Why do some people think free healthcare is bad?

[Blind Sight]

I should also note that a universal healthcare system has the habit of massively over-spending quite often. Case in point was during the H1N1 flu scare, over 35 million vaccines were made for the cost of over 2 billion dollars. I don't know about my fellow Canadians on the Escapist, but I certainly didn't go for my vaccine, and I know plenty of other people who did the same. So there's a nice massive waste of money right there, you really wonder why we spend over 160 BILLION dollars (or over 10% of our GDP) on healthcare each year.

The US pays 15% of GDP on healthcare doesn't it?

I can't recall if we beat Canada or just barely lose.

Either way you get Universal healthcare out of either spending just as much or less than us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png

My whole point though is that the system still wastes a large amount of money without ever improving anything. Wait times are massive, in an article called "Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters" Dr. Brian Day says that "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years." People die once and awhile because they can't get something like heart surgery in time. The government keeps throwing money at the problem, between 2002 and 2008 we spent almost 6 billion dollars trying to improve wait times, when an independent StatsCan team determined that wait times had actually increased over that period. The system needs to be reformed, we're going to lose both the quality of our system and a large amount of money if we don't.

As a quick aside as well, Canada only has around 33 million people in it, the United States has over 300 million, so that's probably why your system naturally costs more.

Not to mention that certain medical groups completely ignore positive medical treatments that could help people. A recent MS treatment was rejected by Health Canada stating that 'there's not enough evidence to support that it works' yet the process has been shown to let chronic MS sufferers WALK AGAIN. Canadian MS patients have to go to bloody Poland to get it done (and pay thousands of dollars).

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/09/01/ms-ccsvi-liberation-aglukkaq.html

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/article/834303--ms-patients-fight-for-access-to-new-zamboni-treatment

 

[photog212]

snip

If you wrote this: I applaud you, well done.
If you did not: please tell me who did.

 

[TheWwwizard]

because poor people should learn to make money if they want to live so bad /sarcasm

I don't know man, probably because they just don't want taxes.

 

[FunkySpider]

How can America claim to be a christian country when it would rather buy its spoilt brat daughter a new Guchi bag to go with her tit job, whilst a few miles away a child dies from renal failure?

THIS!!!!!!

Every time I saw the United States Health Debate and then the conservative news organisations slamming on the NHS I get angry and then think how ironic it is.
Firstly it is the Republican party with it's "moral majority" that constantly bangs on about how socialised medicine is a bad move and that government run systems don't work.
Then we have the brainiacs many of you know who you are and have posted thing in this thread to the effect of "why should i pay for others healthcare" My answer? Because you live in the same society and the Ayn Rand ideal of people looking out for themselves. With that attitude you are throwing away a percentage of your population and saying that they don't matter. What would Jesus say about that? I think he'd be pretty pissed at the Religious right in America obviously like most religious groups, their interpretation of the bible is rather limited. Misses out the parts about how it harder for a banker or rich person to get into heaven then a camel to pass through the eye of a needle and about sharing wealth the feeding of the 5000 he created a wealth of food and then SHARED IT OUT! Seriously I'm an atheist and yet i seem to know more about the bible then some of these right wing idiots. A simple answer to the American Healthcare debate? The private system you have now IS NOT CHRISTIAN!!!! Yep sorry it just isn't, hard fact for the "moral majority" to swallow but unfortunately for them very very true.

Come over and see the UK rail service after privatisation i would willing go back to how it was when it was all under British Rail. Private companies running things DOES NOT mean it will give you a better service. In many cases privatisation has actually been worse for a particular industry.
/rant

 

[Dynamite Headdy]

Meh.

The States and the Provinces work out about the same from a patient's standpoint: you'll never be left to die if they can help it, clinic visits like to be slow, and you'll have faster and better care overall if you have the cash to pay for it. Canada's version is just less confusing.

Britain just goes ahead and pays for everything itself, which in my mind is the equivalent of putting everyone on one big group insurance policy and paying for it with tax money. Doctors in Britain are salaried, rather than being paid by the service, which helps reduce costs.

