[Q] US health System

On May 15 2009 10:28 MuffiN wrote:
How does the US health system work?

On May 15 2009 11:13 Archerofaiur wrote:


It doesn't.

On May 15 2009 11:46 DeathSpank wrote:
we don't have a system. It's all privatized. Maybe once we get out of this economic fiasco Obama will change that.

On May 15 2009 11:13 Archerofaiur wrote:


It doesn't.

On May 15 2009 11:49 Jonoman92 wrote:
I think it's a bit silly the way our system is. It's illegal to drive a car without having it insured but health insurance on the other hand is a luxury of sorts. Most people that have it get it through their jobs. The people that don't most likely have crappy jobs that are the kind of jobs that have few or no benefits and along with that pay very little so that can't afford to get health insurance on their own.

On May 15 2009 12:32 micronesia wrote:
I don't think it's fair to compare automobile insurance to health insurance. The reason why it's required for you to be insured when you drive, but not for your own health, is because of liability. Medical insurance isn't there to protect others from you, whereas car insurance is. Collision insurance, for example, is optional.

cAnadian medical is amazing. i talked to friends from there. basically, dont get hurt in the us if u are canadian

On May 15 2009 16:10 omninmo wrote:
cAnadian medical is amazing. i talked to friends from there. basically, dont get hurt in the us if u are canadian

On May 15 2009 11:49 Jonoman92 wrote:

edit: I don't see our health system changing anytime soon. Everyone who has power in society is just fine in the status quo, and it's not like the poor people are gonna unite and actually demand anything. Changing the state of things would take tons of money and that obviously isn't there. Obama isn't some miracle worker, and even though I consider myself liberal I haven't been a fan of the way he's been handling things lately.

On May 15 2009 17:16 gchan wrote:
The US health system is a hybrid system where there are both elements of private sector and public sector. The private sector is basically the medical insurance part whereas the public sector is a lot harder to define. Of course there are bits of overlap, but this is the main divide.

In the private sector, almost all medical insurance is provided through employers. The amount of benefits varies from employer to employer. Some variables include whether you can include your family in your coverage, the level of care you can get, inclusion of pharmaceuticals, deductible paid and amount of other health support (like dentistry, mental health, home care, etc). For example, an employer with a stellar medical plan would cover their employees and their spouse/kids; provide primary, secondary, and tertiary care; pay for all varieties of cutting edge drugs, not just generics; have a low deductible; and would also provide good dental, mental health, home care. Of course almost no employer actually provides benefits this good, but that's the general principal. In fact, some employers even require their employees to pay for their own health insurance, but the legality of this varies from state to state. On the same token, the amount of health care employers are required to provide varies from state to state.

The apparent problem with this is that the employer acts as an unnecessary intermediary between health insurance providers and consumers. This is the result of legislation passed nearly a century ago trying to encourage to work to receive health insurance; but the problem was that the US government also provided a safety net by having public sector health insurance. Thus the original incentive for people to work to receive health insurance was nullified because there was really no risk (health insurance wise) to /not/ work as you would be covered by the government.

...But public sector benefits declined in the public sector due to shortfall in funding and an aging population. So the federal government roped in all the state governments to provide additional support in the health sector (this was in the 1960s). As a result of this, the US now has a dauntingly complex public health care system with partial federal coverage, partial state coverage, and some inbetween. The largest portion of federal only coverage is Medicare which covers health insurance for the elderly. On the state level, Medicaid provides health insurace for the low income. The amount of coverage, again, varies from state to state. Through Medicaid, the federal government sponsors state governments a certain amount. I'm not sure on the specifics, but I am pretty sure that it varies from state to state. As you may have noticed, this is starting to become increasingly complicated. Each state has it's own set of legislation dictating what amount of health care to provide, how much to pay for this health care, and who to cover in this health care; simulatenously, the federal government has it's own set of guidelines on what/how much/who to cover so you get a lot of fed-state conflict. A lot of this is still unresolved and floating around in various courts, which only perpetuates the delayed health care.

If that wasn't enough, you also have various government programs like VA (veteran affairs) and federal employee health benefits programs (and their state equivalents). Also, somebody else mentioned it, but if you get laid off, you can go on a federal-state-private hybrid program called COBRA. This is basically your employee based health care without you actually being an employee. The governement will subsidize you for X number of months on the program until you find another job and can get health insurance through your new employer.

A lot of people bitch and moan about the American health care system, but really, there's not a whole lot that the USA can do. When comparing the system to Canada and Europe, the primary issue is that the USA is HUGE and has a lot of geographical/demographic diversity. Toss in strong state governments and the symptomatic bureauracracy of democracies, and any refrom takes decades to happen. That's why it's not really fair to say that the XX country has a lot better health care than the USA. If you think about it, how can you really compare the amount of health care needed and health care available for a farmer in Nebraska to somebody living in NYC? The situations are completely different and the amount of wealth they have is completely different. Europe benefits from having a densely populated, relatively wealthy, homegenous population (at the country level) so providing "universal health care" costs a lot less than it would in the United States.

On May 15 2009 16:10 omninmo wrote:
cAnadian medical is amazing. i talked to friends from there. basically, dont get hurt in the us if u are canadian

On May 15 2009 21:28 Jibba wrote:

It will change within the next eight years, for two reasons. First, we're in a crisis period, which is about the only time fundamental changes can be made to a society. If there is an opportunity to install it, it's right now, not 10 or 15 years from now. Second, big businesses want national health insurance as well, because it helps them as well.

Insurance companies are now starting to get on board with the national health care plan, probably because they foresee it coming and want to get on the good side of the administration so they can affect policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1

On May 16 2009 04:30 Hawk wrote:


I agree that drastic changes are more likely to happen in a state of crisis, but how can it possibly be done with our given economic state (even if this supposed turn around is true)?

I think the socialized care would be more beneficial to small business rather than the large ones. The larger places are typically the more lucrative, more competitive jobs. If one is saying we'll give you good health care, and the other is saying piss off and take the dumpy nationalized option, who are you gonna go to? Plus, I'd imagine that the inevitable tax bump that's coming with this is gonna be placed more on big business rather than the little guys.

Small businesses would benefit just based on how friggin much it costs to insure a worker. A guy getting like $35k or so on paper costs the employer close to $45k at the end of the year. Plus, depending on the tax bracket the business falls into, they might miss the tax hike that the bigger guys would get; all the benefits without really kicking in a whole lot.

I also could be totally wrong. Who cares. Agree with the NYT article though, definitely.

On May 16 2009 05:24 Jibba wrote:

I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first.

On May 16 2009 05:27 Aegraen wrote:

Don't delude yourself.

On May 16 2009 05:35 Jibba wrote:

I like to. Removal of the FICA cap and extending the age to 70/75 would be a good start. The original social security (started by the Germans) had an age cap of 65 because the average citizen lifespan was 57 and few people had access to it, so it could easily sustain itself. As a "realist," you should know your plan isn't going to happen. It doesn't even matter who the president is. You'd have to combat the most powerful lobby in the country, which most senators belong to.

On May 16 2009 05:47 Jibba wrote:
LBJ is more to blame for the current costs than FDR though.

On May 16 2009 05:48 Aegraen wrote:


There would be no SS without FDR. Isn't this great society lovely?

On May 16 2009 05:24 Jibba wrote:

I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first.

On May 16 2009 06:01 Hawk wrote:


That needs to be changed, and something really needs to be done about the ridiculous pensions that city, state and fed workers get. Paying people $60k a year for life after 20 some odd years of service is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

On May 16 2009 05:24 Jibba wrote:

I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first.

On May 16 2009 04:06 Aegraen wrote:
Nothing that is ever worth anything is free. There is no such thing as 'free' healthcare. Frankly, I am infinitely more predisposed to spend my own money much more wisely than the Government. That, and philosophically and lawfully, the government has no right to intervene in my healthcare, tell me, what treatments I will get and what I won't, when I will, and when I won't, where I will and where I won't, and basically become a Totalitarian state.

It is not my responsibility to give the fruits of my labor to others because they made poor decisions, are lazy, or have no societal motivations. It is akin to government induced slavery. Tax rates are all ready highly absurd, and providing massive bureaucratic healthcare would easily jump the taxes up even higher. We would be essentially turning the US into a third world country for the benefit of the societal miscreants. Yes, let's punish society as a whole, for the bad decisions of the minority. Sounds like a swell plan.

