Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The cost of health insurance and health care in America are not problems. They are symptoms. Universal health care treats these symptoms but not the underlying causes. To fix health care in America requires several steps.

1. Eliminate government-regulated health care monopolies.
Seriously. Why can't we buy health insurance out-of-state? There is absolutely no reason for this to exist except for lining the pockets of insurance companies. Let people buy insurance from any company in any state across the nation. Given the opportunity to buy cheap insurance in other states, people will flock toward lower-cost insurance providers. The "invisible hand" of the market will (hopefully) ***** slap the insurance execs who have flourished under anti-competitive policies.

2. Remove all licensing restrictions on doctors and hospitals.
Simple supply-and-demand economics here. Make licensing an elective process rather than a mandatory. This will allow more doctors into the market. More supply equates to a decrease in cost. Likewise, what the **** is up with hospitals requiring permits to be built? That's a bunch of bull**** right there.

3. Drastically alter how drug patenting functions.
Sorry, folks, but we need heavy, heavy restrictions on how this works. Patents are a government-granted monopoly on drugs that prevent the free market from working. Once a drug can be made generic, costs drastically plummet due to competition.

4. Tort reform.
And lots of it. Malpractice insurance is too expensive as-is (meaning that doctors charge more for procedures to pay for this out-of-pocket expense), and defensive medicine drives up the demand for medical services. Greater demand equates to higher price.

5. Institute a public option.
Yes. We need one. People with pre-existing conditions need to be able to afford health insurance. If you don't like it, tough. Part of being a first-world country means that you sacrifice the freedoms of anarchy for a better society.

Or we could just switch to single payer.

Which, of course, would treat the symptom rather than the actual problem.

No, it does treat the causes. The cause is that privatized businesses don't cleanly convert revenue into services.

Liberals: Failing basic economics since always.

I believe in the principle of following evidence rather than guesswork, and nothing is more obvious than the fact that single payer consistently creates better results than hybrid or purely private systems.

I keep seeing "single player."

Originally posted by King Kandy
I believe in the principle of following evidence rather than guesswork, and nothing is more obvious than the fact that single payer consistently creates better results than hybrid or purely private systems.

That's of course not true, at all. Even your WHO (whose metrics you know I am not quite in love with) states France to have the best health care system in the world...a hybrid system.

Hybrid systems can be as good, and often even better if done right. Because you can get the general safety for everyone as well as faster help from better doctors.

Additionally they tend to pay better for themselves.


I quite agree with the points Zeal raised, people need to be insured, but it shouldn't be at the expense of a functioning system. The biggest problem the US has is government backed monopolies.

I don't know American health care, but Norwegian health care is pretty much perfected

Originally posted by amnesia
I don't know American health care, but Norwegian health care is pretty much perfected

Yeah, until you run out of oil money.

They'll still have ethanol money.

I have little complaint with the Canadian Health Care system, which is universal. We look and wonder why the USA can't fix such a basic problem.

Just remember Bulworth's rap about medicare and the insurance companies: "Do it the Canadian way!...C'mon say that dirty word...Socialism...SOCIALISM..."

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
1. Eliminate government-regulated health care monopolies.
Seriously. Why can't we buy health insurance out-of-state? There is absolutely no reason for this to exist except for lining the pockets of insurance companies. Let people buy insurance from any company in any state across the nation. Given the opportunity to buy cheap insurance in other states, people will flock toward lower-cost insurance providers. The "invisible hand" of the market will (hopefully) ***** slap the insurance execs who have flourished under anti-competitive policies.


This would probably have the biggest effect.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
2. Remove all licensing restrictions on doctors and hospitals.
Simple supply-and-demand economics here. Make licensing an elective process rather than a mandatory. This will allow more doctors into the market. More supply equates to a decrease in cost. Likewise, what the **** is up with hospitals requiring permits to be built? That's a bunch of bull**** right there.

I can see removing licensing for hospitals. Doctors, not so much.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
3. Drastically alter how drug patenting functions.
Sorry, folks, but we need heavy, heavy restrictions on how this works. Patents are a government-granted monopoly on drugs that prevent the free market from working. Once a drug can be made generic, costs drastically plummet due to competition.

You can't really just declare that all drugs are going to be generic now. If the maker doesn't get exclusive use for a while then there's much less motive to sink tremendous amounts of money into development. Kill patents and corporations will keep their trade secrets in a different way, probably causing considerable inconvenience or expense.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
4. Tort reform.
And lots of it. Malpractice insurance is too expensive as-is (meaning that doctors charge more for procedures to pay for this out-of-pocket expense), and defensive medicine drives up the demand for medical services. Greater demand equates to higher price.

Tort reform is usually a good idea, so, agreed.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
5. Institute a public option.
Yes. We need one. People with pre-existing conditions need to be able to afford health insurance. If you don't like it, tough. Part of being a first-world country means that you sacrifice the freedoms of anarchy for a better society.

Personally, I think making it so med students don't have to take on student loans would have a bigger impact on costs than tort reform.

I know, stop shovelling money into the military machine, ie $663.8 billion. And the half of it in the health care system.

Stop invading countries, supporting Israel and playing the international policeman.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
I know, stop shovelling money into the military machine, ie $663.8 billion. And the half of it in the health care system.

Stop invading countries, supporting Israel and playing the international policeman.

Listen, buddy. American will swell its military to ridiculous proportions, invade anyone they deem an as "evildoers", support who they wish and police who the **** they like (someone has to do it; you should be thankful America foots the bill).

I do dislike USA to some degree. But we need a "international policeman". That much is true, and it should be USA.

Western morality is flawless!!!!!!capameridur

Mock if you will, but wait until China starts policing the world, you faggy Euro bitches will be crying for America to stick its poop-covered penis back in the world's business.

I was supporting you.sneer

USA is in my opinion most fit to "lead" the world. I'd rather avoid Chinese world domination.

Originally posted by amnesia
I was supporting you.sneer

USA is in my opinion most fit to "lead" the world. I'd rather avoid Chinese world domination.

K, but you're still a faggy Euro *****.

Amen, America just needs to rein in the religious nuttery.

Originally posted by Robtard
Amen, America just needs to rein in the religious nuttery. BS You guys never gave us germans a chance ahah

Originally posted by Parmaniac
BS You guys never gave us germans a chance ahah

BS you say? Many politicians and highly influential people in America supported Hitler's rise to power, the rearming of Germany and directly did business with the Nazi regime.

It wasn't until you ****s had to roll over the Polocks, which made the Brits shit their knickers and then to top it off, you bamboozled the clown-like Japanese into joining your conquest and then foolishly attacked America by proxy.

Really, you reached for the stars and were to arrogant to notice you were balancing on a rotted-out stool. Fail's solely on the Germans.

A serious reply to a joke post...

Despite the bits of truth thrown in here and there, it was meant to be humor. Maybe I should have added a smilie.

It really appeared like you were pissed and wanted to slap facts around my head, nvm.

Originally posted by Robtard
BS you say? Many politicians and highly influential people in America supported Hitler's rise to power, the rearming of Germany and directly did business with the Nazi regime.

It wasn't until you ****s had to roll over the Polocks, which made the Brits shit their knickers and then to top it off, you bamboozled the clown-like Japanese into joining your conquest and then foolishly attacked America by proxy.

Really, you reached for the stars and were to arrogant to notice you were balancing on a rotted-out stool. Fail's solely on the Germans.



Henry Ford was the greatest man to ever live. *salutes*




Originally posted by Parmaniac
A serious reply to a joke post...


I actually laughed out loud.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
It really appeared like you were pissed and wanted to slap facts around my head, nvm.

Mission accomplished?

Originally posted by Robtard

and then to top it off, you bamboozled the clown-like Japanese into joining your conquest



Japs are clown like.

I think you are my new hero mr.

I believe that manufacturers can patent drugs for 12 years at a time. That's too long.

And how many of those systems function in countries of 300 million people? Enjoy your waiting list as you funnel billions into a system that doesn't address the actual problems of health care in America.

I agree with mostly what you've stated, Zeal.

Really big on competition, myself. We need interstate insurance, man, BIG time.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Liberals: Failing basic economics since always.




