The benefits of universal healthcare - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14994230
Pants-of-dog wrote:I would argue that the provincial governments have “ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods” in terms of necessary medical treatments and the associated administrative services.

It is decidedly not free market.

Neither mercantilism nor keynesianism are the free market but that doesn't make either socialism.

The prov govs don't own the doctors, the nurses, the hospital or the drug companies, all they do is pay the private sector providers on behalf of the citizenry using money taxed from the citizenry. Essentially they are acting like a health insurance company.
#14994263
@Victoribus Spolia, I am using the reply button with your username on it. I don't know why it's not working for you?

Anyways, Francoist Spain was a perfect example of a society that lacked real consciousness. Much more than the West today.

A higher life expectancy is better because we humans want to live as long as possible, because once you die, that's it, it's fucking over. And you reject the advancement of technology? Why? Because of your religion?

I think cannabis should be abolished since it promotes social decay, and that it deteriorates society.

No, true faith is used to control you, to prevent you from rebelling.

Can you post some of your general deductive arguments in your reply?
#14994277
SolarCross wrote:Neither mercantilism nor keynesianism are the free market but that doesn't make either socialism.

The prov govs don't own the doctors, the nurses, the hospital or the drug companies, all they do is pay the private sector providers on behalf of the citizenry using money taxed from the citizenry. Essentially they are acting like a health insurance company.


Except for the lack of copayments, every single citizen and resident is a “client”, there are no higher premiums for those more at risk (or any premiums at all), there is no profit, and it is entirely funded through tax dollars.
#14994280
Except for the lack of copayments, every single citizen and resident is a “client”, there are no higher premiums for those more at risk (or any premiums at all), there is no profit, and it is entirely funded through tax dollars.


There are profits. Every doctor is a business that bills the health care system. Private insurance for basic coverage is prohibited but one can purchase supplemental coverage for things like drugs and private rooms. The system still negotiates with providers to purchase services and this is not one-way.

When Canada needs to improve, such as the former complaints about wait times, they purchase the improvements from the marketplace.

So in this regard it is a somewhat free market system albeit carefully controlled. Basically it is about shared risk. Canadians are required to share in the cost of basic but comprehensive services to keep the price down for everyone.

But no matter. To consider everything the government purchases "socialism" is absurd. The federal government purchases fighter planes and controls the means of production through security laws. The F-35 that the US and UK can purchase may not be the same one that SA can purchase. And some can't purchase it at all.

Socialism is a macroeconomic term. To use it to describe one industry is incorrect.
#14994369
Drlee wrote:I have the ultimate in socialized medicine. I pay next to nothing. I have Medicare and Tricare for Life as I am a retired soldier. The government pays all of my healthcare bills without any catastrophic cap. These payments are made entirely from tax money. I get to choose my doctor from the largest pool available in the US. (All doctors who accept medicare which in my state is about 90%.) I do not have to seek a referral to see a specialist. There are no waiting lists. I do not have to file any paperwork.

In other words Hindsite, my (or should I say our) socialized medicine is with no doubt whatsoever, the best insurance money can't buy in the US. But socialized it is. (By your mistaken definition of socialized.) Do the doctors like it? Consider:

Who would have thought that all I had to do to get single-payer taxpayer funded lifetime unlimited health care with drug coverage, was to spend a measly 20 years in the Army. I wish everyone could have what I have. It would cost the government a pittance of what people are spending now and cover everyone.

But I understand how a Christian like you would think that people should not have health care. After all. Jesus was just kidding when he told us to care for each other when we are ill.

You forgot to mention that money is being taken out of our Social Security retirement each month to cover the Medicare. Many people can't handle 20 years in the military.
#14994453
Pants-of-dog wrote:Except for the lack of copayments, every single citizen and resident is a “client”, there are no higher premiums for those more at risk (or any premiums at all), there is no profit, and it is entirely funded through tax dollars.

