Support NeoGAF

[Yaweee]

There's really nothing you can do about them-they'll continue to rally against government programs while at the same time enjoying a lifestyle that is only possible because of them (for more on that topic google 'I am and American Conservative Shitheel').

Guess what? We live in society where government actions benefit everybody to some extent. It's inescapable, no matter what country you live. Are you suggesting all libertarians are hypocrites that should be ignored because they happen to live in a society that has a functioning and pervasive government?

You oversimplify libertarianism way too much. There's many different types, and most aren't anywhere near as extreme as you paint them to be.

There's a legitimate conversation to be had about what should be up to government and what shouldn't be, but you seem on completely sidestepping the issue by wrongfully painting people as hypocrites.

At the end of the day, DO you guys want to be paying for people that aren't contributing and may be potential leeches on society? I figured if the majority really wanted UHC, you guys would already have it. Seems to me the only thing holding back UHC for Americans ARE Americans. Am I wrong?

Yes, I do want to be paying for leeches, if it eventually means I have the same safety net. Our system is so fundamentally fucked and getting worse that almost any of the proposed solutions would make it less bad.

I think the problem is that people don't think the proposed fixes will actually fix what they dislike about the system. That, and the right is doing a mighty fine job of painting all non-US healthcare systems in an awful light.

 

[udivision]

I don't understand, are you saying Microsoft owns the study group?

...no? I was saying that the organization that did the study wants uhc so... y'know there might be some bias.

 

[RSLAEV]

Guess what? We live in society where government actions benefit everybody to some extent. It's inescapable, no matter what country you live. Are you suggesting all libertarians are hypocrites that should be ignored because they happen to live in a society that has a functioning and pervasive government?

You oversimplify libertarianism way too much. There's many different types, and most aren't anywhere near as extreme as you paint them to be.

There's a legitimate conversation to be had about what should be up to government and what shouldn't be, but you seem on completely sidestepping the issue by wrongfully painting people as hypocrites.



Yes, I do. Our system is so fundamentally fucked and getting worse that almost any of the proposed solutions would make it less bad.

You're right, I do paint a very 2 dimensional picture of these people, but I don't really know many libertarians that know the meaning of the word 'compromise' Actually I only know one real life libertarian, and another guy who'se kind of the same but an Objectivist.

I suppose reading what I wrote I might as well be directly blaming libertarians for every one of those 43,000 deaths, and that certainly isn't fair.

 

[Yaweee]

You're right, I do paint a very 2 dimensional picture of these people, but I don't really know many libertarians that know the meaning of the word 'compromise' Actually I only know one real life libertarian, and another guy who'se kind of the same but an Objectivist.

I suppose reading what I wrote I might as well be directly blaming libertarians for every one of those 43,000 deaths, and that certainly isn't fair.

Everybody gets on their soapboxes and times, and I think libertarians get on them a bit more often than most (but that just might be because there's more to bitch about, in their eyes.) Most of the libertarians I've met aren't anywhere near extreme, but I can see where it would be easy to get that impression if you talked to them only about a few specific issues.

 

[Christopher]

I persoanlly don' think that medicine/health should be a compeition/business...everyone should be entitled to get the best treatment ...I guess that's idealistic, but I always felt strong on that matter

 

[Yaweee]

I persoanlly don' think that medicine/health should be a compeition/business...everyone should be entitled to get the best treatment ...I guess that's idealistic, but I always felt strong on that matter

The problem with that is it is infinitely expensive. Not a single system in the world allows everything for everybody at all times. Unless I'm mistaken...

I like the idea of basic, effective, and emergency care being given to everybody for free, but I'd also like a higher-tier private market that allows people to pursue treatments with their own money. If somebody wants to spend money to see a doctor of their choice right away without sitting on a waiting list, then they should be allowed to do so.

 

[UltimaPooh]

I like the idea of basic, effective, and emergency care being given to everybody for free, but I'd also like a higher-tier private market that allows people to pursue treatments with their own money. If somebody wants to spend money to see a doctor of their choice right away without sitting on a waiting list, then they should be allowed to do so.