Now, those who are unable to work, or to provide for themselves should be covered by the Government. These account for about 1-3% of people if that. Easily manageable.

In the end this boils down to my QUOTE. Read, and learn it well. Those who are have-nots are only in the business of voting in those who will take. Stealing is wrong, so is slavery.

As an edit: US Healthcare is the best in the world. That is; the actual care you receive, not on how socialistic the healthcare system is according to WHO (Which actually ranks the countries by this criteria)

On May 16 2009 06:18 Aegraen wrote:


Are you putting your life in harms way? Police, Federal workers (DEA, NSA, CIA, FBI, Customs, Border Patrol, DoD, DHS, etc.), and other civil service jobs such as firefighters, don't deserve their pensions? That its fucking ridiculous? Sorry, you are 'fucking ridiculous'. If your that jealous, then go do the jobs yourself, then maybe you'll see how 'ridiculous' your statements are, when you try to make GS13-14 and put your life at stake.

On May 16 2009 06:22 Archerofaiur wrote:


Medicare and Medicaid are actually slated to go insolvent allot sooner than Social Security. Obama has stated that he plans to address the health care system first.







Aegraen, you are so misguided about so so so many things.


Its always interesting when people argue about how long the waits are with socialized medicine. Do you have any idea what that wait is for the 40 million americans without health insurance? Also to demonize the uninsured as lazy is the kind of justification that has lead to some of humanities worst crimes.

On May 16 2009 06:39 Hawk wrote:


I said nothing about eliminating them, but they need to be reduced. And it's not all people who actually put their lives on the line—stupid ass city employees, politicians (who often stack up their benefits by holding multiple positions) teachers, etc.

Cops, FF, and all those guys got tough jobs, but that doesn't mean the average tax payer should be going broke paying for them for life. There has to be some kind of regulation. Look how much pensions eat up budgets.

On May 16 2009 08:54 Aegraen wrote:


Your anger is placed in the wrong direction, look at the huge programs that are bankrupting the country, not the miniscule .5% GDP that federal pensions encompass.

On May 16 2009 09:35 Tom Phoenix wrote:
I do not know how much US citizents like their health system. As for myself, I will say that I am glad my own country has a public healthcare system. Yes, it is by no means perfect, but at least I am guaruanteed treatment when I need it. Overall, I think it`s qualities outweight any potential flaws.

Also, the notion that "high taxes = totalitarian state" is pure fallacy, especially when one considers that states with some of the highest taxes are also among the most democratic states in the world (like Scandinavian countries, for example). Infact, Nazi Germany, a textbook example of a totalitarian state, had low taxes until late in World War II.

On May 16 2009 09:41 Aegraen wrote:


Democracy by nature can be Totalitarian. The 51% majority votes to take the rights away from the 49% minority...how is that not Totalitarian?

People confuse Democracy and Republicanism so much. This eschewed vision of Democracy is good, needs to be dispelled.

PS: Are you too lazy to budget for your own healthcare, which would be of much higher quality when privatized? Competition breeds improvements; the other way creates and instigates stagnation. No one wants to be responsible for finances any more...Everyone wants government to live their lives for them. Ugh....can we have responsible, hard-working people stand up against this...please...

On May 16 2009 09:48 thopol wrote:
If you get an HMO you can get basically everything at the same hospital at a consistent rate. This is good as long as companies aren't trying to skin you, which they really aren't at this point. If you're really poor you can get medicaid which is pretty efficient and good. Outside of these cases you are in the realm of the wolves that are insurance, big-business doctors, and drug companies.

On May 16 2009 09:48 thopol wrote:
If you get an HMO you can get basically everything at the same hospital at a consistent rate. This is good as long as companies aren't trying to skin you, which they really aren't at this point. If you're really poor you can get medicaid which is pretty efficient and good. Outside of these cases you are in the realm of the wolves that are insurance, big-business doctors, and drug companies.

EDIT: Read a bit of the arguing. LBJ really gets a bad wrap. The great society has been very helpful for America. I recommend reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography of LBJ to get a perspective that is not tinted by how he has been made by history.

On May 16 2009 09:41 Aegraen wrote:


Democracy by nature can be Totalitarian. The 51% majority votes to take the rights away from the 49% minority...how is that not Totalitarian?.

1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

On May 16 2009 09:53 Chef wrote:

Mostly, I would think, because it's not the definition of Totalitarian o.o

Democracies do not ban other parties. They're not perfect, but the idea is that everyone is supposed to get their say. Not that everyone gets what they want. A totalitarian state is when people are not allowed to speak against the state, and when no other people are allowed to take the place of the state in power (except, of course, by force). Calling democracy totalitarian just shows you have a very limited understanding of politics...

PS: Hurray for America!

On May 16 2009 09:41 Aegraen wrote:


Democracy by nature can be Totalitarian. The 51% majority votes to take the rights away from the 49% minority...how is that not Totalitarian?

People confuse Democracy and Republicanism so much. This eschewed vision of Democracy is good, needs to be dispelled.

PS: Are you too lazy to budget for your own healthcare, which would be of much higher quality when privatized? Competition breeds improvements; the other way creates and instigates stagnation. No one wants to be responsible for finances any more...Everyone wants government to live their lives for them. Ugh....can we have responsible, hard-working people stand up against this...please...

On May 16 2009 10:20 VegeTerran wrote:
Taken From www.pnhp.org (Physicians for a National Health Program)


"Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 45.7 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing."

On May 16 2009 11:10 Aegraen wrote:


You didn't read anything I wrote. We don't have 47 million 'uninsured'. Secondly, do you know what Hillary Care is? Do you know what Tom Daschle eschews and is Obama's plan? Thirdly, with a single payer there is no competition. The government dictates what it will do. I am astonished at how much faith people put into governments.....Where is the faith in yourself?

Secondly, we have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, and we rank as one of the highest in life expectancy. Immunization is up to the parents.

Oh, yes the comprehensive coverage that has dentists walking out of Britain because they don't get paid after X amount of people and their flooded with people...Who is going to work for free? Or, waiting from one to three years in Canada for specialized treatment. What about Britain not being able to treat certain cancers so they have to fly to the US to get treatment...Or, what about rationing care because the cost:benefit analysis shows that your life isn't worth that much money and the government stiffs you and lets you die for the 'greater good'.

Most of the healthcare costs in the US come from the government with their stupid programs. Foisting artificial price boosts, they then rail against the price of healthcare, promising they will fix it, when they broke it in the first place by tinkering around and playing the oh 'moral saviour' with Medicare and Medicaid, and the countless other programs such as SCHIP.

The way to recoup this 'wasted' money is to get the government the hell out of the way and let the citizens do what they do best.

On May 16 2009 11:37 Kwark wrote:

Public system doesn't ask people to work for free any more than private does. No idea where you'd get that idea but doctors are paid just as well here as anywhere else.
I don't understand how you can criticise rationing care for the maximum number of lives saved. It's utterly arbitrary. Having more money doesn't give you any more right to life and when the same money that saves one life can be used to save many it should be used to save many.
This isn't very complicated. Life = Good.

Care to address any of the reasons I wrote in favour of the public system, such as investment in public health rather than simply paying the costs that result for example? If you read any other posts in this topic you could find a number of good posts that you have just ignored.

On May 16 2009 12:04 Aegraen wrote:


Because it goes against everything that Freedom and Liberty stands for.

I'm going to be quite frank with you here. I don't give a shit what stats you have, if it any way impedes with my Freedom and Liberty, then it will not happen. Simple as that. There's not even a point to argue with you, because in the end I choose my Freedoms and Liberties and free will over your cost:benefit analysis bullcrap. If I want to live to 105 then I will damn well live to 105 (or at least try).

You see, I have a health disdain for everything that is government. You Europeans have not come to this point as us Americans have. Thank Jebus (Love the simpsons) for my founders and their unequivocal enlightenment about human nature, philosophy, and government roles and the empowerment and natural law rights of the individual!

On May 16 2009 12:12 Kwark wrote:


Glad you could share your "enlightenment" with us. It is definitely an interesting, if somewhat quaint, world view. Although a basic look at history would show that, rather than being more advanced as you suppose, you're 120 years behind European civilisation. It's called liberalism, we tried it, the society it led to was pretty crap, we moved on. Still, it is pretty cute that you think it's so great. Good luck with that.

