I attend a college (UC Santa Barbara) with a fairly liberal faculty, and rarely does a day go by where I don’t hear someone whinge about the United States’ lack of a universal health care program. “We are the only developed nation in the world not to provide universal health care!” “We are ALL John Q!” etc.
I am a little confused by the reasoning behind this. Since when was universal health care a necessary developmental step? It’s a bit like saying a car is severely lacking because it doesn’t have neon bulbs under the bumpers.
Colinmarshall, there is no definitive, factual, answer. It is a matter of preference and opinion. It seems to me the people to ask that question to would be the ones you hear saying universal health care is so important. They should be able to explain their reasons.
As World Eater says, there’s no straight answer; belief in universal health care can come from various possible philosophical and political positions. Some groups, such as the American Medical Students Assocation believe health care is a fundamental human right (one asserted by the UN Declaration of Human Rights). Others, if you want to keep it within the USA, consider it a reasonable interpretation of constitutional rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And so on. A Google search on “universal health care” will find you plenty of websites explaining why its proponents think it important.
If you can’t afford X and X is necessary for you to live, then the government should give you some base level of X so that you do not die. Just because some people are too poor to afford X doesnt’ mean that the government should be compeletely in charge of the distribution of X.
Put in “food” for X and it becomes obvious that the government should provide food for hungry people but should not be in charge of providing all food to all people (in a manner such that if you want food you have to go to the government-run food stores to get it). Put in “medical care” for X, and the same conclusion is just as obvious to me.
Also, raygirvan, you only laid out half of these groups’ arguments. The other half is on the definition of “right”; that is, the debate is whether the statement “People have a right to X” should mean that (i) the government must provide X or that (ii) the government must not unreasonably deter people from obtaining X.
The answer - what are the issues for those who believe (or disbelieve) in universal health care? - is readily findable via Google. Take it to IMHO if you want to argue the toss about it.
The problem is that if your X cost so many dollars just for you to live but the gov’t can spend that money to save, lets say Y amount of lives (where Y is a whole number greater then 1), and the government only can redistrubute so many $'s, wouldn’t it be morally wrong for the Gov’t to spend the money on your X instead of the Y.
Also what if a certain treatment that you require will cost the gov’t the entire buget for a year to treat you, should it be required?
I don’t know what Tax Guy is thinking exactly but most of the universal health care things I have seen have generally implied that the vast majority of people in the country have their health care taken care of by the government. This may or may not involve the hospitals run by the government but it does follow the spirit of what Tax Guy is saying.
Sure, but not “in a manner such that if you want [health care] you have to go to the government-run [hospitals] to get it”, or even “in a manner such that if you want [health insurance] you have to go to the government-run [insurers] to get it”. There are plenty of countries where universal health care coexists with private hospitals and private insurers.
In the countries that have universal health care the vast majority of people go through the government for their health care, England and Canada come to my mind. In those countries the vast majority of people do not go through the government for food and housing.
And the vast majority of them end up on waiting lists for months & months or years without getting treated either. It takes 3 months in many places just to get a specialists appointment, then a month or two to get a scan done, then another 3 months to get to see the specialist to get the results of the scan to see whether you need more tests or what needs doing, before you can even go onthe waiting list for the operation.
Depends. I have a friend who had leukemia (she’s in remission now) and she was admitted right away, went through the whole battery of tests, began chemo, and had her bone marrow transplant all in the space of about 2.5 months. She was lucky, as a family member was her donor, but treatment was rapid and very good. In fact, because of this ordeal, she became a nurse, and now works in an oncology unit.
On a smaller scale, my SO needed wrist surgery this summer, and from the accident to the day of the surgery was less than 3 weeks, and that included seeing two specialists and getting the surgery time. Again, the care was fantastic, and prompt. He even had the option to not have the surgery, but was still seen quickly in order to get all the information he needed to make a choice.
My uncle has liver cancer. Specialists galore, and lots of chemo and other treatments in the past 2 years. I wouldn’t say he’s had to wait for his healthcare.
My sister is arthritic, my aunt newly Type 2 diabetic, and although there are sometime waiting room delays, and occasionally problems with scheduling, overall they have recieved good health care, IMHO and in their opinions too. And there is no worry about how any of these treatments will be paid. Sure, it isn’t “free”. We pay taxes on everything, and that can be very frustrating. But personally, I feel it’s worth it, at least in concept. I’d rather try and work to improve the system, than dismantle it.
The provincially run health care systems (federally funded) in Canada aren’t perfect, by any means. I’m sure there are cases like fierra mentioned, I hear of them too. But I wouldn’t say those are the norm. You generally hear all the bad, but rarely about the good. I don’t know how to fix the problems in our system, but I feel safer knowing that treatment and healthcare is available to me, rather than having to worry about whether I can afford to see a doctor for what may or may not be a minor ailment (as I see nearly evey week on these boards from people in the US).
Sorry, I suppose that’s somewhat of a hijack, but I just felt I had to defend our system a little, despite its imperfections.
In my experience, actually, they ARE the norm. You are amazingly lucky. My father can barely walk due to arthritic knees, is in almost constant, debilitating pain, and he’s been waiting six months for surgery and apparently may wait another six. My grandfather waited eight months for surgery to reverse impending blindness. I just recently had to wait three months just to see a specialist about the results of a single test, and that was after waiting nearly three months to GET the test. Hell, I was just working with a guy who finally took his ill father to the States for treatment because he was waiting months and months with no end in sight to see a specialist. I have to point out that I live in Toronto, and my family lives in Kingston , so it’s not like we’re all from Butthump Junction, North Alberta, where there’s no hospitals. My Dad who can’t get his knees operated on lives ten minutes from a huge teaching hospital.
The typical wait time for non-emergency surgery is about four months. While granting that the Fraser Institute is a conservative institute, they’re a reasonably good source: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/wyt.pdf
I like universal health insurance in general; it does work better than the US model, which brags a lot about quick wait times but that only applies if you have the right insurance and they don’t talk about how my best friend had to drive an hour to see his doctor because his HMO told him he had no choice. I got to CHOOSE my family doctor. I like the fact that it’s cheaper than the US system. Waits for EMERGENCY procedures in Canada are generally nonexistent, and the Canadian system is far, far better for preventive health care, which is what keeps people healthy. But Canada would do well to emulate some European nations that have integrated private care with public insurance. Let’s not fool ourselves; long waits for procedures absolutely are the norm here.
I’ve also never understood why dental care isn’t part of the system.
Google “health care”+“waiting lists” and you get 115,000 hits. I am sure you can get a few cites there. Like this one about Canada. Not personally but through friends I have direct knowledge of cases of long waiting lists and other gross inefficiencies in Spain and in the UK. The case in Spain is ridiculous. The waiting lists are months long, the inefficiency is chronic, to the point that government employees in Spain are not covered by the public health care but have their own system. There is a healthy private health care sector in Spain which people pay good money to use because the public one is a disaster. Patients from public health care systems from some northern European countries come to the private clinics in Spain because they are cheaper. I saw some documentary about organized tours (from the Netherlands maybe?) for dental care and other non-emergency treatments.
the fact is that money is limited and there is going to be rationing one way or another. Waiting lists are one way to do it.
In the UK everyone can use the National Health Service and get free speedy essential treatment and possibly slow treatment for some non-essential conditions. Or you can go private (if you have the money) and get speedy treatment for anything. So how is it better to have a US-style system where you can get speedy treatment if you have the money, otherwise tough shit?
