Why do some people think free healthcare is bad?

[Griffolion]

I recently read the saddest thread I've yet to see on here, I literally bawled my eyes out.
On the thread, I thought to myself, Free health care would save this poor persons life.
I may not be an expert on the industry but denying free health care I reckon, Is denying poor peoples lives.

We in the UK have a national health service. Everyone in the country is entitled to basic health services for free, such as a GP, emergency help etc. Other things such as dental, prescriptions etc are paid for by the individual as and when needed. But the stuff that counts comes free. There is the option for private, but that is entirely optional. This service is paid for by the taxpayer, so in a sense we are all paying for it, it does mean that the deserving poor get the same basic level of care as anyone would. It does of course still have issues about the 'undeserving poor' who freeload off the state and still get the same health care etc. Its a very socialist method of doing things, but in terms of healthcare its probably one of the best.

The NHS isn't perfect, and its not going to get much better with all these spending cuts we are getting atm, but if you were to ask anyone in the UK if they would change the NHS for something else, 99.9% would say no.

Personally i feel a little sorry for the USA, you all have so much trouble with healthcare insurance etc its unreal.

 

[Blunderman]

It's not bad. It's just not economically viable. Every country that has it (except Canada) is either re-examining its implementation or has a nonviable economy.

hmm maybe check some sources before you spout nonsense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system Granted wikipedia isn't the best but it's better then a baseless remark.

I'm not sure what a link to a free source article on health care in general is supposed to mean. Did you want me to know what the definition of "health care system" is? You know that references are supposed to have a purpose, right?

Your statement that government-run healthcare isn't economically viable is false, none the less. If you haven't noticed that US healthcare is appalling compared to most every other western nation then you truly need to do some research on your own.

Healthcare costs money like everything else, but it should always be run by the government and be free and universal for every citizen. I'd like to see you put a price tag on your own life the day you're diagnosed with a chronic disease or cancer. My guess is that you won't be advocating for a system that often results in a 'pay a fortune or die'-dichotomy.

What matters is the principle. What's most valuable to all of us is our own life and that should never be involved in a for-profit business model.

 

[PhiMed]

First this should be in R&P

Secondly because its EXTREMELY expensive. And as most people know government does a shitty job at running it. So much waste and financial burden on a country.

We need to face it whether you live in the USA which has great quality of medicine and procedures but not coverage

In Canada, the UK or many European countries that have free health care yet you end up waiting a very long time (sometimes too long)

Some people will be left out in the cold.

It is impossible to get everyone the best health care. Life isn't fair and you need to accept that.

The only thing we can rely on is the generosity of others.

First of all America has one of the lowest quality of medicine and procedures and the UK and Canada have some of the highest.Not true. You're confusing "overall quality of medical outcome" with "quality of procedure/medicine". They're somewhat related, but completely different. Most of America's poor medical outcomes are due to access and lifestyle, not competence of the medical practitioners. And quality of the medicine? They're pretty much all made by the same companies. It's the same stuff.

here is the one fact no-one seems to ever understand IT IS CHEAPER AND BETTER QUALITY WHEN RUN BY GOVERNMENT
That's not a fact. That's an opinion you've developed or an assertion you're making. That assertion may be based in fact, but that's not, in any way, a fact.

The only reason it is frowned upon in America is because they want to keep the industry as it lines the pockets of the influential

No, it's frowned upon in the US because there is more of a tendency in the US to be deeply distrustful of the government in general. And that distrust is justified, when the US government is under consideration.

It's not bad. It's just not economically viable. Every country that has it (except Canada) is either re-examining its implementation or has a nonviable economy.

People freeze to death. Free housing would save them. Is being against free housing robbing people of life?

People starve to death. Is being against free food for everyone robbing people of life?

It'd be great if single payer health care would work everywhere, but it just won't.

and capitalist run healthcare is in every country with a viable economy? No. There's no such thing as a "capitalist" health care system in developed nations, including America.

Just look at the state America is in, if they make a profit selling healthcare, they are overcharging

Why? Because you have thus proclaimed?

 

[Dasmaster]

Canadamus_prime....

Its free because you dont have to pay extra for the fucking operations or checkups you silly twat. All you need to do is pay taxes like any other person on lets say... this earth?

 

[Fetzenfisch]

"Why do some people think free healthcare is bad?"
Lack of information, distrust, fear, greed and ignorance.

 

[Meatstorm]

I am glad that we have integrated healthcare into our taxes. I am just grown to system like this and it would seem really weird to not have it.

I gladly pay slightly more so that i'll get patched up whenever i might need it.

 

[Raregolddragon]

Yes lets save the poor person, Lets spend a few hundred thousand on someone that clearly has no real skills or a good education. Lets to do this for the masses of the middle-school and high-school drop outs. Lets do this for every gang member and drug user and pusher lets do this for everyone person that made bad choices and wrecked there own life and put there self and the young in the possession they live in. Lets do this so we can crash the economy in a way not seen before and turn the good Old USA in to the new Zimbabwe full of crime, murder and lets face it the population is only one stones throw away from its population from being feral humans.