On May 16 2009 12:27 Kwark wrote:
Poor people = Lazy, drug addicts.
Y/N?

On May 16 2009 12:33 InsideTheBox wrote:
Just a couple of points;

(1 to Aegraen) life expectancy is lower in the US compared with those Eurozone nations that have socialized healthcare, (2 to Aegraen) your definition of "freedom and liberty" is pretty loose, there are no allusions to a citizen's "right" to such things, just as we don't have a "right" to exempt ourselves from paying taxes or any sort of social program for that matter, (3 to Kwark) your stats are extremely biased; the bureaucratic cost of most, if not all, "universal" healthcare schemes in the US would be huge. The fact that we have private healthcare providers insures the competitive need to drive these costs down, whereas with a single entity that incentive would not exist.

It's pretty obvious that there doesn't exist any consistent manner in which we can weigh the benefits of healthcare provisions for those in the lower socioeconomic rung against the cost of running such a program. One can blow platitudes about the "value of human life," the right to choose, benefits of competition, etc out of their asses, but in the end most people with a strong view point just will not change their minds.

On May 16 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote:
God, you'd have fucking loved Victorian Britain. If you were one of the minority on top that is.

Absolute belief in cultural and moral superiority over the unenlightened - check
Unregulated free market - check
No form of social security, pensions, healthcare etc - check
Belief that you deserved your position in society - check
Belief that you were the pinacle of civilisation - check
Belief that the poor were to blame for being poor and therefore deserved their exploitation - check

On May 16 2009 12:31 Aegraen wrote:


Some. More are of the irresponsible, bad decision making types. Not my fault; I should not get punished for making the right, responsible choices in life. What a backasswards belief system.

Reward the irresponsible; punish the responsible.

On May 16 2009 12:47 Aegraen wrote:


America is a classless society. Stop pigeon-holing us into a socialistic class caste system. A poor man can become rich, and has. A rich man can become poor, and has. You can achieve whatever you want in America, many have, and do if you strive for it. Government intervention is increasingly making it difficult to become 'rich' and the incentive to make more money has diminished with the gripping tax burdens. Many people pay upwards of 60%+ in taxes between federal, state, localities, and all sorts of crap. Death tax? Cigarette taxes? Gas Taxes? Property Taxes? geeze. Stop suffocating us all ready.

Fair tax! (A consumption tax). No income tax. No property taxes. No death tax. Straight consumer tax. Basically, it would be the flat/fair tax rolled into one. A national, say 8% a dollar tax on purchases. Voila, problem solved. Though with this, you couldn't lavishly spend on every governmental amenity and whim at politicians disposal. This would also put on average 8,000$ back into the pockets of every American to spend as they want. Yay for capitalism and competition (Oh, and FREEDOM, you can choose to save as much as you can too, and not be punished...what a remarkable idea)

On May 16 2009 08:48 Aegraen wrote:

I was waiting for the 40 million number. Actually, the true number of uninsured who can't afford health insurance is actually very low around 1-3 million. About 18 million can afford it, are in between the ages of 18-35 and choose not to purchase it(*2). 9.5 million aren't even US Citizens ! 17 million others live in households that make over 50,000$ a year, and can afford healthcare(*1). Moreover, only 30% of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months (*3). Pelosi's description of 47 million, is hugely deceitful, and inaccurate.

On May 16 2009 12:47 Aegraen wrote:

America is a classless society. Stop pigeon-holing us into a socialistic class caste system. A poor man can become rich, and has. A rich man can become poor, and has. You can achieve whatever you want in America, many have, and do if you strive for it. Government intervention is increasingly making it difficult to become 'rich' and the incentive to make more money has diminished with the gripping tax burdens. Many people pay upwards of 60%+ in taxes between federal, state, localities, and all sorts of crap. Death tax? Cigarette taxes? Gas Taxes? Property Taxes? geeze. Stop suffocating us all ready.

Fair tax! (A consumption tax). No income tax. No property taxes. No death tax. Straight consumer tax. Basically, it would be the flat/fair tax rolled into one. A national, say 8% a dollar tax on purchases. Voila, problem solved. Though with this, you couldn't lavishly spend on every governmental amenity and whim at politicians disposal. This would also put on average 8,000$ back into the pockets of every American to spend as they want. Yay for capitalism and competition (Oh, and FREEDOM, you can choose to save as much as you can too, and not be punished...what a remarkable idea)

America is a classless society.

On May 16 2009 13:09 FieryBalrog wrote:
Here's the problem, Kwark. British society as it is now, is failing. In fact, all of Europe is failing. The demographics don't lie. The population is aging and increasingly frail with a shrinking population of young people to support society. All Western Europe increasingly depends on immigrants- Muslim, Eastern European and to a lesser extent Asian- but these immigrants don't necessarily share your enlightened European values values and any attempt to assimilate them is "racist" and isn't allowed for by our modern multicultural dogma.

What is Europe's future anyway? In 100 years, Europe will be irrelevant. It has 0 growth potential, but other places are growing fast. Its done, washed up. The centers of innovation and production and energy shifted out of Europe a long time ago, and the weight of that shift is telling. The economies you have now, are simply legacies of the past. The only way Europe can survive is by actually inculcating its immigrants with something of the home countries spirit and culture- you know, the way America works- but they refuse to do that.

Why do we as Americans want to emulate this amazing European society that is slowly atrophying and sunk in its own demographic collapse (part of which is certainly related to health care costs and the burden on society of an aging population with a shrinking population of youth)? Thats why I always wonder why the left is so enamored with making us more like Europe.

On May 16 2009 12:47 Aegraen wrote:


America is a classless society.

On May 16 2009 15:08 VIB wrote:
I heard that when poor americans have health issues they get in a boat to Cuba to get real treatment. Is that correct?

On May 16 2009 13:09 FieryBalrog wrote:
Here's the problem, Kwark. British society as it is now, is failing. In fact, all of Europe is failing. The demographics don't lie. The population is aging and increasingly frail with a shrinking population of young people to support society. All Western Europe increasingly depends on immigrants- Muslim, Eastern European and to a lesser extent Asian- but these immigrants don't necessarily share your enlightened European values values and any attempt to assimilate them is "racist" and isn't allowed for by our modern multicultural dogma.

Aegraen wrote:
About 18 million can afford it, are in between the ages of 18-35 and choose not to purchase it(*2).

The relevant part of one article wrote:
A third of 18- to 29-year-olds, a demographic the insurance industry calls "young invincibles," are cigarette smokers. A quarter are obese, as the rates among young adults have tripled in the past three decades. Nearly two-thirds of young adults reported not having regular leisure-time physical activity.

"At that age, people tend to be healthy but take it for granted," said Dr. Jennifer Shu, CNNhealth's Living Well expert. "Diabetes and heart disease start at much earlier ages now. The obesity and cigarettes can impact how young you might be when you get a serious illness."

The articles also wrote:
Instead of paying exorbitant prices, many young people choose to remain uninsured, risking injury while harboring the belief that youth alone can buffer them from illness.

A recent study conducted by the Commonwealth Fund, a center for health care policy, found that 13.7 million people ages 19 to 29 did not have health insurance in 2006. The total number of uninsured that year was 47 million, which means "young invincibles" composed almost one-third of all the uninsured in the U.S.

Finally, the articles wrote:
Meanwhile, other uninsured acquaintances found ways to circumvent the problem of no insurance.

"You would hear stories about people giving fake names at the ER or blowing out before being discharged so they wouldn't be responsible for the bill," said McPartland. In New York, Horse says he sees the same thing.

But somebody pays, said Emory's Thorpe.

"In cases where somebody who doesn't have health insurance shows up in the emergency room, we all end up paying for it. Taxpayers pay for it. People with private insurance pay for it. Somebody's picking up the bill."

According to Thorpe, who is also the executive director of an organization called the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, about $50 billion a year is spent to cover medical bills incurred by the uninsured.

Moreover, only 30% of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months (*3). Pelosi's description of 47 million, is hugely deceitful, and inaccurate.