Anyone interested in learning about all of this stuff, including Japan's characteristically intriguing setup, should check out this PBS video:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Granted, it's just a step less biased than Michael Moore, but it is informative, and it's not like we all don't know that the States' system kind of sucks right now anyway.

 

[ecoho]

Well, call me a Socialist, but I think doctors should do their job for want of helping people. I know, I know, I have my head in the clouds, but I think the best way to go about things is to allow medical school run at reduced costs and get some more noble doctors out there. The insurance companies wouldn't be such a pain in the ass if the hospitals didn't try to recoup their losses for an X-Ray machine 100 times over.

What about recouping the doctors' losses for medical school? That shit ain't cheap. Doctors may not have a choice in being pricey; student loans are brutal.

I like one suggestion I've heard; have ROTC except for doctors and lawyers. People who wouldn't normally be able to afford it can then, and then you get their pledge to serve the country in their capacities, medicine and public service respectively, for some pre-determined amount of time. May or may not be a good solution for cutting health-care costs, depending on living wages for doctors during their time served and how much the government has to subsidize in schooling.

good idea my friend
OT: in truth most "poor" americans fall into thaese catigories;

1. they cant work and as such realy do need help
2. refuse to work
3. got put on soical security and decided they didnt have to work.
4. are just plan idiots
5. take a vow of poverty

If all else fails people join the dam service they will take most people AND pay you to go to school. Then if you stay in and retire you get health care for the rest of your life for you and your spouse as well as your kids till their 21 or untill they finish school. So realy there is no reason for free health care go serve your country and you get it. dont want to do anything? then dont complain

BTW to my canadian friends please understand that we have alot more people then you as well as a very large immegration problem so its just not possible for us to afford this. Also id like to point out that any canadians who can fly down here to get major surgery done.

 

[The Madman]

Most people would rather save a few dollars so they can buy something shiny and new they'd grow bored of a week later rather than use that money to help a stranger. Sad but true.

And they call me a madman.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

It's not free, that's why it's a much more delicate situation than many people seem to realize. Part of the reason the debate is so hot right now is because while there are good examples of how healthcare can work, the US tried to institute while we were in major crisis mode. We're still just barely out of crisis mode. When a huge consumer nation is hurting for money, the last thing you want to do is ask for more.

Also, there are an asinine number of unfunded liabilities with the government system the US already uses, which lowers the faith in a system where everyone is required to be a part considerably. Combine that with the fact that the federal government has a bad habit of using "trust fund" money like social security and medicare money to balance the budget. In the last I don't know how many years, only 2000 when Clinton left office actually had a surplus when that money was excluded. Very sad.

Socialized healthcare... not so bad. Timing? Horrible.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

45 cents of every dollar we're taxed goes to military expenditures, and people get upset that some of their taxes may go to help people who can't afford health care.

We just have some very bizarre priorities as a nation, that's all. We're so obsessed with maintaining our status as a military super power that we forgot its also important to succeed in education, economy, and quality of life.

 

[Agayek]

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.

There's 2 major problems with "free" healthcare:

1) Someone, somewhere, at some point in time, has to pay for it. It may not be the recipient of the care, their insurance or anyone even remotely related to the case, but eventually someone is going to be stuck with the bill. (And it really doesn't seem fair to put the bill on someone who was completely uninvolved, but that's a different argument).

2) It allows for a potentially frightening level of government control over the populace. Once the government controls the healthcare industry, it's really not much of a stretch to start dictating specific limits on who receives said care, and eliminating the undesirables. Is that likely to happen? I can't say, but the potential is there, and everyone should certainly be wary of it.

Because the next step in human behavioral evolution is the altruistic supporting and loving of those who are in need. Even if they will never contribute to society. Who knows? That might be you offering nothing to the whole if your future doesn't go the way you hope for. Depression, injury, any number of things could sabotage your perfect world. Should it be, effectively, a death sentence?

Short answer: Yes.