The bolded is what would make something so expensive, emergency care. The savings comes through preventative care.

 

[deadbeef]

The bolded is what would make something so expensive, emergency care. The savings comes through preventative care.

Unless it is "free" for everyone to go get checkups and what not (ie. no copay) then there will always be those that can't spare the money to go to the doctor to get the checkup that might save their life.

 

[Yaweee]

The bolded is what would make something so expensive, emergency care. The savings comes through preventative care.

Yes, emergency care is the most expensive part, which is why our current system blows so much. It's the only outlet for the uninsured, but by blocking them from the first two, a disproportionately large number have to rely in it which bloats the size of the health system tremendously.

(what I had bolded was there to imply both preventative (basic) and emergency care, but I guess I didn't make it clear enough)

 

[Gallbaro]

THe United States COnstitution may very well be the most overrated document ever written. I'm tired of everyone bring it up when you talk about government healthcare.



The damn thing was written 200 years ago for fucks sake.

The constitution can be changed, and the that affect if we still followed it, it is a wonderful document.

Remember Pot was made illegal by legislation, booze was made illegal by amendment. The only difference is we stopped following and changing the document and that is a good reason why this country is so fucked up.

 

[littleorphanfunk]

This forum is swarming with Lolbertarian douche nozzles who love to scream FUCK YOU GOT MINE whenever someone propose that the government do anything but kill foreigners or remove obstructions to free enterprise. Yay not just this forum but probably the internet in general. There's really nothing you can do about them-they'll continue to rally against government programs while at the same time enjoying a lifestyle that is only possible because of them (for more on that topic google 'I am and American Conservative Shitheel').

Everywhere they look they see welfare kings and queens trying to use the system to cheat hard working non-minorities out of their tax dollars. They see environmentalists trying to bring the wheels of industry to a standstill with ridiculous laws that put the quality of our air and water ahead of corporate profits. Teachers and social workers wasting government money on educating the children of the poor who shouldn't have been born in the first place (Why should I help you raise a child you created but cannot afford?), The ACLU is falling over backwards to make sure that pedophiles and terrorists get the same legal rights as good upstanding citizens...Life for these people is truly a living hell.

All they want to do is enjoy the full fruits of their own labors, but they can't because they are dragged down into an abyss of mediocrity by those that have no interest in working to support themselves! They see the Lolbertarian and they say 'What do you think you're doing?! If you have something I have a right to it too! You have to share your wealth with me!

43,000 people died because they didn't seek healthcare that they could not afford? You and I might call it a tragedy, but to a lot of people here it's simply the free market at work.

yeah because most libertarians aren't non interventionists that believe in truly free markets, free trade, removal of economic sanctioning against foreign governments, removal of troops from overseas (not just war zones), and generally scalling back the scope of the federal government. we just want to see foreigners die and the rich get richer

healthcare currently is absolutely not free market, and your blanket statements about libertarians do nothing but highlight your own ignorance on the matter

 

[timetokill]

This forum and the Internet in general are swarming with conservatives?

Wow, news to me :lol

 

[sh4mike]

Only thing I don't like about UHC is that one's health is often dictated by how one behaves. People who eat well and exercise cost significantly less to keep healthy. By providing UHC, people lose some of the incentive to practice responsible, healthy behavior.

There are limited resources available. I'd rather spend it on someone hit by a drunk driver than someone suffering from too much McDonalds in their veins.

 

[littleorphanfunk]

people have no incentive to be responsible now, whats UHC going to change?

youre talking about a government that rewards failure and personal responsibility is pushed off onto the predatory free market that only big government can save you from

 

[timetokill]

Only thing I don't like about UHC is that one's health is often dictated by how one behaves. People who eat well and exercise cost significantly less to keep healthy. By providing UHC, people lose some of the incentive to practice responsible, healthy behavior.

There are limited resources available. I'd rather spend it on someone hit by a drunk driver than someone suffering from too much McDonalds in their veins.

Not to worry, they will start taxing you more for your weight.

 

[hockeypuck]

I've said this before, but I find it ironic that American military personnel, the very people who protect us from all things un-American, enjoy the best socialized medicine this country has to offer (also one of the most cost-effective).