Time wrote:
But Pat represents the shadow problem facing an additional 25 million people who spend more than 10% of their income on out-of-pocket medical costs. They are the underinsured, who may be all the more vulnerable because, until a health catastrophe hits, they're often blind to the danger they're in. In a 2005 Harvard University study of more than 1,700 bankruptcies across the country, researchers found that medical problems were behind half of them — and three-quarters of those bankrupt people actually had health insurance. As Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor who helped conduct the study, wrote in the Washington Post, "Nobody's safe ... A comfortable middle-class lifestyle? Good education? Decent job? No safeguards there. Most of the medically bankrupt were middle-class homeowners who had been to college and had responsible jobs — until illness struck."

Time also wrote:
Pat's decision to save some money by buying short-term insurance was a big mistake, says Karen Pollitz, project director of Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute and a leading expert on the individual-insurance market. "These short-term policies are a joke," she says. "Nobody should ever buy them. It is false security that is being sold. It's junk."

That's because diagnosing and treating an illness may not fall neatly into six-month increments. While Pat had been continuously covered since 2002 by the same company, Assurant Health, each successive policy treated him as a brand-new customer. In looking back over Pat's medical records, the company noticed test results from December, eight months earlier. Though Pat's doctors didn't determine the precise cause of the problem until the following July, his kidney disease was nonetheless judged a "pre-existing condition" — meaning his insurance wouldn't cover it, since he was now under a different six-month policy from the one he had when he got those first tests.

Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, and we rank as one of the highest in life expectancy.

Aegraen continues:
Most of the healthcare costs in the US come from the government with their stupid programs.

According to the New England Journal of Medicine back in 2003
The overhead cost of operating the United States health-care system is more than three times that of running Canada's on a per capita basis, and the gap is getting bigger, according to a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Aegraen continues:
I'm going to be quite frank with you here. I don't give a shit what stats you have, if it any way impedes with my Freedom and Liberty, then it will not happen. Simple as that. There's not even a point to argue with you, because in the end I choose my Freedoms and Liberties and free will over your cost:benefit analysis bullcrap. If I want to live to 105 then I will damn well live to 105 (or at least try).

Oh yes, you know about 150 years of being a true republic living by the Constitution turned out pretty crappy. Last I checked we took on and wiped out both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan and become the lone world economic superpower after the war. Turned out pretty crappy.

Europe is declining. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me within 5 years that britains are actually a minority in....Britain. You don't even realize it, but you've basically been invaded and taken over without a fight. So what kind of advanced society do you have...with Shar'ia Law being practiced, a 7th century system of laws that allows stoning a woman to death for adultery.

On May 18 2009 01:01 Syntax Lost wrote:



Complete fabrication. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United states has an infant mortality of 6.26 per 1000 live births. By comparison, Canada has 5.04, an improvement of 24%. And socialist Sweden? 2.75 per 1000 live births--an improvement of 228%! Overall, the US rates 45th in the world in terms of infant mortality. Lowest? Really? Seriously, check how many first world countries rate worse than the US, there's not many.

On May 18 2009 01:15 Railz wrote:


I'm just going to respond to this portion of the post as I have no feelings one way or the other about the rest of it.

I've seen people try to call this number out against the US multiple times without realizing that list never tried to adjust for population. It goes by births/1000 and unfortunately, for the US, when being compared to Canada it has about 10,000 more births/1000 which makes it pretty difficult to make a fair comparison of the 2 when we have so many more chances for complications. Granted, it is still a high number I suppose, but it doesn't knock the original point of being an unfair comparison. The only 2 near population size to the US is Indonesia and Brazil =/

On May 15 2009 10:53 Mykill wrote:
im in canada
but i hear that health insurance is a MUST unless your absurdly rich. also i've heard of quite a few scams where those who sign up for health insurance still dont get shit when they claim for it

Many people pay upwards of 60%+ in taxes between federal, state, localities, and all sorts of crap. Death tax? Cigarette taxes? Gas Taxes? Property Taxes? geeze. Stop suffocating us all ready.

Fair tax! (A consumption tax). No income tax. No property taxes. No death tax. Straight consumer tax. Basically, it would be the flat/fair tax rolled into one. A national, say 8% a dollar tax on purchases. Voila, problem solved. Though with this, you couldn't lavishly spend on every governmental amenity and whim at politicians disposal. This would also put on average 8,000$ back into the pockets of every American to spend as they want. Yay for capitalism and competition (Oh, and FREEDOM, you can choose to save as much as you can too, and not be punished...what a remarkable idea)

On May 18 2009 01:01 Syntax Lost wrote:
I thought I would stop by and highlight more of Aegraen's dishonesty which seems to be occuring in this thread as well. By the way, Aegraen, I'm still waiting for a response in the Condoleezza thread.

On May 18 2009 01:18 jeppew wrote:



a higher ammount of births are just going to make the average more accurate, not worse.

edit: or are you implying that there are much more births per capita in the US? so many that it puts a burden on the healthcare system?

On May 18 2009 01:15 Railz wrote:


I'm just going to respond to this portion of the post as I have no feelings one way or the other about the rest of it.

I've seen people try to call this number out against the US multiple times without realizing that list never tried to adjust for population. It goes by births/1000 and unfortunately, for the US, when being compared to Canada it has about 10,000 more births/1000 which makes it pretty difficult to make a fair comparison of the 2 when we have so many more chances for complications. Granted, it is still a high number I suppose, but it doesn't knock the original point of being an unfair comparison. The only 2 near population size to the US is Indonesia and Brazil =/

On May 18 2009 02:59 Railz wrote:


A higher amount of births might be a good way to 'get an average' but it is still unfair to compare to other countries with populations overwhelming under the US to try and get that average. Maybe the US is average and everyone else is extremely lucky - one way or the other it proves the point, infant mortality rate is nigh incomparable between such differing populaces.

On May 18 2009 01:15 Railz wrote:
I've seen people try to call this number out against the US multiple times without realizing that list never tried to adjust for population. It goes by births/1000 and unfortunately, for the US, when being compared to Canada it has about 10,000 more births/1000 which makes it pretty difficult to make a fair comparison of the 2 when we have so many more chances for complications. Granted, it is still a high number I suppose, but it doesn't knock the original point of being an unfair comparison. The only 2 near population size to the US is Indonesia and Brazil =/

On May 18 2009 02:25 Hans-Titan wrote:
As always an excellent post Syntax Lost, but you won't ever get him to reply to your posts. The sane part of Teamliquid thanks you for your efforts, but if you're hoping for a response, your efforts have all been in vain I'm afraid.

On May 18 2009 02:59 Railz wrote:


A higher amount of births might be a good way to 'get an average' but it is still unfair to compare to other countries with populations overwhelming under the US to try and get that average. Maybe the US is average and everyone else is extremely lucky - one way or the other it proves the point, infant mortality rate is nigh incomparable between such differing populaces.

On May 17 2009 05:01 The Raurosaur wrote:


Why does a demography shift = failing? By that standard, the US has been failing for most of its history, what with all the immigration and cultural melting pots. Many immigrants to Western Europe are only short-term - i.e. they intend to leave after 5, 10 years once they have comfortable savings to take to their families back home. (Also, surely free movement of labour is one of the ideals of the free market?)

A more practical question for the Americans - how much does the average person pay for their health insurance? I'm moving to the US later this year and am curious to what a good deal is etc.

On May 18 2009 03:57 gchan wrote:
About the infant mortality rates:

The USA statistics has a bit of bias in it simply because we have such diverse populations and geographical distributions. In a lot of the Midwest, Mountain, and Southern areas, population is a lot more sparse and many more babies are born without proper medical access. That and toss in the fact that culturally, these areas have much younger median mother age, more unsupported mothers when they are pregnant, and probably more ignorance about pregnancy and you get higher infant mortality. Here is a CDC published study back from 2006 and around pages 6-9, you can see some of the differences across the states. A lot of other modernized countries don't have this same problem, so it's really hard to compare. Take any statistics on the entire USA as a whole with a bit of skepticism because the USA is, by nature, way too large and way too diverse to describe in such generalized terms.

On May 18 2009 04:13 jeppew wrote:



the fact still stands that the american healthcare system results in more infant deaths than the systems in other industrial nations, and it costs more.

