Rather than this going straight over my head, it is the purpose of my response that went straight over your head, since the presumption that such problems were only that of a "very biased perspective" is exactly what I perceived, and thus I showed that such problems were not restricted to the likes of Fox, but reported on by liberal media as well. Even just a search of
UK NHS will result in a
NTY article as well as a
CNN one reporting crises in the NHS. I am not search "UFO over the White House" or something.
Thus the presumption that such problems are only that of a "very biased perspective" was refuted.
Same point. The NTY or CNN is not going to publish an article saying "all is well".
None of this means anything.
You can point to problems everywhere all you want. The larger point flies over your head.
There are problems with democracy as well, you know. That doesn't mean that we might just as well all become communists.
You need to look at the big picture, and contrast that full picture to how the picture looks in the US. That's what this is about.
It's not about "can you find something problematic in X".
Because obviously you can. No matter what X is. Nothing is perfect.
Yes? So this means that problems and issues with such things as US politics do not exist, or are only that of a "very biased perspective?" Instead, they are widely reported on as real and substantial problems and issues as the sources attest, and thus the OP himself acknowledged such and pinned the blame on government, meaning conservatives.
No. It means that if the point of the exercise is to see which system benefits society most, google "issues and problems with X" is not going to tell you that.
One would only go about it that way if one has decided in advance that one wants to talk thrash about X and then deliberatly goes out to seek problems with X and then shine a 1000 watt light on that problem.
Thus all your attempts to impugn the credibility of such reports and of real and substantial problems is just so much futile denial. Not that my response was not that of rejecting NHS en toto, and problems and issues with American health care would also reveal substantial problems and issues, but my citing of such was to challenge the uncritical advocation of it, and thus with increased reliance upon government in general.
Then it was an exercise in futility, because nobody here is claiming perfection.
The only point being made is that government-run universal health care systems demonstrably work better then the privatised system you have in the US. That is all.
Nobody said that the various current implementations of such universal health care systems are perfect.
I was referring to equipment anyone can but, but since about the only market for it is those whose insurance always pays for it then the cost is kept high, as would computers in a like situation.
I'm talking in general.
When you have a free market for goods and services that is completely controlled by private companies, then the prices will land NOT in terms of "affordability for everyone", but rather in terms of "maximized return for the companies".
Look at Apple and the price of the iPhone. The margin they have on a single iPhone is
ridiculously high. The price of an iPhone is also
ridiculously high. So high, that the iPhone has become a "status" product that only a certain percentage of the population can actually justifyably afford. 1000 bucks of a phone (that is half ruined if you drop it) is a LOT of money. Most people's budget for a phone is closer to 150 bucks.
So Apple doesn't have a majority market share at all. Yet, they make the most money.
Their interest is NOT in "getting an iphone into every person's pocket". Their interest is "
mo' money, mo' money, mo' money".
And they have calculated that using premium pricing and having some 20% market share yields bigger returns then lower pricing and 90% market share.
So that's what they do.
Why you would want your HEALTH to be treated in largely the same way, is a mystery to me.
That is a problem insofar as it happens, but of course, if you are going to pay for medical care, why stop there? With the cost of housing being the single
highest cost to Americans (and Section 8 can
raise the cost of housing on others)
Seeing as how a house is usually the single biggest purchase a person will make in their lives, it doesn't seem surprising that it is also the highest cost.
And the same goes for renting. Renting an appartment over here in my region, quickly adds up to 800-900 euro's a month. Buying a fancy car on credit, results in monthly payments ranging from 300 to 500 a month.
So yeah, obviously housing will be the biggest expense of your average citizen.
Not sure how this is relevant to the subject of health, though.
After that you can fund transportation, which also has reluctant insurance payouts. Then the govern,ent can by for heat and electric. Then when the government decides to treat politically incorrect citizens as terrorists, then it will be more effective in doing so.
I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry.
We are talking about health care. What are you talking about?
The appeal to my health for insurance is not very effective, for reasons i need not go into here, but i am sympathetic to the need of others, esp. kids, and might have died at age 7 if not for a hospital. Yet i hold that if you as an adult choose not to pay into the system then you should not burden others to pay for your care who did not want to.
In a government run universal health care system,
everybody pays into the system through taxes. And because of that, it becomes more affordable and more effective for
everybody as well.