Arguments about morality aside, a HUGE benefit of UHC is a single, centralized computerized medical database. This would greatly reduce redundant testing and thus costs. I've lost count the number of times a patient is transferred from a small community hospital to a large medical center, but the tests could not be transferred because of incompatible systems. So we are pretty much forced to repeat the CT scan, the MRI, all the labs just to reinvent the wheel. Incredibly stupid and wasteful.

 

[Belfast]

Only thing I don't like about UHC is that one's health is often dictated by how one behaves. People who eat well and exercise cost significantly less to keep healthy. By providing UHC, people lose some of the incentive to practice responsible, healthy behavior.

There are limited resources available. I'd rather spend it on someone hit by a drunk driver than someone suffering from too much McDonalds in their veins.

Health is often dictated as much by genetics as it is personal habits. Improving the latter helps, of course, but the fact of the matter is that everyone's health starts to break down at some point in their life, and not everybody has the money to combat that.

 

[littleorphanfunk]

I've said this before, but I find it ironic that American military personnel, the very people who protect us from all things un-American, enjoy the best socialized medicine this country has to offer (also one of the most cost-effective).

so since tricare is free for american soldiers its socialist? i guess every benefit they get is socialist then.

im also pretty sure that every soldier pays into the federal tax system, unless its a special case of warzone pay or something related

 

[UltimaPooh]

people have no incentive to be responsible now, whats UHC going to change?

If emergency care is made expensive and preventative made cheap... people will go for cheap.

It's the same reason someone chooses a McDonald's Double Cheese Burger over the healthier alternative.

 

[littleorphanfunk]

Health is often dictated as much by genetics as it is personal habits. Improving the latter helps, of course, but the fact of the matter is that everyone's health starts to break down at some point in their life, and not everybody has the money to combat that.

youre going out on a limb that all health related problems will be caused by genetics and not just irresponsibility or laziness

 

[Son of Godzilla]

If emergency care is made expensive and preventative made cheap... people will go for cheap.

It's the same reason someone chooses a McDonald's Double Cheese Burger over the healthier alternative.

A better analogy would be it's the same reason people choose carry out over delivery.

 

[Belfast]

youre going out on a limb that all health related problems will be caused by genetics and not just irresponsibility or laziness

And you're going out on a limb assuming that all health related problems will be caused by irresponsibility or laziness, which in and of themselves, are fairly nebulous, subjective terms. Genetic defects, on the other hand, can be marked and quantified much more easily.

Everybody's idea of "lazy" or "irresponsible" is going to be fundamentally different. And they aren't always tied to level of income, either. You're going to tell me that people *with* insurance have not been irresponsible or lazy with their health on some level?

 

[hockeypuck]

so since tricare is free for american soldiers its socialist? i guess every benefit they get is socialist then.

im also pretty sure that every soldier pays into the federal tax system, unless its a special case of warzone pay or something related

I'm not even talking about Tricare. I'm talking about the Veterans Health Administration. Veterans receive care at specially-designated VA medical centers where only military personnel can get treatment. Everything is regulated from within and there is more resistance to free market influences that may unnecessarily raise health costs. The government could have just said, "here's a stipend to purchase insurance from any private company you'd like. How's that for freedom?" But no, the government decided that a mostly internalized system would better serve veterans. And they're right. They receive treatment for similar if not same costs amongst different VA medical centers. It's like a miniature version of UHC. It is government-run health care. Sounds pretty socialized to me. Why can't schoolteachers be given the same treatment? Why can't every taxpayer be given the same treatment?

The VA offers soldiers medicines and procedures at a relative pittance. And there are plenty of uninsured people that pay into the federal tax system, so I'm not sure where you were going with that.

 

[littleorphanfunk]

I hope you're not using va hospitals as your model for successful government run healthcare.

 

[hockeypuck]

I hope you're not using va hospitals as your model for successful government run healthcare.

And I'm saddened that you allow anecdotes and old news programs to wallow in your head while research clearly has shown that the Veterans Affairs medical centers have improved since the mid-1990s and are now considered a model of excellent health care.