US health system

On May 18 2009 04:36 gchan wrote:


That is /exactly/ my point. You are generalizing the US health care system as if it were homegenous everywhere in the US. Just like there are varying levels of infant mortality in the USA across states, there is varying levels of health care available across states. As is, with the current level of heatlh care, the US system already costs more than any other nation. It is because we are much larger and much more spread out. The bottom line is that doctors don't want to live in the midwest. Hospitals don't want to started up in areas with 1 family living every 20 square miles. It's not cost effective, it's not practical, and it is going to be way more than the government can handle. All I'm saying is that using a generalized description for the entire US is bit inaccurate and a bit presumptious.

On May 18 2009 05:21 HeadBangaa wrote:
Dumping tax dollars into healthcare doesn't create more doctors, it's that simple.

Small town doctors have literally been forced out of business by the imposition of government regulation and the weight of liability, paperwork, and medicare/medicaid.

On May 18 2009 02:25 Hans-Titan wrote:


As always an excellent post Syntax Lost, but you won't ever get him to reply to your posts. The sane part of Teamliquid thanks you for your efforts, but if you're hoping for a response, your efforts have all been in vain I'm afraid.

On May 18 2009 05:35 MiniRoman wrote:


That's shitty administrative costs that could be reworked by a government program. Why would governments use the same shitty health system everyone is complaining about?

On May 18 2009 05:55 HeadBangaa wrote:

I largely agree with Aegraen on this issue. No need to be a cheerleader, ok.

On May 18 2009 05:57 HeadBangaa wrote:

The current system is the creation of government intervention! You don't know what you're talking about...

On May 18 2009 06:19 VegeTerran wrote:


Elaborate please if you're so clever?

On May 18 2009 07:17 VegeTerran wrote:
I don't think anyone here is "adhering to the status quo" people just seem to think that america could and should a healthcare system that's as good and effective as other comparable industrial nations.

On May 18 2009 07:22 HeadBangaa wrote:

And you see no other way to do this than with more government welfare programs? You take the very contention for granted and prove my point for me.

On May 18 2009 07:34 Kwark wrote:

He wasn't ruling out that a totally private system might work. Merely pointing out that the nationalised example of other industrial nations does work.

...chomsky video

government interventions create unintended consequences that lead to calls for further intervention, and so on into a destructive spiral of more and more government control. And that's exactly where we are now, patching previous patchwork introduced by the gov't back in the 60's.

In these United States of America, one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, many people cannot afford even basic health insurance. They suffer severely under the present system and have to live under the constant fear of not knowing what they will do if they or their loved ones ever fall seriously ill.

But in many cases, insured individuals aren’t much better off either. In comparison to the exorbitant insurance premiums they pay, the medical care they receive is often very poor.

Additionally, due to the government-enforced monopolies of HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations) and pharmaceutical companies, many patients will never even hear about some of the most effective and non-invasive treatment methods. These natural and inexpensive ways of regaining one’s health are being suppressed by the FDA and the medical establishment not because of safety concerns (they’ve been around for hundreds of years), but because they cannot be patented and would therefore cut into the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.

The current system is most definitely broken, and it must eventually be abolished if we want regain both our health and our freedom.

Forced nationalization is the worst possible answer. To get elected, many politicians promise “free” medical care for everyone. But health care nationalization in European countries resulted in longer waiting periods, severe lack of choice, deterioration of health care quality, prohibition of alternative health treatments, higher taxes, and sadly (for some) permanent illness or death because they could not get the care they needed.

Also, a nationalized system is not “free” at all because someone has to pay for it. And why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else’s medical care? Very few decent people would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a nationalized health care system?

There is only one solution that will lead to true health and true freedom: making health care more affordable. Ron Paul believes that only true free market competition will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes.

Through these measures and the elimination of government-sponsored health care monopolies a much larger number of people will be able to finally access affordable health care, either by paying for medical insurance or by covering their medical expenses, which are now much lower, out of their own pocket.

As for the poor and the severely ill who can neither obtain insurance nor pay for the medical care they need, Ron Paul offers the following solution in his book “The Revolution: A Manifesto“:

In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.

Illegal aliens already receive de-facto free health care. Why can’t poor Americans have the same… not as a right, but as a charitable benefit provided by doctors who feel a personal responsibility for their fellow citizens?

Unfortunately, the current medical monopoly corrupts many doctors by rewarding practices that are not in the patients’ best interest. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in not curing people, but getting them permanently addicted to expensive drugs that have many side effects, thereby requiring additional drugs to suppress those side effects. Many doctors are afraid to speak up and question the system for fear of being ostracized by their peers or even losing their license.

Under a liberated health care system prices would come down and additional options would become available, thereby making health care much more affordable. Moral corruption would give way to true compassion, and many doctors would remember their implicit obligation to provide free medical care to those in need, just like they did in the past.

As a medical doctor, Ron Paul swore the Hippocratic Oath many decades ago. His entire person and career is a monument to the beauty and sanctity of human life. Ron Paul knows that life without health can be very difficult and is not what it was meant to be. He has personally cared for the poor for many years, without asking anything in return.

The government’s original role is to protect our freedoms and restrain itself from causing too much harm. Ron Paul is working to prevent greedy bureaucrats, opportunist politicians and corrupt pharmaceutical companies from having any sort of unhealthy influence over our bodies and minds.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution and help us put the government back where it belongs: to Washington DC and out of our daily lives.

On May 18 2009 07:48 HeadBangaa wrote:

Again, the expensive system CHomsky criticizes is an artifact of government intervention. Again:

These proposals do not lower the cost of healthcare. They hide the cost by burdening the tax payer.

Instead of deferring to Chomsky the Linguist, let us consider Ron Paul, the Medical Doctor.


Please read and comment.

On May 18 2009 07:57 Kwark wrote:
Tell me if I'm wrong but didn't that Ron Paul thing say in one sentence that healthcare providers would be freed to compete like any other service provider and then in the next that doctors who feel a personal responsibility towards their fellow citizens would help out the needy?

You can't make it a highly competitive business while relying on the charity of the businessmen to fill in the gaps in the service. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

On May 18 2009 08:07 Kwark wrote:
You can't just say it's widened beyond what the founding fathers envisioned and therefore it's bad. The constitution is an old document and cannot be expected to provide a guideline for how to govern a modern society.

If nationalised healthcare is bad, say why it's bad. Don't just say that it's intervention and unconstitutional.

On May 18 2009 08:09 HeadBangaa wrote:

Medical care is not like every other business. Pro bono work is the moral responsiblity of medical practitioners, and it has worked in America in the past. Please read the Ron Paul quote, you would have answered this yourself.

On May 18 2009 08:16 HeadBangaa wrote:

Let's try and keep this conversation cohesive. I was pointing out a strawman fallacy. They want to prop up conservatives as people who believe that government has evil intentions. This is false.

I did. Stop with the goddamn strawman fallacies, I'm not an idiot. I wouldn't call something as intrinsically bad just because it doesn't match a piece of paper. I gave substantive reasons as to why government intervention has driven up everyday healthcare costs. The implementations pay no mind to the malicious incentives they create, thus the problem.

I won't respond to you anymore until you engage what I've already written!

On May 18 2009 08:16 Kwark wrote:

Why is it their medical responsibility? Either it's run as a business or it's not. If it's run as a business then the hospital which devotes some of its time to charity will have to charge more per paying patient than the hospital that does not. That cost reaches the consumer and the charitable hospital loses its customers.
Unless of course the government mandated a set amount of charitable work they had to do :p

On May 18 2009 08:18 HeadBangaa wrote:
I simply disagree with your collectivist mindset. It is un-American.

On May 18 2009 08:00 HeadBangaa wrote:
Hipster: "I live in Georgia and a lot of people there are ultra-rightwing, you, know, Ron Paul Libertarians. I mean.. uhh umm, they're extremely cynical."

Chomsky: "They think the government is the enemy, that's understandable... like some alien force from Mars that is stealing their money."

Ridiculous, I can't believe I'm even responding to it.


This is not the viewpoint of conservatives like myself, or Ron Paul. This is a strawman fallacy. Ron Paul's politics simply point out that the scope of government has widened beyond what the constitution allows, and that the consequences are a snowball effect of taxation and more intervention.

And after sitting through the drivel and fallacies, he does not refute anything I put forward from the Ron Paul camp. I doubt you even watched the video and you just dumped a google result on me.

On May 18 2009 08:18 Kwark wrote:

What you've already written does nothing to address me, it simply points out the flaws in the current system where private and public mix poorly to create a bureaucratic nightmare of inefficiency.

On May 18 2009 08:24 mahnini wrote:
america has it's fair share of free clinics i believe except if you can afford otherwise you would probably avoid them because they are shitholes (hearsay). i wouldn't be caught dead in one (get it??? LOL!)

On May 18 2009 08:33 dybydx wrote:

docs in china are respected people but they dont make 5x the salary of their assistant.

On May 18 2009 08:21 HeadBangaa wrote:

Ughh I don't agree with your summary. If your just going to gloss over it all, why even bother.

I'm out of this thread.

On May 18 2009 11:19 jeppew wrote:


he asks what so bad about national healthcare, you answer that prices are driven up by goverment intervention in a private system. it's like whining that oranges are too sour when discussing what's bad about apples.

go and look at the national healthcare systems, that produce better results for less, and then tell us what's so bad about them. not bringing up problems in the US healthcare system, that isn't a national one.

On May 18 2009 11:53 Aegraen wrote:


What everyone fails to take into account is the philosophical aspects of the roles of government. Just because something 'may' be more efficient doesn't make it better.

Headbangaaa and myself have all ready pointed out that the government is what created the increasingly exorbinant prices for health insurance. Medicare and Medicaid paying only 60% of the fees, leaving the hospital to recoup the other 40% from those not under Medicare and Medicaid. Secondly, by nationalizing the entirety of the health system, does not drive down costs. In fact, it would put an ever increasing burden on the government who all ready now 'backs your home mortgages, car, and other asinine things the government has no legal/legitimate role in'

The US Constitution, more than anything is a philosophically inspired document. I would rather live free and poor, than restrained and have money. Freedom is priceless. You want to only argue stats, which I showed you were used deceitfully, yet you don't account for the philosophical nature of Government and that of human nature.

Your healthcare system is so great in Europe and other socialist countries, yet, you are hovering around 1% to under 1% GDP growth a year, and most see no growth. You don't realize the staggering burdens placed on your businesses. You must read a Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. I would also advise you to read Ayn Rands: Atlas Shrugged.

On top of this, economical servitude (slavery), is inherently immoral and unjustified. Why should I have to work to pay for others? Why should I become a slave to the government forfeiting over half my work? Do I not work for myself? Approaching the philosophical nature, with the means to build on the principle foundation to improve the system is what needs to be done.

This means, cutting all governmental intervention. There was a case of a doctor (This was on Glenn Beck), who was charging 79$ a month for unlimited care and the government shut him down. Yes, all bow down to governmental bureacrocy. Lest I remind you of the NRA in the 30's who stifled all growth and was one reason for causing the Great Depression to last even longer.


PS: In before the CIA Worldfact book 1.3% GDP growth in America. Need I remind everyone here, that the US now spends nearly as much as britain accounting for (last I checked) 43% of GDP spending. In every regard, we are all ready socialist. Put two and two together, with what everyone all ready knew, and socialism does not create wealth, it merely siphons what wealth there is off until everyone becomes poor. Well, at least then everyone is equal right? Thats what it is all about afterall.

On May 18 2009 13:48 Durak wrote:
I'll admit I've only read four of the eight pages in this thread because it was so lengthy. I'll just add in my personal story about Canadian Healthcare.

I was throwing up all night and I thought I had food poisoning. In the morning I called an advisory nurse so she could possibly diagnose what I had without leaving my house. After I described how I'd been over the night she said I should go to ER. At the hospital I let the receptionist know the severity of my illness. I didn't think it was anything bad so I got put pretty low in priority. After an hour or so I got to see a doctor that attempted to diagnose what I had. After answering some questions and the like I was put of morphine. An hour or so later a surgion came in and told me I most likely had appendicitis and asked me if they should take it out. I said absolutely. I was operated on in the next hour.

Overall, it took me like half a day to find out I had appendicitis and to get the fucker out. It didn't cost me or my family anything.

On May 18 2009 14:42 Durak wrote:
Man, what's wrong with you. It's not so extreme as you like to believe to make yourself feel better about the US healthcare system.

Our country is a big community. We support eachother. I'm receiving free service when I need it and not paying for it. When I'm older, I'll be paying a small portion of my income to support other people in my current situation. It's not stealing from anyone.

Is it stealing when your government gives billions of its taxpayers dollars to foreign countries as aid? Is it stealing when your government spends billions of dollars to prop up industries that the CEOs have run poorly?

On May 18 2009 14:47 Aegraen wrote:


Yes and Yes.

I am against foreign obligations. This means no Alliances, aid, treaties, etc. UN is so ridiculously corrupt and asinine, we should leave that corruptocrat place immediately.

They never have the best interest of America.

I'm one of those you know, ol' school Robert Taft/George Washington types.

And yes, you did steal. Did you earn that money? No. What then is it?

Nothing is wrong with me, I am just a hard-working American who doesn't like to see his country heading in the direction of wealth destruction, that and if this continues I'll be sure to pull a John Galt.

On May 18 2009 14:47 Aegraen wrote:


Yes and Yes.

I am against foreign obligations. This means no Alliances, aid, treaties, etc. UN is so ridiculously corrupt and asinine, we should leave that corruptocrat place immediately.

They never have the best interest of America.

I'm one of those you know, ol' school Robert Taft/George Washington types.

And yes, you did steal. Did you earn that money? No. What then is it?

Nothing is wrong with me, I am just a hard-working American who doesn't like to see his country heading in the direction of wealth destruction, that and if this continues I'll be sure to pull a John Galt.

On May 15 2009 10:53 Mykill wrote:
im in canada
but i hear that health insurance is a MUST unless your absurdly rich. also i've heard of quite a few scams where those who sign up for health insurance still dont get shit when they claim for it

On May 18 2009 14:47 Aegraen wrote:


Yes and Yes.

I am against foreign obligations. This means no Alliances, aid, treaties, etc. UN is so ridiculously corrupt and asinine, we should leave that corruptocrat place immediately.

On May 19 2009 00:31 stk01001 wrote:
Essential services which are provided by the government for it's citizens:

Civil protection (fire & policemen) - Check
National protection (army & navy) - Check
Transportation (roads, highways, public transportation) - Check
Eduction (schools, colleges) - Check
Communication (postal service) - Check
Social Stability (Laws, justice system, prisons) - Check
Healthcare - NO FUCKING WAY OMG THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!


Seriously, can the people opposed to universal healthcare be any more ignorant?

On May 19 2009 00:31 stk01001 wrote:
Essential services which are provided by the government for it's citizens:

Civil protection (fire & policemen) - Check
National protection (army & navy) - Check
Transportation (roads, highways, public transportation) - Check
Eduction (schools, colleges) - Check
Communication (postal service) - Check
Social Stability (Laws, justice system, prisons) - Check
Healthcare - NO FUCKING WAY OMG THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!


Seriously, can the people opposed to universal healthcare be any more ignorant?

On May 19 2009 01:05 Aegraen wrote:


Do you know what Federalism is?

Secondly, armed services is actually one of the functions of the Federal Government.

Also, please, name me one government run college (JDIC, Military Schools, etc. don't count. I'm talking about civilian schools). Secondly, on this point you know how horrible the US school system is? Yes, let's exalt a failing institution and then mimic it with our healthcare. Very astute.

Everything government run is inefficient. Yes, even the military. There are contracts that are absurd, and the government always pays ludicrous amounts for what they get. What makes you think it is suddenly going to stop....You don't think that with the 'full backing' of the government, the medical suppliers aren't going to raise prices? Do you think bureacrocy is a business? They make horrible 'business' decisions, in fact, none of the decisions they make are based on business models, its all politics.

Haven't we all ready seen time and time again the horrendous effects of government run institutions?!

Lastly, the US cannot afford to spend any more. I'm wondering how many people here railed against Boooooosh and his increasing the spending. Doing the same with Obama are you? I have. We need to lower taxes, get government out of the way, and cut spending.

Libertarian and Conservative movements are growing, and for good reason. Politicians are so far out of reality with the populace its border line twilight zone.

I would recommend reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers sometime.

In the end it boils down to this: Do you want to be run by an Oligarchy, or a Republic. It's a philosophical approach, and that is how government should be. There is no more philosophy in politics today, and thats what is causing the downfall. There are no more principles behind politicians anymore. Sad day indeed.

