Another US shooting..

[Jack]

So the million dollar question.  Would you rather have no NHS and have to rely on either private insurance or charities?

How is that a million dollar question? I would be like asking someone with government healthcare in the US if they would rather not have it at all, or asking someone on welfare if they would rather not have it at all. It implies people who utilize the system don't have a right to complain about it.

[Walkie]

So the million dollar question.  Would you rather have no NHS and have to rely on either private insurance or charities?

How is that a million dollar question? I would be like asking someone with government healthcare in the US if they would rather not have it at all, or asking someone on welfare if they would rather not have it at all. It implies people who utilize the system don't have a right to complain about it.

Stop tempting me to plus you, Jack! 

But, hey ! thanks!  Now I don't have to bother with attempting to frame a reply 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Thank you.     I'm still trying to figure out why I smell like frog. 

#itsoktobegreen

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06/16/once-again-u-s-has-most-expensive-least-effective-health-care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.9c3e87fe9f3c

There is a lot more hard data available if you want to research the cost of healthcare in the US relative to the outcomes achieved.

Or you could just continue to rely on propaganda and anecdotal evidence.

[FourAceDeal]

So the million dollar question.  Would you rather have no NHS and have to rely on either private insurance or charities?

How is that a million dollar question? I would be like asking someone with government healthcare in the US if they would rather not have it at all, or asking someone on welfare if they would rather not have it at all. It implies people who utilize the system don't have a right to complain about it.

Stop tempting me to plus you, Jack! 

But, hey ! thanks!  Now I don't have to bother with attempting to frame a reply 

Of course it was a stupid question. It will always be a stupid question.  Not having a free healthcare system is a no brainer to anyone who has a free healthcare system.

That's the point.

I'm trying to find someone who has an argument against it that's based on anything other than GOP innuendo.

[Al Swearegen]

So the million dollar question.  Would you rather have no NHS and have to rely on either private insurance or charities?

How is that a million dollar question? I would be like asking someone with government healthcare in the US if they would rather not have it at all, or asking someone on welfare if they would rather not have it at all. It implies people who utilize the system don't have a right to complain about it.

Stop tempting me to plus you, Jack! 

But, hey ! thanks!  Now I don't have to bother with attempting to frame a reply 

Of course it was a stupid question. It will always be a stupid question.  Not having a free healthcare system is a no brainer to anyone who has a free healthcare system.

That's the point.

I'm trying to find someone who has an argument against it that's based on anything other than GOP innuendo.

Progressive ideologues are pointless creatures.

[Jack]

I'm trying to find someone who has an argument against it that's based on anything other than GOP innuendo.

The US has national healthcare for the poor, elderly, disabled, and military, which covers about 40% of the population. Prefer to see changes addressing specific problem areas, such as the affordable care act which helps to bridge the gap between those who qualify for government coverage and those who can afford insurance. Personally would never support a fully nationalized system in the US, unless it meant the complete elimination of the health insurance industry, and honestly don't see health insurance ever going away. Insurance defeats a nationalized system, and insurance combined with nationalized care appears to create a class system within the medical establishment with hospitals and medical practices who don't accept medicade, medicare, or even Obamacare insurance companies. Though the bottom line is, I don't believe the government can handle it; I don't believe they would do a good job. I believe the government should first focus to do a better job to manage their responsibilities to the people who do need them. The private sector in the US does a better job than the government at everything, and see no problem with the private sector having the responsibility to take care of itself as much as it can.

[FourAceDeal]

I'm trying to find someone who has an argument against it that's based on anything other than GOP innuendo.

The US has national healthcare for the poor, elderly, disabled, and military, which covers about 40% of the population. Prefer to see changes addressing specific problem areas, such as the affordable care act which helps to bridge the gap between those who qualify for government coverage and those who can afford insurance. Personally would never support a fully nationalized system in the US, unless it meant the complete elimination of the health insurance industry, and honestly don't see health insurance ever going away. Insurance defeats a nationalized system, and insurance combined with nationalized care appears to create a class system within the medical establishment with hospitals and medical practices who don't accept medicade, medicare, or even Obamacare insurance companies. Though the bottom line is, I don't believe the government can handle it; I don't believe they would do a good job. I believe the government should first focus to do a better job to manage their responsibilities to the people who do need them. The private sector in the US does a better job than the government at everything, and see no problem with the private sector having the responsibility to take care of itself as much as it can.

And it costs more than twice per person in the US for healthcare than the UK and yet its still behind the UK (and nearly every other advanced economy) in every measurable metric I can find (for example US infant mortality is 50% higher than UK). 

When you have a system that is built for profit then great parts of the finance go towards profit and not healthcare. 
Shareholders, advertising and the upkeep of a commercial arm at every level of operation.  If you're selling soap powder or mass produced hamburgers then it's the business model of choice for the biggest return on investment in dollar terms.  But if you want to heal the sick then capitalism is not the best starting point.

Check out the statistics available from the UN and the WHO.  They're eye opening.

[Walkie]

So the million dollar question.  Would you rather have no NHS and have to rely on either private insurance or charities?

How is that a million dollar question? I would be like asking someone with government healthcare in the US if they would rather not have it at all, or asking someone on welfare if they would rather not have it at all. It implies people who utilize the system don't have a right to complain about it.

Stop tempting me to plus you, Jack! 

But, hey ! thanks!  Now I don't have to bother with attempting to frame a reply 

Of course it was a stupid question. It will always be a stupid question.  Not having a free healthcare system is a no brainer to anyone who has a free healthcare system.

That's the point.

I'm trying to find someone who has an argument against it that's based on anything other than GOP innuendo.