People should get what they earn, no more and definitely no less. I expect no sympathy, or, more relevantly, aid if, for whatever reason, I can't afford my own healthcare. What I would expect is to do everything I could to work for it, and if that's not enough, so be it.

I work very hard at what I do. I also have no trouble supporting free-loaders if it means their many kids (generalization I know) will have an opportunity to be better than their parents. That's why we must think in 50year social plans instead of 5 year business cycles. That's why we should never limit a person's potential via capital classification and stratification. The classification of status based on wealth will be the last socially acceptable form of discrimination left in the modern era. Once it is truly conquered, the sky is the limit for our species.

There's one problem with this: There will never, ever be an end to discrimination within our species. So long as people are different, some will convince themselves that those differences mean inherently different levels of worth. It is simply impossible to eradicate discrimination. It's a very noble goal, but it's also an impossible one. The best that can happen is that what is used to discriminate shifts frequently enough that no one group solidifies power (which is what has happened in most of the Western world).

 

[ZacktheWolf]

What baffles me is how people in the US are saying "free" healthcare would make us socialist or something. Did it make the UK socialist? Did it make Canada socialist? No? Hmm, must be something they're missing in that logic, then.

 

[skeliton112]

To quote Confucius, To be a poor man in a rich country is shameful, to be a rich man in a poor country also brings shame. I'm paraphrasing but you get the point.

Actually, pretentiousness aside its been said before. the money must come from somewhere.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

45 cents of every dollar we're taxed goes to military expenditures, and people get upset that some of their taxes may go to help people who can't afford health care.

We just have some very bizarre priorities as a nation, that's all. We're so obsessed with maintaining our status as a military super power that we forgot its also important to succeed in education, economy, and quality of life.

You have to remember that that is the decision of politicians, not citizens. Most citizens aren't exactly thrilled with the public image of the US, and would prefer if there was a scaling back of the military if only to improve our standing with other countries. Politicians on the other hand see the military as this magic wand that stimulates the economy. No joke, if you downscaled the military industrial complex to levels comparable of other western nations, not only government expenditures would lower. It's a broken spiral, but it's a sad fact that spending money on the military pretty much equates to spending money on the economy, while spending money on schools doesn't.

The government has actually tried to fix the issues with government run healthcare programs in the past, but all they can seem to manage is making the money pit larger while the percentage of people they are helping isn't exactly increasing drastically. I'd say we need less monkeys in congress, but they'd probably replace them with birds, squirrels, or those hideous duck/beaver creatures.

 

[R Man]

Errr... How is paying for Health via taxes different from paying it direct to the insurance companies?

Because insurance is practically a scam. you pay premiums all your life and once ONE instance occurs in which you need to call upon your insurance, they penalize you or try to come up with an excuse why you can't collect. Car insurance for example, you could have a perfect driving record, get into a small collision which may not even have been your fault then pay over a thousand more a year over it.

Yes that was my point! I don't understand why a tax increase would be a problem when it means that you can stop paying insurance companies. And if State run healthcare is so bad, why are countries like Sweden, France and Canada rated so highly in living standards?

 

[Andreas55k]

I say Public Healthcare is The best thing, i Despise the fact that one would exclude The public option in favor for the private owned Hospitals.

Unless you are an Honorable owner, then your job at a privately owned hospital is to earn monney...
A goverments job is to take care of its people, its nothing without them...


Also The Publicly owned Hospitals are a step on the way of the Communist Utopia....

 

[Andreas55k]

One should work after Ability and Enjoy after need

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

I'm assuming you're referring to the non-universal system the US applies to healthcare. If so, you should know that we are already trillions (seriously, trillions) of dollars in debt. You should also know, by way of common sense, that nothing is free. Free healthcare really means "healthcare paid for by the government." A government, which as previously mentioned, is in massive debt.

Would it be nice if the US could pay for everyone's healthcare? Sure. Is it a pipe dream, at least for the foreseeable future? Absolutely.

 

[smithy_2045]

Basic healthcare should be subsidised by the government.

It is impossible for it to be free.