Um, what?
What what? If work is done “100% totally free”, what mechanism is there besides slavery to accomplish it?
Well, it’s already been said that the work wouldn’t be done 100% free. Nobody believes the money to pay for national healthcare comes out of nowhere, at least, nobody in this thread, with the possible exception of the OP.
Do you believe all taxes are akin to slavery?
Then, it’s an entirely different question. Basically : did you actually pay more in the previous scheme (no universal public coverage), adding up taxes+ private insurance than in the current public system (taxes only)?
If we assume that the costs are strictly the same in both systems, then once you’ve paid your taxes to fund the public-no-heart-transplant-covered scheme, you’re left with the money that you were previously spending for the “heart transplant” part of your private insurance, and you can spend it on a specific heart transplant insurance. Which is basically what I do for dental care, very poorly covered in the french system, since I have a complementary insurance (most of the payments I got from it have been related to dental care).
So, you can dispute the fact that you’ll get the same level of service for the same price, on either an individual or a collective basis, but you can’t argue that you’ll necessarily pay the same for the public scheme without transplant than you did for the private scheme with transplant, hence won’t be able anymore to afford your heart transplant private insurance.
In the American (lack of a ) System, I may have saved buckets of money by not going to the doctor for each hangnail, over a lifetime the savings could have gone for my heart transplant. Under a universal system, I would have been forced to pay for (the ability to) see (ing) the doctor for minor stuff.
So under a universal system we are paying for lots of minor treatments. In the American system we are encouraged to avoid expensive medical care if we can. Which is more efficient?
The savings could have been used to pay for a my heart transplant (or more likely a nice trip to Mexico).
We have seen time and time again around the world that when medical care is “free” (to the user) the demand for this care goes up, apparently without limit. (Is there any population anywhere in the world that does not keep all its doctors busy?)
This is also not efficient.
The Canadian numbers make an excellent point, but we would have to take into consideration very expensive medical care American have that Canadian forgo and adjust life expectancies to reflect gun violence and other non-issues.
In any case, prolonging human life does not seem to be the number one priority for the American public. Agree or not, they would rather have the money in their pocket than have a government-run insurance scheme.
The point is that they don’t have any more money in their pocket than people in countries with universal care: American public health spending is similar, or even greater, and yet millions of Americans risk enormous personal debts should they require any medical attention becuase America gets such poor value for that X% of GDP.
It was the OP whom I addressed.
No, taxes are “akin” to mugging.
<off topic>
Slavery isn’t free either, Liberal. Someone need to pay for education, clothing, food, and health care for those enslaved doctors and nurses. I’m afraid you’ll have to replace your slavery example with benveolent aliens or divine intervention.
</off topic>
In Canada they spend aboug 10% of GDP on healthcare and about 9% of that is spent in tax money. In the US we spend about 15% of GDP on healthcare and about 7-8% of that is tax money. In the US I have read that we spend close to $800 billion in various forms of tax money (medicaid, medicare, VA, state programs, local programs, purchasing private coverage, etc) to pay for state sponsored healthcare. So assuming that we are ‘not’ a country with government intervention is false. In the UK they spend about 8% of GDP on healthcare and 7% in tax money, so in the UK they have lower taxes to pay for healthcare, and virtually no private payments, and they still have universal coverage.
In the US many insurance companies have PPOs or HMOs, so your choice of doctor is limisted in the US too. I hope a Canadian will chime in and tell how this is not really true about having a shortage of doctors to pick.
bouv - A good book on the subject is Healthcare Meltdown, it goes into detail about statsitics and fighting the stereotypes that anti-universal coverage people like to throw out (people in ‘those’ countries hate their healthcare and want ours, people in ‘those’ countries pay alot more in taxes than we do, people in ‘those’ countries ration their care and we do not, etc).
And, not to be a dick (sorry If I come across that way) but calling it ‘free’ healthcare probably is not a good way to present it, because peopl who are against it may think you are wanting something for free, which is a huge no-no in conservative circles and puts you at a disadvantage when you debate the issue. Use terms like ‘universal coverage’ or a ‘single payer system’ are better terms to use.
True, and they still pay way way less than we do. In the US we spend 50-100% more for healthcare than all the other industrialized nations.
And under the US system (as well as any other system) you are still paying to see a doctor whether you see him or not. You have your share of the $800 billion in taxes, you have your insurance premiums you pay each month, you have your wages garnished by your employee so he can pay for your healthcare ‘benefits’ (you may get/have gotten a $3-4/hr raise if your insurance benefits were just given in the form of wages), you have higher prices on consumer goods because some of them are manufactured by companies that provide healthcare (and as a result have to charge more money).
So just because you didn’t make direct payments does not mean you saved money.
Damn right, this is one of the biggest false stereotypes about ‘those’ countries, that they pay alot more in taxes than we do. In the US we spend about the same amount of tax money as people in ‘those’ countries (as a % of the economy, its around 7-9% in all the industrialized nation) and we spend another 7% of the economy in private coverage.