An argument against what? Against the NHS? I surely wouldn't argue against the NHS,  just complain that it's broken . It worked pretty damned well for a while... until the Pharmaceutical Industry  managed to  drain  far too much of it's  too much of it's budget into their pockets ,  the Govt started privatising it, piece by piece, etc.   I know that your "mental Health "  comment was a joke , but in actual , sad, fact,  that was the first dept to seriously suffer, and still the most underfunded of the lot .

Why the heck are we discussing the NHS in this thread anyways?

[Jack]

I'm trying to find someone who has an argument against it that's based on anything other than GOP innuendo.

The US has national healthcare for the poor, elderly, disabled, and military, which covers about 40% of the population. Prefer to see changes addressing specific problem areas, such as the affordable care act which helps to bridge the gap between those who qualify for government coverage and those who can afford insurance. Personally would never support a fully nationalized system in the US, unless it meant the complete elimination of the health insurance industry, and honestly don't see health insurance ever going away. Insurance defeats a nationalized system, and insurance combined with nationalized care appears to create a class system within the medical establishment with hospitals and medical practices who don't accept medicade, medicare, or even Obamacare insurance companies. Though the bottom line is, I don't believe the government can handle it; I don't believe they would do a good job. I believe the government should first focus to do a better job to manage their responsibilities to the people who do need them. The private sector in the US does a better job than the government at everything, and see no problem with the private sector having the responsibility to take care of itself as much as it can.

And it costs more than twice per person in the US for healthcare than the UK and yet its still behind the UK (and nearly every other advanced economy) in every measurable metric I can find (for example US infant mortality is 50% higher than UK). 

When you have a system that is built for profit then great parts of the finance go towards profit and not healthcare. 
Shareholders, advertising and the upkeep of a commercial arm at every level of operation.  If you're selling soap powder or mass produced hamburgers then it's the business model of choice for the biggest return on investment in dollar terms.  But if you want to heal the sick then capitalism is not the best starting point.

Check out the statistics available from the UN and the WHO.  They're eye opening.

Don't now about other people, but my insurance is expensive; it's also heavily used which equals a fair amount of additional out of pocket. Have looked into it before, and it appears my cost are very similar to the amount my income would be taxed for health tax in the UK. That doesn't mean the actual healthcare isn't more expensive; it just means my insurance company pays the medical establishment more than the UK government would pay, and as an individual I can't see the difference. One reason cost of healthcare is so high in the US, is because people who have coverage, either public or private, are charged more to make up for those who don't. It's still to be seen if the ACA will help to lower the individual cost of care. It makes sense it would. Current legislation restricts the profit margins of insurance companies, and requires 80% of all income to be paid out to health services of clients. That doesn't seem very american, but as you said capitalism shouldn't necessarily be the primary concern of healthcare. Viewed it as a trade off; the government gets to restrict profit of a capitalistic market, and in exchange to that market the government mandates insurance for people who personally chose not to buy it. Though haven't in the past viewed profitability as the real problem with insurance; as said before it's the medical class system it creates. That class system appears to exist in the UK as well because of the option of insurance. However you asked for an argument which isn't based in economics. I gave one, and it's valid.

[Al Swearegen]

I do not have health insurance. I used public health system.
Therefore, because I live in Australia,  healthcare is free.



....except that I also pay a medicare levy on mt taxation which equate to about 1.5%.

So if there was no Medicare Levy, would it be cheaper each year for me, than 1.5% of my taxable income? Maybe. Maybe not BUT saying there is no cost is silly.

I am also keenly aware that healthcare costs come from somewhere. Whether it is a free but not free system like ours, a user pays system, a tax payer funded cost that results in higher taxes for the tax paying public or a line item in a national deficit kicked doen the road for future generations to inherit and manage.

This moralising and chest thumping over healthcare is weird. None of these methods make the cost disappear. They will get borne by the public somehow

[Jack]

Am I moral chest thumping? What works for other countries works for other countries. Think most americans recognize the system here has problems, but insurance works for a lot of people and it makes more sense to focus on fixing things for the people who it doesn't work. Health and mortality are closely tied to income in the US, even though almost a quarter of the population are low income and disabled receiving Medicaid. People with private insurance have better health stats than people who don't, and it makes sense that would send a message to those who can afford to stay out of the public healthcare system.

[Al Swearegen]

Am I moral chest thumping? What works for other countries works for other countries. Think most americans recognize the system here has problems, but insurance works for a lot of people and it makes more sense to focus on fixing things for the people who it doesn't work. Health and mortality are closely tied to income in the US, even though almost a quarter of the population are low income and disabled receiving Medicaid. People with private insurance have better health stats than people who don't, and it makes sense that would send a message to those who can afford to stay out of the public healthcare system.

I wouldn't have thought so

[Jack]

I wouldn't have thought so

Have to wonder how it comes across sometimes though, discussing American things with people from other countries.

[FourAceDeal]

An argument against what? Against the NHS? I surely wouldn't argue against the NHS,  just complain that it's broken . It worked pretty damned well for a while... until the Pharmaceutical Industry  managed to  drain  far too much of it's  too much of it's budget into their pockets ,  the Govt started privatising it, piece by piece, etc.   I know that your "mental Health "  comment was a joke , but in actual , sad, fact,  that was the first dept to seriously suffer, and still the most underfunded of the lot .

Why the heck are we discussing the NHS in this thread anyways?

I substituted the words "Mental health" for the word "gun" in a post.  I was taking the implicit value system of the opposing argument and turning it back round to parody that very same belief system.  But Pyraxis kind of zoomed in on the term "mental health" and went off on a giant tangent.

It was my mistake I guess.  I should have stopped at that point and explained the post so it wouldn't cause confusion.

Personally I thought it was clear what I was doing but in future I'll post some sort of subscript so we can avoid this situation.