"VA health care is now considered among the best in America, and the VA transformation is viewed as a model for health care reform."
Annu Rev Public Health. 2009 Apr 29;30:313-39.

Some excerpts,

Using the nationally representative 2000 and 2004 surveys of the Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System, veterans treated at VA medical centers were substantially more likely than veterans treated at non-VA facilities and insured adults treated at private health care facilities to receive recommended ambulatory care services for cancer prevention, cardiovascular risk reduction, diabetes management, and infectious disease prevention.

Using RAND's quality assessment instrument of 348 indicators covering 26 conditions, Asch et al. (7) compared VA patient care in 12 VISNs with 12 matched communities for the period 1997 through 2000. VA performance was significantly better for overall quality, chronic disease management, and preventive care and was essentially the same for acute care.

The VHA's service satisfaction ratings on the ACSI [American Customer Satisfaction Index] have been higher than the private sector every year since 1999 (68, 170, 171), and VA health care users are reported to be 2–8 times more satisfied with their outpatient care than are non-VA users (95).

The three factors most often linked with the improved service satisfaction were implementing primary care, reducing waiting times, and improving access to care...

Gee, sounds pretty damn good to me.

 

[Monroeski]

Unless it is "free" for everyone to go get checkups and what not (ie. no copay) then there will always be those that can't spare the money to go to the doctor to get the checkup that might save their life.

The key is not just checkups, but to have an incentive for the docs to actually prevent things. Under the current system, they don't make money by preventing illness, they make money by treating very sick people; contrast this private market with, say, the VA, which provides financial incentives to its physicians for preventative tests, treating small problems before they become big, etc. Private sector docs make more money by waiting until their patients are sicker. Not that I think most docs intentionally try to cause their patients to get worse through non-treatment, but with the shortage of providers in so many specialties and only so much time to go around, they treat the sickest first and triage the ones that need preventative care until they get really serious illness.

Simply making checkups and other basic visits free does nothing except give patients an incentive to go to the doctor when they don't really need to; at no cost, patients go to the doc for headaches, sniffles, etc., whereas when they have to pay for it they wait until they are really legitimately sick to go. That also drives up cost; providers dealing with every idiot whose temperature is 98.7 degrees instead of the people who are really sick. That's the whole concept behind copay; it's not necessarily totally to defray insurance company's cost, it's to make people think harder before they set up an appointment. The vast, VAST majority of people can afford the $20 or $30 copay, but it stops to make them think whether they really need to be using up the healthcare system's resources before they go in.

 

[littleorphanfunk]

Hooray for baseless satistics and numbers

I can do it to

"According to a report from Nursing Times, NHS hospital deaths due to errors have soared 60 percent in a single year. Worse, according to The Telegraph, nine of 10 preventable deaths under government care aren't even reported. Of the roughly 72,000 deaths in the NHS each year, only 3,200 are noted by the National Patient Safety Agency."

 

[hockeypuck]

Hooray for baseless satistics and numbers

I can do it to

"According to a report from Nursing Times, NHS hospital deaths due to errors have soared 60 percent in a single year. Worse, according to The Telegraph, nine of 10 preventable deaths under government care aren't even reported. Of the roughly 72,000 deaths in the NHS each year, only 3,200 are noted by the National Patient Safety Agency."

1. No specific source. Just a quote. And you're quoting a source which is quoting another source. You don't even have the original reference material.

2. This post argues that preventable deaths are under-reported. Okay, now why didn't you quote the part where it says that private health care does a better job at it? It doesn't? What makes you think private care does a better job? So what's your point? What are you comparing it to? Nothing?

3. I posted something that directly refuted your naive claim, i.e., VA facilities are poorly run. You have yet to prove otherwise.

So no, you can't do it. And you disparage research. So if my claims are "baseless," what are your claims based on? Weblogs? Your daddy's political preferences? Random conversations with hobos in front of Starbucks? :lol

 

[TacticalFox88]

Hooray for baseless satistics and numbers

I can do it to

"According to a report from Nursing Times, NHS hospital deaths due to errors have soared 60 percent in a single year. Worse, according to The Telegraph, nine of 10 preventable deaths under government care aren't even reported. Of the roughly 72,000 deaths in the NHS each year, only 3,200 are noted by the National Patient Safety Agency."