As @Drlee said. Moreover I have this suggestion: if you want to sell national health insurance to americans the worst sales gimmick you can employ is to call it "socialism", anyone who looks it up in a dictionary will be revolted and anyone who connects the word with the USSR or DPRK will be similarly revolted. If you call it nationalism instead then at least all those patriotic americans will give it a fair hearing.
#14994456
You should tell Hindsite that. He was the one who called it socialist.

Personally, I do not care as this is just a semantic discussion. Word definitions do not change the fact that hovernment run single payer systems have better ourcomes at less cost than private systems.

This is not only true for developed capitalist countries like Canada, but also true for socialist devleoping countries like Cuba.

Even the forum ancaps have no argument about this,
#14994458
Pants-of-dog wrote:You should tell Hindsite that. He was the one who called it socialist.

Personally, I do not care as this is just a semantic discussion. Word definitions do not change the fact that hovernment run single payer systems have better ourcomes at less cost than private systems.

This is not only true for developed capitalist countries like Canada, but also true for socialist devleoping countries like Cuba.

Even the forum ancaps have no argument about this,


The cheapness comes at the expense of doctors who are forced to work for less and also long waiting times for patients. Moreover a mixed national and private health economy is not easily compared for average costs with a fully private system because a mixed system covers only some people not everyone. Higher earners will tend to be willing to spend extra for luxurious accompaniments to healthcare such as fancy food and nice accomadations. If a national program focuses on servicing lower earners then the private sector providers will focus on higher earners and so the medical equivalent of Walmart won't happen.

It remains to be seen for how long national programs can continue to underpay doctors and nurses. The UK's NHS has long since stopped training up native english doctors in favour of importing cheaper african doctors. It isn't clear at all that is indefinitely sustainable.
#14994461
@SolarCross, there is a reason America pay more for healthcare than anywhere else and it has nothing to do with "fine dining health care". Insurance companies want to make a profit. Include the 'middle men' and that is a factor in cost as their profits are a factor. Governments agencies such as a NHS are there to not make a profit but provide a service. So they will be cost efficent. That is just a fact.
#14994464
B0ycey wrote:@SolarCross, there is a reason America pay more for healthcare than anywhere else and it has nothing to do with "fine dining health care". Insurance companies want to make a profit. Include the 'middle men' and that is a factor in cost as their profits are a factor. Governments agencies such as a NHS are there to not make a profit but provide a service. So they will be cost efficent. That is just a fact.

The US pays its doctors more than the UK does. If the govs are "not for profit" then that explains why they have huge debts they can't pay. If you do not earn more than you spend then debts are the only way to keep going, but for how long?
#14994465
SolarCross wrote:The cheapness comes at the expense of doctors who are forced to work for less


Please provide evidence for this claim.

and also long waiting times for patients.


...and evidence for this too.

Moreover a mixed national and private health economy is not easily compared for average costs with a fully private system because a mixed system covers only some people not everyone. Higher earners will tend to be willing to spend extra for luxurious accompaniments to healthcare such as fancy food and nice accomadations. If a national program focuses on servicing lower earners then the private sector providers will focus on higher earners and so the medical equivalent of Walmart won't happen.


Since I was not comparing a mixed system with a private one, this is not relevant.

But it is true that private systems only cover those who can pay, and thise who cannot pay are left to suffer and/or die.

It remains to be seen for how long national programs can continue to underpay doctors and nurses. The UK's NHS has long since stopped training up native english doctors in favour of importing cheaper african doctors. It isn't clear at all that is indefinitely sustainable.


Cuba seems to be able to sustain it.

Are you saying that the UK cannot do as well as a developing country that is embargoed by the world’s only superpower?
#14994468
SolarCross wrote:The US pays its doctors more than the UK does. If the govs are "not for profit" then that explains why they have huge debts they can't pay. If you do not earn more than you spend then debts are the only way to keep going, but for how long?


US doctors are paid more because the whole system supports such high wages as that is the nature of a free market when it comes to such a vital service like health.