We never had Free Health Care in the Past we did fine back then without it so why change the system as I see it we don't need it now.

Also I don't care if I am seen as cold bastard I am realistic.

"Life... is like a box of chocolates. A cheap, thoughtless, perfunctory gift that nobody ever asks for. Un-returnable, because all you get back is another box of chocolates. You're stuck with this undefinable whipped-mint crap that you mindlessly wolf down when there's nothing else left to eat. Sure, once in a while, there's a peanut butter cup, or an English toffee. But they're gone too fast, the taste is fleeting. So you end up with nothing but broken bits, filled with hardened jelly and teeth-crunching nuts, and if you're desperate enough to eat those, all you've got left... is an empty box... filled with useless, brown paper wrappers."

 

[Mathak]

In the Netherlands we have public healthcare. It sucks. Everyone constantly complains about high taxes, waiting lists, and just about everything.

Oh, and if you propose we switch to the system the USA has your head'll be on a pike in front of the parliament within about 5 minutes. Because as much as we like to complain, there are lines you do not cross.

 

[Manchubot]

Well it's not exactly free considering the fact you will have to pay for it through taxes. I haven't paid attention to the current numbers, but one year ago it was projected an additional $3,000 a year in American taxes per house hold for "free" health care.

 

[Orcboyphil]

Socialism, not communism. The Nazis were socialists; the Chinese and Russians were communist. The difference is that in socialism, the government controls the private money. You have government corporations, one giant government-run mall, etc. Classes still exist, you just give your money to different people. Communism is a classless society in which everyone has the same thing and no one's allowed any extras or freedom.
I'm against socialist health care because I believe the government should be small enough to be held accountable. I don't think the people who drafted the Constitution wanted another giant government that would take away their freedom. I hate health care as it stands, especially since Obama's about to make us all have it, but I don't think this is the answer. Regulate the insurance companies, streamline the billing process, and squash fake malpractice suits.

Here's a fun link for some extra reading: http://boortz.com/

Where are your getting your facts? Britian has been a socailist state since the end of WWII and the formation of the welfare state. We still have private enterprise, we still have private property, were less socalist since Thatcher but no political party or coalition will undo the welfare state because they know it would be political suicide, the debate now is to how far the borders of the welfare state should extend, with the conservatives prefering a more market driven local system to Labours more centralist position.

 

[shadyh8er]

In Canada, the UK or many European countries that have free health care yet you end up waiting a very long time (sometimes too long)

I've actually experienced this firsthand. It was in Trinidad and Tobago. Had to wait three days just to donate blood for my great grandmother's operation.

 

[Dasmaster]

Raregolddragon

We did not do fine back in the days.. why do you think our life expectancy is RISING!

And your problem with poor people has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE HEALTHCARE! Its an entirely different social problem so dont try and bring it in here you imbecile!

 

[Thanato5]

"Why do some people think free healthcare is bad?"
Lack of information, distrust, fear, greed and ignorance.

very true. what I find really odd though is, and this is a generalisation mind you, that the countries that have it are generally positive about it. just look at the comments here in that regard. all the ones in favor either have it or have had experience with it. The Americans on the other hand (again generalisation I know) appear to A want to convince those who use it that it's bad and B don't want to believe or even entertain the idea that it may actually work.
As I said before I'm not going to say the NHS is perfect. far from it, but that's only because I think the service can be improved and work more efficiently. I definitely do not want to see it go.

 

[hawkeye52]

you basically have the choice of taking a chance of not having free health care in a country and you being one of the people that might catch a terminal disease and cant afford to pay for massive health care bills or pay a little each month towards health care so that if you did get something horrible it will be fine.

waiting lists are only for people who suffer from dandruff syndrome (hypchondriacs) which means that anyone who is seriously ill will get pushed to the front

 

[PhiMed]

It's not bad. It's just not economically viable. Every country that has it (except Canada) is either re-examining its implementation or has a nonviable economy.

hmm maybe check some sources before you spout nonsense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system Granted wikipedia isn't the best but it's better then a baseless remark.

I'm not sure what a link to a free source article on health care in general is supposed to mean. Did you want me to know what the definition of "health care system" is? You know that references are supposed to have a purpose, right?

Your statement that government-run healthcare isn't economically viable is false, none the less. If you haven't noticed that US healthcare is appalling compared to most every other western nation then you truly need to do some research on your own.

Healthcare costs money like everything else, but it should always be run by the government and be free and universal for every citizen. I'd like to see you put a price tag on your own life the day you're diagnosed with a chronic disease or cancer. My guess is that you won't be advocating for a system that often results in a 'pay a fortune or die'-dichotomy.

What matters is the principle. What's most valuable to all of us is our own life and that should never be involved in a for-profit business model.