So now your pulling shit out of your ass?

 

[miyuru]

No wonder America is so backwards, just look at some of the retarded posts made in this thread.

Though I'm sure those posts are in the minority, but regardless it still blows my mind.

Glad I'm Canadian!!

 

[GoutPatrol]

youre going out on a limb that all health related problems will be caused by genetics and not just irresponsibility or laziness

Of course, all health problems are caused by laziness. If everyone wasn't so goddamn lazy, they wouldn't get hit by drunk drivers. They teach tumbling in preschool for fucksake, learn how to roll out the way!

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

God bless America.

I can't even believe that there are still people who are against UHC.
The state should be responsible for the health of every citizen, no matter if it's a homeless guy who suffers a complicated cancer or a billionaire with headache.
it should not matter.
You want the guy ,who doesn't have a job and is super lazy etc, to get a worse treatment(or no treatment at all) than you? I wouldn't even think about this. Some people are just heartless bastards.
Isn't it kind of embarrasing that 3rd world countries, with next to no money, have much better healthcare(not quality wise)?

No healthcare shouldn't be free. It's much like food and clothes, you shouldn't have the government give you free food and clothes. So they shouldn't give you health care either. It doesn't matter that free health care is cheaper for the country so in a way they giving away money more than keeping it, it's just the right thing to do.

 

[grumble]

Is this a thread about the basic health reforms that Obama is wanting to put in to place for the US?

By the standards of any other developed country, these reforms are basic and it's totally obvious that they should be put in. A person shouldn't be denied basic health care in a wealthy country because they aren't rich enough. If they are, then that country is seriously fucked up.

Imagine if they made every road a toll road, and every school a private school. That'd be crazy, right?

Also, after reading this article, these statistics are really flaky. I really doubt that the number is 45,000 per year die due to lack of health insurance. I'd guess the number's a few times that.

Last, I remember reading once that the US healthcare system was ranked 37th in the world, after Costa Rica. Costa Rica has a better healthcare system than the US. Costa Rica. It's pretty obvious that the US system needs fixing, though it doesn't have to go full public.

 

[ToxicAdam]

No wonder America is so backwards, just look at some of the retarded posts made in this thread.

Though I'm sure those posts are in the minority, but regardless it still blows my mind.

Glad I'm Canadian!!

Yep, having access to health care sure has improved the imbalance in the health and welfare of the poor!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE56L6O620090722


"Universal access will not by itself translate into universal health;" Feudtner writes. "Instead social support programs may be far more important."

 

[timetokill]

Last, I remember reading once that the US healthcare system was ranked 37th in the world, after Costa Rica. Costa Rica has a better healthcare system than the US. Costa Rica. It's pretty obvious that the US system needs fixing, though it doesn't have to go full public.

Quick, tell me on what metrics these rankings were based.

 

[iamaustrian]

man, reading through some posts here makes me give up that your system will ever change.
enjoy your backwards healthcare system. It's always easy to be against UHC when you have insurance and can effort it but there are plenty of examples where people lost their job and insurance, got sick and couldn't effort the treatment then. Then you will realize how fucked up your system is.

bah, to whom I 'm even talking...



edit:

No healthcare shouldn't be free. It's much like food and clothes, you shouldn't have the government give you free food and clothes.

what the hell?
ok that's enough. I'm out of here

 

[BanGy.nz]

I haven't really followed this debate, but coming from New Zealand and now living in the UK, I have to say that the general perception in both countries is that your healthcare system is unbelievably callous, cold and immoral.

Pretty much, I don't understand how keeping people alive isn't part of the governments job.

 

[cntr]

I remember an American coworker posting on Facebook in support of UHC.

I'm not American, but I always get the impression that you guys were out to take care of yourselves? I completely understand where you're coming from, "Why the hell should I spend my hard earned dollars that I should be using to take care of my family into a fund for people who don't have insurance and/or don't work?"