And if you happen to be almost miraculously lucky to never become sick and require any health care services, then your contribution to the system still affects you immensly. Because a healthy workforce, is a productive workforce. It is in your best interest that ALL your fellow citizen can get the health care they require. Just like it is in your best interest that the police force keeps society safe, even if no murdering rapist robber has ever broken into your home.
Do you also complain about being "forced" to pay for the police force when you never were the victim of a crime?
Do you also complain about being "forced" to pay for the fire department while you never required their assistance?
I have read the quality is higher, and wait times less here than in the UK.
I don't live in the UK, I live in Belgium.
I can guarantee you that that is not true here.
I've already given this example a couple times on this forum...
I required shoulder surgery a couple years ago.
Long story short: from first housedoc visit till I was on the operating table, took exactly 5 workdays. And it could have been 4 if I wanted to, but I had some work stuff I wanted to take care of before the surgery. And this was not a high priority case. I could have easily waited for another couple of months.
Here's a quick summary:
- Housedoc visit (refered to surgeon, appointment the day after)
- Surgeon consultation (scheduled for surgery 3 days later)
- MRI, radio scans (between consultation and surgery)
- housedoc visit (to take out threads)
- surgeon consultation (check up to see if all is well)
- 2x 20 physio therapy sessions for revalidation
- total of 4 weeks paid sick leave
Total cost for me: ~250 bucks. It would have been less then 100, but I took a second program of 20 revalidation therapy (I wanted to speed up recovery so that I could return to playing the drums asap) and since that second series wasn't really required, the health care system didn't reimburse it in full. Which is fair.
So there you go. All that, handled within a workweek after my first housedoc visit, for the total cost of 250 bucks and with 4 weeks of
paid sick leave.
I challenge you to match that in the US, without paying yourself bankrupt every month for a top-notch insurance.
At the time, I was just an average ICT Joe with an average job and an average income. I wasn't poor, but I certainly wasn't rich either. Just another typical middle-class working stiff (not that it would have been any different if I actually were rich or the opposite: very poor - it would have been the exact same, with the exception of the second series of revalidation therapy perhaps).
Also... I'll add that if a country has a problem with waiting times, then the solution is not to implement a completely different health care system. The solution then is to do what needs to be done to reduce waiting times.
If there are large waiting times, it means that demand is higher then supply. You can solve that in 2 ways:
- decrease demand
- increase supply.
I guess you could tripple all costs and then have demand reduced since many people could no longer afford it.
But perhaps a better way would be to try and increase supply instead.
I don't see how implementing another system of where the money comes from, is going to change the waiting times (unless the new system increases all prices off course, deleting half of the demands because they can no longer afford it). People aren't going to magically heal because a new budgetting system is in place. Nore will it produce more doctors and more facilities.
That is what the other side said, while i had
provided findings from mainly liberal sources, as well as a
page of mostly mainstream sources attesting to major problems with the NHS, yet which was dismissed, thus it impugns your appeal to objectively and without bias as supporting you.
Those are about problems with the UK system specifically, as I said above.
It is not a big picture view of government run universal health care vs privatised systems like the US.
You still have not evidenced your practice unbiased objectively. At least i had provided sources just
before your post as well as the one for you. And again which really was not because I am defending American HC, but actually advocating unbiased objectivity versus only the one side i was hearing. And it is my opinion that liberal sources are as least as biased as conservative ones.
I don't have to defend claims that i'm not making.
I never stated that specific universal health care systems implemented around the world are perfect.
I just stated that the concept of a government run universal system, objectively works better then privatised systems like in the US.
And it doesn't take a phd in economics and medicines to figure that out.
In fact, it all depends on how you wish to view "health" and "health care".
Do you consider it a basic right/service (like you do with safety and the police/fire department), or do you consider it a luxury product like an iPhone or a car?
I say that it is a basic right/service.
Just like safety and education.
Does that mean that there is no room for privatisation? Off course not.
You have private schools and private security companies as well. Belgium also houses quite a few private hospitals as well. I wouldn't know why anyone would want to go there though.... waiting times there are like double of regular hospitals and prices are 10-fold (since they aren't covered through the national service, since they are private).
And just where have i engaged in lying/misrepresenting the actual numbers of such systems? And my focus on the problems was in response to what i saw as an uncritical advocation of the NHS, and if you wrote or referenced such i did not see it.
In that case, then let it just be clear that nobody here is claiming that government run systems are perfect. Just better.