No, it's not. Please give me one example of a nation on that list in the way-too-broad article you sent me that

a) Has had a single-payer ("free") health care system for more than 20 years
b) Is not currently attempting to conduct a major overhaul of its healthcare system due to financial considerations.
c) Has a per capita GDP in the top 50%.
d) Is not Canada.

All four of those criteria need to be met in order for my original post to be untrue, and for your rather rude assertion that it's "spouting nonsense" to hold any water whatsoever. As a health care worker with an M.D. and a Master's of Public Health, I probably know a hell of a lot more about the practicalities of the issue than you do.

I wasn't debating the morality of the issue. I was saying it's not economically feesible. Don't change topics in order to claim moral high ground when that's not what we're talking about.

 

[Dasmaster]

so if you cut the 7000 for health insurance and add the 3000 for public healthcare you get a profit of 4000 right?

And its free healthcare because being a citizen = paying taxes = getting healthcare. Just like a company that offers to buy you health insurance.

 

[PhiMed]

It's not bad. It's just not economically viable. Every country that has it (except Canada) is either re-examining its implementation or has a nonviable economy.

hmm maybe check some sources before you spout nonsense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system Granted wikipedia isn't the best but it's better then a baseless remark.

I'm not sure what a link to a free source article on health care in general is supposed to mean. Did you want me to know what the definition of "health care system" is? You know that references are supposed to have a purpose, right?

scroll down mate. it has a list of all countries and their implementation of their health care. most countries have a viable economy and even those that make changes to the system certainly will not do away with it because for all intents and purposes it works. you'll hear plenty people moan about the NHS here but the one thing you will not hear is that they'd rather it wasn't there.

It's got a description of the economics of health care provision of every named nation in the world. That's like sending me a link on sexual reproduction as an argument against abortion.

 

[Thanato5]

Yes lets save the poor person, Lets spend a few hundred thousand on someone that clearly has no real skills or a good education. Lets to do this for the masses of the middle-school and high-school drop outs. Lets do this for every gang member and drug user and pusher lets do this for everyone person that made bad choices and wrecked there own life and put there self and the young in the possession they live in. Lets do this so we can crash the economy in a way not seen before and turn the good Old USA in to the new Zimbabwe full of crime, murder and lets face it the population is only one stones throw away from its population from being feral humans.

We never had Free Health Care in the Past we did fine back then without it so why change the system as I see it we don't need it now.

Also I don't care if I am seen as cold bastard I am realistic.

uhm... sorry but your remarks are debunked by the fact that it appears to work in other countries. unless you try to insinuate that the general population of americans are stupid and have no reason for existing of course and that the rest of the world is far smarter and more use full. dunno just your words not mine.

 

[PhiMed]

so if you cut the 7000 for health insurance and add the 3000 for public healthcare you get a profit of 4000 right?

And its free healthcare because being a citizen = paying taxes = getting healthcare. Just like a company that offers to buy you health insurance.

What if you live in a society where 60% of the population pays no net taxes? (The United States)

 

[Orcboyphil]

It's not bad. It's just not economically viable. Every country that has it (except Canada) is either re-examining its implementation or has a nonviable economy.

hmm maybe check some sources before you spout nonsense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system Granted wikipedia isn't the best but it's better then a baseless remark.

I'm not sure what a link to a free source article on health care in general is supposed to mean. Did you want me to know what the definition of "health care system" is? You know that references are supposed to have a purpose, right?

Your statement that government-run healthcare isn't economically viable is false, none the less. If you haven't noticed that US healthcare is appalling compared to most every other western nation then you truly need to do some research on your own.

Healthcare costs money like everything else, but it should always be run by the government and be free and universal for every citizen. I'd like to see you put a price tag on your own life the day you're diagnosed with a chronic disease or cancer. My guess is that you won't be advocating for a system that often results in a 'pay a fortune or die'-dichotomy.

What matters is the principle. What's most valuable to all of us is our own life and that should never be involved in a for-profit business model.

No, it's not. Please give me one example of a nation on that list in the way-too-broad article you sent me that

a) Has had a single-payer ("free") health care system for more than 20 years
b) Is not currently attempting to conduct a major overhaul of its healthcare system due to financial considerations.
c) Has a per capita GDP in the top 50%.
d) Is not Canada.

All four of those criteria need to be met in order for my original post to be untrue, and for your rather rude assertion that it's "spouting nonsense" to hold any water whatsoever. As a health care worker with an M.D. and a Master's of Public Health, I probably know a hell of a lot more about the practicalities of the issue than you do.

I wasn't debating the morality of the issue. I was saying it's not economically feesible. Don't change topics in order to claim moral high ground when that's not what we're talking about.

Okay the UK
A) Over 50 years now
B) Will still recive a real terms increase in funding after the last budget. Its reorganisation is more to do with the Tory principle of smaller government, more locally driven goals. The belief being Labour wasted the money spent on the NHS over the last 13 years creating an inefficent tax guzalling monstocity. Its idelogical with fiscial being the excuse.
C) Worlds 6th largest economy
D) Not Canada.