Of course, when I posted this message in response, two Americans said that they and the majority of Americans don't believe in this and that everyone should take care of each other and that UHC was needed.

At the end of the day, DO you guys want to be paying for people that aren't contributing and may be potential leeches on society? I figured if the majority really wanted UHC, you guys would already have it. Seems to me the only thing holding back UHC for Americans ARE Americans. Am I wrong?

Quite simply, a loud minority backed by lobbyist money.

 

[Gozan]

Yep, having access to health care sure has improved the imbalance in the health and welfare of the poor!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE56L6O620090722


"Universal access will not by itself translate into universal health;" Feudtner writes. "Instead social support programs may be far more important."

That's odd, I couldn't see any mention in that article of how poor families in the US fare in comparison, or anything else that would make this relevant to this thread.

 

[teruterubozu]

Jesus was a healer, but conservative America is Satan in disguise.

 

[Canova]

nm

 

[Mr.Potato Head]

Some really good points made here in this thread...

I also wanted to state that i was laid off from my job last year for around 7 months assured i would get my job back which i did get my job back thank god but during the time i was laid off i had cut my finger working in my garage so i had to go to get stitches, the crazy thing is i was charged 8 bucks per Tylenol pill that i was given when i was there to help relieve the pain until i could get my Walgreens prescription filled. I just find that pretty outrageous and criminal imho. The actual overall bill was over 400 dollars for the entire 10 stitches,pills,etc which of course i had to pay out of pocket because i was laid off.

Funny thing is, i would of never noticed these sort of prices if i had insurance but since i was laid off and things were pretty tight for me financially, i was a bit leary of going to the doctor knowing i would have to pay the full cost out of pocket. This of course is a very minor example but 8 dollars per Tylenol pill? my goodness!

 

[Woodsy]

Some really good points made here in this thread...

I also wanted to state that i was laid off from my job last year for around 7 months assured i would get my job back which i did get my job back thank god but during the time i was laid off i had cut my finger working in my garage so i had to go to get stitches, the crazy thing is i was charged 8 bucks per Tylenol pill that i was given when i was there to help relieve the pain until i could get my Walgreens prescription filled. I just find that pretty outrageous and criminal imho. The actual overall bill was over 400 dollars for the entire 10 stitches,pills,etc which of course i had to pay out of pocket because i was laid off.

Funny thing is, i would of never noticed these sort of prices if i had insurance but since i was laid off and things were pretty tight for me financially, i was a bit leary of going to the doctor knowing i would have to pay the full cost out of pocket. This of course is a very minor example but 8 dollars per Tylenol pill? my goodness!

Please post up your hospital bill/EOB, because this meme is a lie.

 

[Woodsy]

Yep, having access to health care sure has improved the imbalance in the health and welfare of the poor!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE56L6O620090722


"Universal access will not by itself translate into universal health;" Feudtner writes. "Instead social support programs may be far more important."

It's the same in the US. If you've ever worked in healthcare and dealt with the Medicaid population to any extent, you are keenly aware that having insurance is really not any determining factor to your overall health (how can it be when you're picking up your blood pressure meds along with a couple liters of Coke, bags of potato chips, and a carton of cigarettes?)

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

I remember an American coworker posting on Facebook in support of UHC.

I'm not American, but I always get the impression that you guys were out to take care of yourselves? I completely understand where you're coming from, "Why the hell should I spend my hard earned dollars that I should be using to take care of my family into a fund for people who don't have insurance and/or don't work?"

Of course, when I posted this message in response, two Americans said that they and the majority of Americans don't believe in this and that everyone should take care of each other and that UHC was needed.

At the end of the day, DO you guys want to be paying for people that aren't contributing and may be potential leeches on society? I figured if the majority really wanted UHC, you guys would already have it. Seems to me the only thing holding back UHC for Americans ARE Americans. Am I wrong?

The majority of Americans have been in favor of this program since the early 90s, which prompted the attempt at the beginning of the Clinton administration to bring in UHC. Please see "Hillarycare" for more details.