Also you criticise the salary of UK doctors but £100,000 is a pretty good wage for anyone. Nonetheless you need to know that the lack of UK home grown doctors is actually more to do with the cost and length of education than wage potential FYI. Ask any child and many would become a doctor if they could but few feel like spending seven years in medical school when they are 18. The solution to this is to pay for the higher education in such an important trade so it is free, but since when have the government been rational to do this? Until then we import our doctors while UK born doctors go to Australia (and not America so obviously a social life is more important than wage potential in a professional that pays well).
#14994471
B0ycey wrote:US doctors are paid more because the whole system supports such high wages as that is the nature of a free market when it comes to such a vital service like health.

Also you criticise the salary of UK doctors but £100,000 is a pretty good wage for anyone. Nonetheless you need to know that the lack of UK home grown doctors is actually more to do with the cost and length of education than wage potential FYI. Ask any child and many would become a doctor if they could but few feel like spending seven years in medical school when they are 18. The solution to this is to pay for the higher education in such an important trade so it is free, but since when have the government been rational to do this? Until then we import our doctors while UK born doctors go to Australia (and not America so obviously a social life is more important than wage potential in a professional that pays well).

The cost and length of training is worth it if at the end they will have a well paying career, but in the UK that is not so attractive a career choice for native borns. You can make that career choice more attractive by subsidising with taxpayers money the education but then that doctor may yet choose to move to the US or somewhere else that pays better, and then UK taxpayer is effectively subsidising a foriegn health economy just as Africa is being forced to subsidise the UK. I don't think you really grasp the difficulties of fixing prices in the long term. It is like keeping a piece of elastic stretched out of shape, sooner or later it will slip from your control and find its natural state.
#14994472
Yes, the way the developed world benefits from socialist policies in the developing world (by having the poor countries pay for the training of doctors) is yet another way in which people benefit from public health care.
#14994474
What are you talking about? Native UK born doctors choose to work in the profession within the UK and if they leave it is more to do with social reasons rather than salary and doesn't happen straight away after passing courses either. When it comes to the issue of lack of UK born doctors taking up health education you will find it has everything to do with the cost and length it take to pass the courses. But take away the cost burden and you would get more students taking the courses as then cost isn't a factor. Nonetheless naturally clauses in the subsidiary for health education would be in place to prevent people from passing and then moving abroad FYI.

As for price fixing, this is Solarcross BS too. Drug companies decide the cost of their drugs and the UK tax payer subsidise this without any influence from the government. The only reason national health care is cheaper is solely down to that if you take away the middle men "that are insurance companies" you cut down the costs in health.
Last edited by B0ycey on 17 Mar 2019 16:48, edited 1 time in total.
#14994475
B0ycey wrote:What are you talking about? Native UK born doctors choose to work in the profession within the UK and if they leave it is more to do with social reasons rather than salary and doesn't happen straight away after passing courses either. When it comes to the issue of lack of UK born doctors taking up health education you will find it has everything to do with the cost and length it take to pass the courses. But take away the cost burden and you would get more students taking the courses as then price isn't a factor. But clauses in the subsidiary in education to prevent people just passing of abroad would obviously be in their too FYI.

As for price fixing, this is Solarcross BS too. Drug companies decide the cost of their drugs and the UK tax payer subsidise this without any influence from the government. The only reason national health care is cheaper is that it takes away the middle men that are insurance companies.

It does not cut out the middle man it just makes the government the middleman.
#14994480
SolarCross wrote:Which is why it is in debt! Duh! :lol: But how sustainable is that? At some point constant losing leads to dissolution.


You know nothing about economics because if you did you would know a government needs a degree of debt to keep its economy flowing duhhhhh!!!!. :lol:

Also the recent high levels of Western debt is down to the 2008 financial crash and absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. For example US debt isn't sustainable despite having privatised healthcare and is being kept afloat today by the Dollar being the global reserve currency.

Also are you aware that the UK is nearly neutral in terms of debt and tax receipts? Soon it will have a surplus (Brexit barring) so can indeed afford its healthcare program. So again more Solarcross BS.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
climate change

Hindsite, your single avatar beneath your name re[…]

Roe v. Wade was argued based on Norma McCorvey's[…]

So what your claiming is when your nation refused[…]

The Evolution Fraud

Fess up. Are you a new Earther? :lol: