Yes, it would. Sending more infectious diseases the way of smallpox benefits everyone, now and in future generations.
Apology accepted.
I’m a conservative, but I’m from Norway, so some people here might still think I’m a bleeding-hearth naive commie liberal. I’m butting in anyway 
Here in Norway we had this discussion about 50 years ago. We went for socialized health care, and nearly all political parties support it now. There are often ideological discussions about it, and there is a conservative point that I seldom see discussed in the US.
Universal health care increases productivity
Not being afraid for your future makes you work harder. We see UHC as an investment in society which pays off over the long run. Yes, we really do this out of our own self interest, in order to make more money!
Here, there are no differences between the arguments for health care and for education - it’s exactly the same thing.
The protestant countries of Europe - like the Nordic countries and Germany - have a high work ethic, just like the US. But we all have universal health care, free education (including top universities), long holidays, and limits on weekly working hours. And the point is: We have a higher productivity per employee than nearly all other countries (including the US). Conservatives here understand that there is a direct relationship, and will not go back.
Man…you are making the case for government getting out of the health care business. Thank government that insurance is tethered to employment. Also, the cost of health insurance is related to what your state mandates they cover. And maybe increased competition across state lines would result in lower prices. Maybe we can get rid of their antitrust exception
Oh, and if you want to get rid of crippling malpractice lawsuits then vote republican.
Norway also has a tax burden of 45% of GDP with health care being a very large contributor. And, of course, waiting lists are endemic, which is why so many Norwegians go abroad for treatment. Not to mention that care may be denied if it is not deemed cost-effective. At least we can sue an insurance company that denies to pay for our care. Who do you turn to when your government denies you care?
Where do you get this so-called information from?
The tax-rate is about the same as in the US - if you include health insurance and what you pay for the other stuff we get for our taxes. Probably a little lower, but we don’t use more than necessary on defense. People all over the western world have basically the same wants and needs, so the costs are roughly similar - whether they are private or public.
There are waiting lists for non-essential stuff, but they have shortened significantly after a conservative-led efficiency drive. There are of course private hospitals if you can afford it. Many employers add private insurance (with guaranteed quick care) as a benefit, since it’s really, really cheap.
What you still don’t realize is that it doesn’t cost that much. Is the US so fucked up that it can’t “afford the proper treatment?” The US currently spends more on heath care than any other industrialized country, why is that and what are you getting for that?
If health care costs continue to rise, you’re fucked either way.
Not me, though, I’ll be some where else.
Please tell us more about this country you seem to know so much about, such as how long you’ve lived there, and what sort of experiences you’ve had with their health care.
That’s an interesting premise. I seem to recall a lot of people voted Republican way back in 2000, and that for a period of time so many people voted Republican that they controlled the White House, congress, and the senate. But for some reason we still have crippling malpractice lawsuits. Any particular reason why I should expect them to do it this time?
I can tell you that I’m Norwegian by birth, 38 years old, and that my mother died of pancreatic cancer a few years ago in a Norwegian hospital. Other than that, you will have to ask specific questions. Your comment did not come out as especially friendly.
Why ask? Because I have lived with all of the above options. I have had the barracks care in the military. I have had a 6 person shared suite recovering from surgery. I have paid out of pocket for my wife to have a private room when she had surgery.
The state of Oregon tried to set up a list for state sponsored healthcare, and got attacked for it. There is a difference in what is provided. Pacemakers were only for the very rich initially, even though they saved lives. It took awhile until they were routinely provided.
Maybe I want a doctor, not a nurse practitioner. However, we could cover more poor people by making all of them start with a nurse practitioner and not with a doctor - are you willing to allow those of us with higher levels of income get to see a doctor first because we pay a little bit more? Walter Reed now uses nurse anesthetists more than MD anesthesiologists for many routine surgeries - except when you are a Senator. Is that OK with you when we decide to cover everyone? What if we find out that using nurses over doctors has a measurable effect on health? Will we sacrifice some dollars there and let everyone have a doctor?
I am willing to wager that a private room at Mayo with a top surgeon provides better care that results in longer life. I am not willing to pay for that for everyone. So, in a sense, my answer is that there ARE times that I am not willing to care for someone to let them live. There must be a limitation to what we are willing to do.
I also will fight for the right to better care for myself if wish to pay for it. I was sitting in Parliament when the UK was debating allowing more private physicians to practice (this was back in '89). I want to make sure that we keep that ability, and don’t have to fight to get it back.
Really, you think a need for death panels should obvious? Other than Sarah Palin, do you have a reason for thinking that? Is there a country with UHC that has death panels?