I’ve got a question related to this. In Norway, you’ve got a legal right to health care, but your right to specialist treatment does only apply if the patient is expected to benefit from the treatment, and the cost of the treatment is in reasonable proportion to the expected benefit. (Law text in Norwegian). In other words, if I want a medical treatment which is very expensive and has only a small chance of benefitting me, Norwegian tax money won’t pay for it. As Sam Stone says, rationing. Not even oil rich Norway can afford to give everybody the very best medical treatment in all situations, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is that the patient will benefit from it.
Let’s say I feel ill. I go to my doctor, who refers me to a specialist, who goes into a huddle with a lot of other specialists, and they find out that I have a heart problem which can only be fixed by some very expensive surgery. By their best estimates, I have a 5% chance to benefit from the procedure, and a 0,01% chance of surviving the next few months without it. The doctors tell me:* “Sorry, no can do. The public health system doesn’t cover this. Here’s your part of the bill for all those tests and examinations: 20$.”*
I probably don’t have a private health insurance (almost noone has here, since for the vast majority of people it’s redundant). If I can afford to, I might take up a loan in a bank, get the surgery in a private hospital, and probably die anyway. If I can’t afford that loan, I die. (Those numbers are pulled out of my posterior bodily orifice, btw - they’re there just as an example.)
What would happen to an American with health insurance in that situation? Does most health insurance cover all desired medical procedures, regardless of how likely the patient is to benefit from it? Would it cover treatment which might give a 75-year-old another 10 years to live? A 90-year-old another six months? A newborn baby with severe damages a 1% chance at survival?
An American in that situation without health insurance would, I expect, die without treatment, since (s)he’d never get all those preliminary tests to determine that the treatment is needed. Right or wrong?
I know in the mid 90’s there was a rise in HMOs (health maintenance organizations) that tried to cut costs by using the scale you are referring to, they’d weigh benefits vs. costs and make a decision. People got pissed and they went out of business mostly. I don’t know the ins & outs of US healthcare enough to say whether insurance companies ration the same way yours do. In the US insurance companies are known for fighting to prevent any payout, but I don’t know how much of a fight they put up.
And now that its the 21st century international healthcare is starting to pick up. A person in Norway can travel to India or Malaysia and have the same $100000 procedure done for $15000. And so can an american so a Norwegian doctor refusing to operate isn’t necessarily a death sentence.
DNFTL.
What does that mean? It sounds like a European radio station.
In any case, I would prefer to pay for my own health care, thank you very much. Of course I am a tax refugee and so my case is quite different than most.
I think jjimm means to keep the thread from veering off into a discussion of the morality of taxation.
In that case, I would advise against taking out health insurance since the premiums are calculated based on the care received by people other than you.
Excuse me, I have some bread in the oven that will need my attention soon. This might be my final post.
Yes, I do not generally like insurance. That is why I buy little of it. In this case a USD50,000 per year deductible. That drives down the rates!
Geez, I leave for nin hours and my damn thread goes to two pages!
OK, let me correct myself, I realize nothing is free, and tazes might go up (although evidence presented by some people seems to say the opposite.)
Some of the arguments against universal health care are because you can’t choose your doctor (or, at the very best, the choice is limited.)
Well, look at this scenario:
Everyone in America, when born, gets the “Patriot Plan” (cause you know government officials would name it something like that.) This plan is similar to other European countries and Canada’s. There is a limit in which docotor’s you can go to based on your area and what you are going for. But, to the best of the government’s ability, there will br a board certified doctor you can go to in your area (provided at least one exists in your area.)
Well, let’s look at my insurance, which, BTW, is considered to be one of the best in the nation (Blue Cross Blue Shield.)
If I have a problem, I need to go to an insurance approved doctor or hospital. If I go to an outside hospital for an emergency, then my insurance will still cover it, but if I go for any other reason, I have a much bigger deductible (over twice as much.) The only reason I can even do tis is because I pay for the best insurance my comnay offers. If I went for the cheapets one, I would have NO coverage in any hospital outside my area. I also cannot have my insurance pay for a doctor’s visit if he is not a covered doctor. Well, no problem, you say, because insurance companies will make sure there is a doctor in your area, right? Heh…nope. I like in Saranac Lake, NY. Using my insurance companies handy-dandy doctor search, I find out there are NO doctors in my area I can visit and be covered. The main reason is because I work for a company based out of VT, but work and live in NY. if I had socialized/universal care, I could be assured there would be a doctor in my area to see me.
And as to wanting better healthcare from the insurance providers, well, that’s all well and good for you, because you can afford it/have a good enough job to get it from. What about the 40 M without any coverage? Or the many more millions with crappy coverage? They would certainly be better off. And just because there would be a universal service, doesn’t mean you have to use it. If you want to pay more (and the evidence suggests you WOULD be paying more) for better coverage, than go right ahead! We can have a mix! Maybe there could even be tax breaks for people who opt to get private coverage. But to those who can’t afford the private coverage, the universal healthcare would be a godsend. There. Everyone is happy. And taxes might even go down!
Not private sector health care providers, they wouldn’t be happy. Universal health care puts downward pressure on their incomes. That is why they spend so much on lobbying against it.
Nonsense. Seize them upon completion of their education, make them work naked, force them to scrounge for food scraps wherever they can, and let them die if they get sick. Later, write a romanticized history of your deeds, wrap them in a rah-rah rag, and call it “discovering a New World”.