On May 19 2009 00:18 aRod wrote:
Aside from the ethical and moral arguments for a national health care system which have largely gone unmentioned in this thread, the best argument for a single payer system is the control administrative cost. Maintaining efficiency and controlling cost are ideas that stark national health care critics such as Aegraen and Headbanga can embrace. They are wise to despise the government’s current role in health administration. It is a blatantly inefficient, wasteful, and cost accumulating bureaucracy. But the problem isn't sheer government involvement, rather the way the government is involved in health care.

The current problems with the US health care system relating to government involvement have been mentioned in previous posts of Aegraen and Headbanga. I will now explain the benefits of a single payer system and how this system won't impact health care quality to the extent many national health care critics fear.

Before I start understand that I’m not advocating universal coverage or any particular system that determines who has access to health care. I have my own beliefs on this matter which don’t relate to the reasons for a single payer system. I am only making an argument for the system that has been adopted by the rest of the industrialized world. I hope, you will come to see, they have good reason for doing so.

The statistics involving health care administration have already been mentioned. Administrative cost (the cost of running insurance companies/HMOs/PPOs, advertizing, reviewing claims, denying or accepting appeals, handling lawsuits, negotiating health care costs) waste 10% of every health care dollar spent. The average insurance company spends 13% of every dollar on administrative cost. The percentage is 3% for Medicare/Medicaid and other national health care programs (such as Canada's system) resulting in a difference of 10%. Considering that the USA spent 2.5 Trillion on health care in 2008, we're talking about 250 Billion dollars used on administrative cost. We could maintain the current health care delivery system (the same drugs, docs, hospitals, and procedures) and reduce costs by 250 Billion annually if we switched. A single payer system could also further reduce health care costs by lower drug prices (which are twice as high in the US than other industrialized nations) resulting in a net annual savings of over 300 billion. There are other ways we could reduce cost as well such as national health care records system, but these are a different topic entirely.

Criticisms of a single payer system are numerous. It is true that Canadian and British health care systems have longer weights, lower 5 year survival rates for cancer therapy, limited access to “alternative medicine,” and they do lose doctors who are frustrated with the system. But, understand Canadians and the British spend far less than the United States does on Health care. We spend $7,439 per person while Canada spends $5170 and the UK spends $4973. The fiscal differences spent per patient are the main reasons for the discrepancies between quality of patient care and access to health care, not the mere presence of a single payer system. This is largely a consequence of the universal coverage applied to all citizens. All too often the single payer system is cited as the reason for health care discrepancies when dollars spent per patient is the genuine culprit. The reason health care in the US is the best for those with insurance is because we spend the most on individuals. Many of the myths of national health care need to be dispelled. Claims of “The government will be picking your medicine,” “you won’t get to pick your doctor,” and “you’ll die waiting in line” may make cogent arguments to the poorly educated and uniformed, but have little place in a serious discussion of health care administration in the US. The first claim is a joke, and the later two have little to no basis in fact, especially if we limit coverage to individuals who choose to pay into a single payer system. Other arguments such as “Why should I have to pay for others people health care” are equally hilarious considering anyone who subscribes with an insurance company is already doing this and would only continue under a single payer system.

Now I don't want to seem naive, I understand that universal coverage for citizens and a single payer system will probably go hand and hand, but any honest individual can admit the government can run organizations efficiently. The US mail, the DOE, the education systems are all extremely well run. Why not health care? After all it saves money and will not necessarily diminish health care quality.

On May 19 2009 01:15 stk01001 wrote:


I don't think i've read a dumber statement in a long time.. my god it's amazing how retarted people are. You actually think that the military shouldn't be run by the government? I can also name about 1,000 colleges which are funded by state governments. Everything run by government is inefficient? So what do you suggest then, privatize all of these services? Yea that will work!! My god get a clue please, stop pretending you know anything at all abot politics.

On May 19 2009 01:22 Velr wrote:
Ok, listen you faggot.

Basically the whole world has goverment run or strongly goverment supportet health insurance systems. They ALL, ALL, ALL are cheaper than your american system.


Why is this? You never will have a healthcare system whiteout goverment involvement, it's not possible, unless you let everyone whiteout money die (i have the feeling you actually would support that...).

On May 19 2009 01:05 Aegraen wrote:

Everything government run is inefficient. Yes, even the military. There are contracts that are absurd, and the government always pays ludicrous amounts for what they get. What makes you think it is suddenly going to stop....You don't think that with the 'full backing' of the government, the medical suppliers aren't going to raise prices? Do you think bureacrocy is a business? They make horrible 'business' decisions, in fact, none of the decisions they make are based on business models, its all politics.

Haven't we all ready seen time and time again the horrendous effects of government run institutions?!

Lastly, the US cannot afford to spend any more. I'm wondering how many people here railed against Boooooosh and his increasing the spending. Doing the same with Obama are you? I have. We need to lower taxes, get government out of the way, and cut spending.

Libertarian and Conservative movements are growing, and for good reason. Politicians are so far out of reality with the populace its border line twilight zone.

I would recommend reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers sometime.

In the end it boils down to this: Do you want to be run by an Oligarchy, or a Republic. It's a philosophical approach, and that is how government should be. There is no more philosophy in politics today, and thats what is causing the downfall. There are no more principles behind politicians anymore. Sad day indeed.

On May 19 2009 01:09 Archerofaiur wrote:
I think this thread is getting too polarized. The overwhelming majority of people here (and in the world) believe that healthcare should be provided to all. However, America is a two party system and ususally the only way we make any progress is through compromise.

So lets try and see what common ground we can establish. Aegraen, can we at least agree that healthcare should be provided to all children?


Also, would you support a mandate that requires all citizens to obtain health insurance? This is a very pro-business option that the private sector has recently embraced.

On May 19 2009 01:31 Aegraen wrote:


Within strict guidelines yes. That means households 200% below poverty level and within the ages of 0-16. The only reason I support this, is because these children are unable to work and support themselves, even then it has to be extremely limited though.

SCHIP covers households up to 75,000$ and until your 32! Absurd.

No I would not. I don't think the government should be mandating to the public much if anything.

On May 19 2009 01:28 aRod wrote:


Cost control is a very legitimate concern. I always advocate cost control. Understand not all government entities and contracts are lucrative due to competition and bidding amongst private entities. Medical suppliers don't simply get the option to "raise prices" after they commit to supply/pricing agreements that they had to bid for. More so, managed care institutions set prices they will pay for drugs. This includes medicare/medicaid whose alotted prices are lower than most managed care organizations. Suppliers can meet these prices or not sell their products.

Frankly your post contributes little to no insight into the health care debate, but simply more governmentphobia where it makes little sense to do so.

I encourage you to look specifically, in each case, if government involvement makes sense. The rest of the industrialized world has chosen a single payer system for a reason.

On May 19 2009 01:34 Archerofaiur wrote:



Ok we can agree that children should be covered. What about the disabled and mentally challenged?

Also should government mandate military service in times of war?

On May 19 2009 01:39 Aegraen wrote:


Yes they should. If you cannot support yourself, or have the means to in some shape or fashion, then yes as last resort government should intervene albeit discreetly. Charity and family should be the main support for these people (Which it was for the betterment of 250 years).

Depends. The only time a draft should be called is in extreme cases such as WWII. There was no need for a draft for vietnam. Even then, the only time a draft should be even called for in extreme cases is when the military is not meeting the demands of recruitment for the war.

I think losing your civilization, and lavishly throwing money out to those who do not produce are completely unrelated.

There have been a lot of debates and discussions recently, both on this forum and in other venues, about the state of healthcare. Looking at the rising costs of health insurance, and at the growing numbers of the uninsured, many are calling for government intervention, and the institution of a system where care is guaranteed to all - usually described as "universal" healthcare. It's a fascinating topic - the issues involved include humanitarian, financial and ideological ones. Unfortunately, debate on the subject is characterised by a startling phenomenon: one side is right, and the other is completely wrong.

Given the importance of medicine, I feel that it would be useful to clarify this issue. I will explain clearly, and with evidence, why it is that universal healthcare of any sort would be better than the current system in every significant way. If you find yourself disagreeing with this assertion, I ask that you read on before replying, as all conceivable objections will be addressed and resolved.

Why The Current Situation Is Bad

At the moment, healthcare in America is provided mostly by private entities, who charge high fees. These fees can be attributed largely due to the difficulty and expense of the medical profession, and although they are significantly higher than those of similar nations this difference is only a small portion of healthcare costs. There then exists the health insurance industry, a loose network of corporations that charge individuals or organisations premiums and will pay for their health costs if any are incurred.

Unfortunately, this system has enormous problems. As of 2006, 44.8 million people in America do not have health insurance. Many are unable to afford it, many are denied coverage by insurers who believe that as customers they will not be economical, and others choose not to purchase it. Without health insurance, the up-front costs of health care are impossible for most people to afford. In fact, 50.35% of all bankruptcies were caused, at least in part, by medical fees. In 2001, this was 2,038,549 bankruptcies.

Furthermore, health insurance does not fully cover medical expenses. Different insurers and different plans have many exemptions, co-pays, threshholds and other expense-minimising devices. As a result, 62% of those two million bankruptcies occurred despite the debtors having health insurance coverage for the duration of their illness.

As well as failing to provide care, and driving individuals into bankruptcy, the existing system is also exorbitantly expensive. Health care spending is now 15% of U.S. GDP - the highest in the world. The costs to businesses, who commonly pay premiums for their employees in lieu of salary, rose by 13.9% in 2003. The annual cost increase has been above inflation since at least 1981. Paying more doesn't result in more value, either - obesity, diabetes, and similar disorders are more common in the United States than anywhere else in the developed world, the U.S. is ranked 72nd in overall health, and life expectancy is below that of 41 other countries.

What Is Universal Health Care?

Universal Health Care, or UHC, refers to a wide range of different systems, the common characteristic of which is that a nation's government guarantees all its citizens access to healthcare. Every developed nation (OECD member) in the world, apart from the United States, has a UHC system. There are three main types:

In a fully public system, there is no or little private healthcare, and the health insurance industry is not a significant one. Medical service providers are government employees, and the education of doctors is also subsidised. The most well known example of a fully public system is the original English NHS, although a private sector is now developing in the U.K. as well.

In an optional public, the government provides the same services, but a private health services industry also exists (generally regulated), and . Sometimes health insurers exist, used by people who prefer private services. This is the most common, and examples include Australia and Sweden.

In a subsidised private system, the government pays for health care, but it is provided by private entities. Either the government acts as a health insurer for the populace, or it pays the fees for private health insurers to do so. This is done in Canada.

For the purposes of discussion, I will be assuming the characteristics of an optional public system, like those used in most of Europe. However, the benefits of UHC apply to all of the above types of organisation.

How UHC Will Improve Things

The single largest problem with healthcare in America is that many people don't have it. It's obvious how UHC solves this: by providing it to all citizens directly (or paying for it to be done). By definition, this is no longer a problem under UHC. All developed nations other than the United States make this guarantee to their citizens, and have so far been able to uphold it. The two reasons which make a person uninsurable - insurer decisions and lack of money - will no longer exist.

The second major problem with the current system is its high cost. This can be divided into two parts: individual cost, and government cost - which to the individual shows up as taxation. UHC is inherently cheaper - far cheaper - due to economies of scale, the bargaining position of monopolies with regard to drugs and salaries, reduced administrative costs, and the lack of a profit motive. When it comes to individual health care costs:

According to the World Health Organisation, average American individual spending on healthcare is $3371 per year. Since this includes the uninsured and those covered by their employers, actual costs are higher. For comparison:

Australia: $1017
Canada: $916
Sweden: $532
United Kingdom: $397

The first of those is the second-highest in the world - meaning that Americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation. This would be somewhat justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again - 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations.

It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America's health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison:

Australia: $2106
Canada: $2338
Sweden: $2468
United Kingdom: $2372

American healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the OECD, with France second at $2714. In conclusion, every single UHC system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the American health care system. By implementing UHC in the U.S., things can only get better.

Frequently Raised Objections

There are many incorrect arguments against the implementation of UHC in the United States. In order to better facilitate discussion, I will explain the errors found in the most common.

"America isn't Europe!", or It Won't Work Here
The argument from American exceptionalism states that what works in Europe will not work in the U.S. It's said that this is because European nations have more people in less space, resulting in less logistical difficulties, and because European government is more competent.

Firstly, not all developed nations are European. The most obvious example that counteracts the logistical argument is Australia, where there are 20 million people in only slightly less space than America's 300 million. This does indeed affect prices, as can be seen by comparing Australia to Sweden or the U.K. - but it doesn't bring them anywhere near the levels currently experienced in America.

The argument that American government is uniquely incompetent, and cannot do things that every other nation in the world can do, is simply nonsense. Not only has America, and American government, achieved many things that other countries have not, America has so many resources and the improvement in care and cost from moving to UHC is so large that even with incredible inefficiencies it would still be a good idea.

"It is immoral to force me to pay for others' healthcare."
You are already paying for others' healthcare. Furthermore, you are paying far more than you would be under UHC. The U.S. government incurs massive costs from paying hospital fees when ER visitors have no money, and from the limited coverage that it provides, which cannot take advantage of economies of scale and which has to subsidise corporate profit.

As demonstrated above, U.S. taxes devoted to healthcare are the highest in the world. Even if you choose not to have health insurance, under the current system, you are still paying more for others' healthcare than you would be paying for theirs plus your own under UHC.

"This is socialism."
It is not socialist to recognise that there is a service the free market is inefficient at providing, and to decide it should better be provided by the government. Even the most staunch libertarian admits that there are some services in this category, such as national defence.

Secondly, it is irrelevant whether this is a "socialist" policy; it's effective. It costs less and provides better care to more people, and as a result is used literally everywhere else in the entire world. Those who want to ensure that society remains ideologically committed to market capitalism need to look for other issues, as if they cling to this one they will only end up providing evidence against their position.

"I don't want more government bureaucracy."
UHC will involve much less bureaucracy than is commonly assumed, as it can replace the existing partial systems like Medicare and also the plethora of state-specific programs. Regardless, the lives and money saved are more important than any potential expansion of the state.

"Why don't we try making the system even more private instead? That might help."
It might. However, there's no evidence to suggest it, and many reasons to presume it wouldn't. By its nature, the less publicly-supported a system, the more people will be unable to purchase health services.

The only potential gain would be reduced costs due to some sort of market mechanism, and in practice this has never occurred; every private healthcare system that has ever existed in world history has proved inefficient and been replaced by public systems, and given the demonstrable gains that have resulted the U.S. must follow.

"Doctors will be paid less."
They probably will. In nations with UHC, doctors often earn less - for example, U.S. doctors earn 30% more than Canadian doctors - but this isn't an inherent problem. It is still one of the highest-paying professions in the world, and there are many other ways of attracting skilled people to medicine - such as subsidising their education.

It is sometimes claimed that doctors paid less in a country with UHC will instead go elsewhere where they can be paid more, but once the U.S. has UHC there will not be an elsewhere to go.

"Medical research is funded by the payments of the rich in the current system, and will be reduced."
It is not true that most medical research is done in the United States. In 2000, U.S. research spending was $46 billion, but European spending was also $43 billion. And although U.S. research spending doubled in the last decade, the funding's efficacy has actually decreased.

Secondarily, if the option for private healthcare still exists - and there is no reason why it should not - there will still be people choosing to pay more for a higher quality of care, faster service, et cetera. Their profits will still be reinvested in the development of new drugs, equipment and understanding of the human body, as they still are in nations with UHC today. Even in the United States, private spending accounts for only 57% of research spending.

"With the option of private healthcare, the rich will 'opt out' and costs will go up."
This isn't necessarily true at all; although private healthcare is usually allowed in UHC nations (for good reasons), it doesn't have to decrease the taxes paid by all to support the public system!

"Other countries fix drug prices, so the US has to pay more for drugs."
This is another common misconception. U.S. healthcare does not include higher pharmaceutical spending than other countries; it's around the average or even slightly lower. From the OECD:

Canada: 17.7%
Germany: 15.2%
Iceland: 13.3%
Australia: 13.3%
US: 12.4%
Sweden: 12%
Ireland: 11.6%

In Conclusion

Thank you for reading. To those who were not previously supporters of UHC, I apologise if anything seemed condescending, but there's no shame in being wrong due to not having all the facts or having been misled. If anyone has questions feel free to ask, and hopefully we can now discuss what sort of UHC system ought to be implemented or how the political will for it can be gathered, rather than being bogged down by misconceptions about its desirability.