It is not an arbitrary line, it is a very clearly visible line that dozens of other countries have easily managed to comprehend.
“Too much” is all the extra crap that isn’t medically needed, like a private room at the Mayo with a big titted nurse. It’s all the extra tests that are done to cover-their-ass or increase the profitability of a hospital. It’s all the extra staff required to deal with billing, collections, paperwork, claims, adverting, and profit.
The “just right amount” is not that complicated. All you have to do is ask, “would I die if I didn’t get it?” Private room, nope, you won’t die, so you don’t get it. Triple bi-pass, yup, you would die, you get it."
And to answer your followup question, yes, the triple bi-pass is provided even for people that smoke, and people you don’t like, I’m sorry about that.
How is government responsible for the fact that insurance is tethered to employment? By allowing unions to happen so that employers would have to raise wages and benefits about fifty cents an hour? If you mean something else, I’m not seeing it.
Regardless, even if the government is responsible for the current system of employer-subsidized group health care, I hope you’re not saying that that implies that anything that the government might possibly do under any circumstances will be equally ineffective. Because that would be a transcendentally moronic position to take.
Are you so confident about the extra crap? Many doctors would argue, and some could show you how it saves a life or two. Yes - we must be willing to give up a couple of lives at the margin for some tests however.
Just Google annual mamograms for a feel for the controversy about extra tests and see how easy it is to determine what is needed. You will find similar battles around how long women can stay in the hospital after giving birth.
The answers are not as easy as you make them to be. At some point on the care curve, you WILL keep on saving more lives - but the incremental cost will be HUGE.
Sorry, I think I misunderstood your comment for hostility.
Public health care in Norway is just fine. No luxuries, but good care and excellent doctors and surgeons. There is some good research being done at university hospitals. Very few here seriously want anything else. Like in all systems, horror stories exists, but there are few of them.
As I said, my mother died of cancer a few years ago. Being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer is close to a death sentence anywhere in the world, and she was diagnosed late. The hospital got her into a trial program for a new medication (a joint US-Norwegian program btw), but there were never much hope.
GP doctors (what is the US term?) are not entirely free. You pay about $30 for a consultation, up to a maximum of $300 per year.
In addition to hospitals, we have public nursing homes and home nursing systems. These are run by municipalities, and often underfunded or badly run. Fixing this is a challenge, but certainly doable.
What we do not have is public dental care. For some reason this has been left out. It’s entirely private, and nearly noone has insurance.
Here in the People’s Republic of Minnesota, the Swedes of my acquaintance often point out that the Norwegian is a very sensible fellow. Relentlessly. This then is the sort of thing that would cause a Norwegian to break out in a broad grin, an event that occurs yearly. The only known stand up comic in Norway’s history commited suicide in 1933, and then emigrated.
The Norwegians of my acquaintance point to Swedes as sybaritic, lazy and pleasure loving. In my estimation, this qualifies as being sane, but apparently they mean to imply some disapproval.
In your case, I wonder if it were not easier because it was done sooner. You did not have time for a health insurance industry to apply the miracle of compounded interest and become a major player in financial circles. Here, we are presented with the vision of an industry that swears it only makes a modest profit spending a gazillion dollars to protect that modest profit at all costs.
But I certainly take your point, this question ought not to have any ideological implications, it simply works, let’s get after it!
You guys never smile, so nobody sees your teeth. Duh.
People are already dying from treatable diseases because of a lack of money. It is always going to be this way, and is this way in every health system.
As a society you just have to chose who it is you want to die from treatable diseases. Is it going to be poor people, or people whose treatments are very expensive?
By offering tax exemptions for employer-sponsored health insurance. The government charges you more if you get your own health insurance, because you’re using your after-tax income instead of benefiting from the exemption from payroll and income tax.
Yeah, that’s maybe the real question: How to get from A to B (No C! [No F with a touch of Q!]).
Regulating the insurance industry towards something like the Dutch model seems most practical to me, but what do I know. You’re still at the stage of discussing selectively-applied principles.
Issues like health care and abortion* are among the most important to discuss, but to me it seems like the US never really had a deep, solid debate about them. A debate where the goal was an agreement that could be accepted by a large majority - and where all parties worked toward that goal. We had those ages ago over here, and simply found a compromise. We’ve never really touched them since.
*) For the interested, abortion in legal (and free) in most of Europe, but there are limits - mostly stricter than in the US at present. And single mothers gets lots of support. You can actually live pretty good off the state if you get a child every other year - but few actually want to live like that.
Wage controls during WWII resulted in employers offering things other than higher wages to attract talent. One of them was health insurance.
I’m not implying that everything the government does is ineffective…just that we need to be aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences