful that my health plan will change much. Any light you can shine of this issue will be appreciated. I do have family members who need health coverage.

[Belgarold]

I am not sure that I can defend the declaration that this system is the best and I really don't know if Oboma's health plan is better or not. The health plan I have is really good for me. I have medicare and a secondary plan. I am retired and it is doubtful that my health plan will change much. Any light you can shine of this issue will be appreciated. I do have family members who need health coverage.

You stated earlier that, "The Health care we have is the best in the world", And I think what the good Dr. was getting to is how do you support that statement. I would like to know the answer to that as well.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

I am not sure that I can defend the declaration that this system is the best and I really don't know if Oboma's health plan is better or not. The health plan I have is really good for me. I have medicare and a secondary plan. I am retired and it is doubtful that my health plan will change much. Any light you can shine of this issue will be appreciated. I do have family members who need health coverage.

I've been studying this subject off and on for a few years. I'm a long way from an expert, but I've done some reading.

According to the World Health Organization the U.S. has the 37th best health system in the world.

According to the CIA World Factbook the United States is 46th in the world in life expectancy at birth (expected life span in years) and 40th in infant mortality (deaths/1000 births).

In an earlier post someone bashed the Canadian system (I don't recall who at the moment). Canada is ranked higher than the U.S. in all phases of health care except $$/capita. Careful about that rock throwing.

A country that intrigues me is Japan. They significantly out perform the U.S in those three metrics I listed and have an aging population as do we. Their health care system is a Universal plan covering 100% of their population using a mixture of private and public insurance systems. Since we have the baby-boomers getting very close to retirement and putting tremendous strains on our Medicare and Social Security systems watching how Japan deals with this similar problem will be educational.

Here's some trivia for ya'll:

Cuba has lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. as does Bosnia, per the CIA World Factbook.

France has the best overall health care system per WHO, while being #4 in health care expenditures per capita. (The U.S. is #1 in expenditures per capita for health care.)

There is no doubt in my mind that our present system can and should be improved.

[Belgarold]

I've been studying this subject off and on for a few years. I'm a long way from an expert, but I've done some reading.

According to the World Health Organization the U.S. has the 37th best health system in the world.

According to the CIA World Factbook the United States is 46th in the world in life expectancy at birth (expected life span in years) and 40th in infant mortality (deaths/1000 births).

In an earlier post someone bashed the Canadian system (I don't recall who at the moment). Canada is ranked higher than the U.S. in all phases of health care except $$/capita. Careful about that rock throwing.

A country that intrigues me is Japan. They significantly out perform the U.S in those three metrics I listed and have an aging population as do we. Their health care system is a Universal plan covering 100% of their population using a mixture of private and public insurance systems. Since we have the baby-boomers getting very close to retirement and putting tremendous strains on our Medicare and Social Security systems watching how Japan deals with this similar problem will be educational.

Here's some trivia for ya'll:

Cuba has lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. as does Bosnia, per the CIA World Factbook.

France has the best overall health care system per WHO, while being #4 in health care expenditures per capita. (The U.S. is #1 in expenditures per capita for health care.)

There is no doubt in my mind that our present system can and should be improved.

Thanks again for this research. I was going to mention Japan but didn't have the statistics to back up my thought that their system was VERY good.

Thanks again.