The only thing holding it back are the politicians that are getting greased by the health care industry on both sides. It is why there are several Democratic stragglers on the public option. I bet a lot of them have received millions from industries that want it private. Max Baucus is one. People are in favor of it but as long as the politicians are getting fat sacks of cash from the insurance industries or "health care concern groups" that want it to stay exclusively private, that is going to take away the guaranteed majorities in the House and Senate to get it passed.

The nuts that invade the town hall meetings are the loud minority. I don't expect 100% of Americans to support it. I'd expect 30-40% to be against it but as long as 60-70% of the population supports it, then who cares about the 30-40% The FUD whipped up by this tends to affect politicians more who hate the thought of this footage being used against them in the next round of elections. That and when they get paid by the lobbyists, the loud majority suddenly becomes the invisible majority.

=========================================================

Cliffs: People want it passed but the politicians don't. At the same time, the issue is not so crucial that voters are willing to throw out those that refuse to vote for a public option.

 

[Peronthious]

Data being categorized to fit the occasion. 45k is a small enough number in a country with a population in excess of 300 mil that it's bound to happen anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar number of deaths happened in countries with socialized healthcare for whatever flaws in those systems.

 

[Jasup]

"Universal access will not by itself translate into universal health;" Feudtner writes. "Instead social support programs may be far more important."

Yes, public healthcare is not enough. There should be better social programmes that not only help the poor but also give support for those who are in danger of falling into poverty. Better, more active programs for unemployed should be implemented to help them get work, and while working a proper salary must be insured - having working poor is just a disgrace for any nation. Ideas like that of flexicurity could very well be looked at and implemented etc etc...

So yes, I'm very much in favour of your implication to go beyond just healthcare and implement proper social programs to serve the peoples and society's well being. It's the thing any civilised society must do.

It's the same in the US. If you've ever worked in healthcare and dealt with the Medicaid population to any extent, you are keenly aware that having insurance is really not any determining factor to your overall health (how can it be when you're picking up your blood pressure meds along with a couple liters of Coke, bags of potato chips, and a carton of cigarettes?)

Yes, better public health awareness programs could be a start. But we really should tackle the problem of poverty where these problems usually stem from (junk food is cheap)... I'm with you.


Alleviate the symptoms and tackle the cause.

 

[siddx]

I'm as pro obama as the come, but i'm not 100% sure about hiss health care plan. That said, whether it has faults or not, we need to change things. The system we have now doesn't work. No, more than that, it's downright detrimental to our society. I for one, am wiling to try something new. If it ends up being a mess, then we try again. But if it succeeds, we will have fixed one of the biggest and most important issues in our country. So let him try for frack's sake.

 

[Woodsy]

Yes, public healthcare is not enough. There should be better social programmes that not only help the poor but also give support for those who are in danger of falling into poverty. Better, more active programs for unemployed should be implemented to help them get work, and while working a proper salary must be insured - having working poor is just a disgrace for any nation. Ideas like that of flexicurity could very well be looked at and implemented etc etc...

So yes, I'm very much in favour of your implication to go beyond just healthcare and implement proper social programs to serve the peoples and society's well being. It's the thing any civilised society must do.



Yes, better public health awareness programs could be a start. But we really should tackle the problem of poverty where these problems usually stem from (junk food is cheap)... I'm with you.


Alleviate the symptoms and tackle the cause.

The problem is, at what point do social programs become "too rich" such that there isn't really any incentive for people to work out of them? If government is providing me a place to live, food, and "free" healthcare, that is incentive enough for a LOT of people to not bother looking for a job and just continue to live off the system. IMO, enrollment into any sort of social program should be provided for free for a certain period of time and after that, sorry, you are working for the government doing something unless your are physically or mentally incapacitated. I don't care if it's picking up trash every day or something of that ilk, you need to be doing something.

 

[BobsRevenge]

The bolded is what would make something so expensive, emergency care. The savings comes through preventative care.

I've read something about this not being very true. That the extra cost of more preventative care wouldn't make up for costs saved. I personally always thought it was a suspect assumption. I don't assume it to be true myself.