That's only partially true, though. I'd say my boy, King Kandy, knows economics better than I do.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And how many of those systems function in countries of 300 million people? Enjoy your waiting list as you funnel billions into a system that doesn't address the actual problems of health care in America.
That's the dumbest argument i've heard in my life. Obviously none, because the US is a high population country. Implying the same system won't work in high population, however, is speculation that ignores the evidence.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's the dumbest argument i've heard in my life. Obviously none, because the US is a high population country. Implying the same system won't work in high population, however, is speculation that ignores the evidence.
I think you underestimate how corrupt and wasteful our government is. Oh, wait, you're a liberal, which means that the government can do no wrong unless George Bush is at the helm.

Listen, sweetcheeks, the fact is that the system you're advocating doesn't address the underlying issue of health care, which is the shortage of doctors in America and the monopolies of the insurance companies. What do you think is going to happen when suddenly everyone can go to the doctor free of charge? A sudden increase in demand that will overtake supply, causing shortages. Health care, like any other good, is not infinite, no matter what your mentally deficient liberal arts professors have told you. Increasing the desire for an already high-demand product while leaving the supply the same is going to cause a cluster****.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Listen, sweetcheeks, the fact is that the system you're advocating doesn't address the underlying issue of health care, which is the shortage of doctors in America
No, fortunately that's fixed by the OTHER point I suggested, free college.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
and the monopolies of the insurance companies.
Actually it does; under single payer, they don't exist and therefore can't have a monopoly.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
What do you think is going to happen when suddenly everyone can go to the doctor free of charge?
Good things.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
A sudden increase in demand that will overtake supply, causing shortages.
No. The supply could EASILY be higher than it is right now. Drug companies deliberately under produce in the US in order to keep the prices high. In other countries, drugs are dirt cheap.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Health care, like any other good, is not infinite, no matter what your mentally deficient liberal arts professors have told you. Increasing the desire for an already high-demand product while leaving the supply the same is going to cause a cluster****.
No, because the supply will just be expanded to it's true potential once profit motives are reduced.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, fortunately that's fixed by the OTHER point I suggested, free college.
Headdesk. This is not a viable solution for a number of reasons, which I won't get into here because it's a topic for another thread.

shortage of doctors

It's not about drugs, it's about doctors, you braindead chimpanzee. People are going to want to see doctors more frequently if they don't have to pay out-of-pocket costs, thus increasing the demand. Without an increase in supply, you're looking at rationed health care and long waiting lists.

This is what liberals actually believe. You are delusional.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Headdesk. This is not a viable solution for a number of reasons, which I won't get into here because it's a topic for another thread.

shortage of doctors

It's not about drugs, it's about doctors, you braindead chimpanzee. People are going to want to see doctors more frequently if they don't have to pay out-of-pocket costs, thus increasing the demand. Without an increase in supply, you're looking at rationed health care and long waiting lists.

This is what liberals actually believe. You are delusional.
You are delusional. You are the one positing things that have not shown to be true in systems where they are actually applied. You are all theory and no reality.

There will not be a shortage of doctors. The big reason for this is that medical schools currently slash admittance rates to the point where the supply is less than current demand (the difference is met by training doctors from out-of-US). All that needs to happen is for them to stop doing this.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/01/business/01doctors.jpg

The US actually has more general practitioners, per 1000 people, than many countries using single payer without problem. So no, we are not under supplied.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, fortunately that's fixed by the OTHER point I suggested, free college.

That's not necessarily true, if other incentives are missing, say if a doctor can't make that much money anymore, many of the people best suited for being doctors (probably mostly smart people) will go into other areas where they can earn more, or take their education and go to a country where they can earn more.

Not that I'm opposed to free education necessarily (probably a hybrid system though), but you have to consider the bigger picture.

When millions of people suddenly find themselves with free access to them, yes, there will be. Especially when doctors order a slew of additional, unnecessary tests to protect themselves from malpractice suits.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
BS You guys never gave us germans a chance ahah

I think Germany did well taking on the world and lasting that long. Three things Germany are good at, starting wars, playing football at important tournaments and making beer, oh yes you lot can make beer.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
When millions of people suddenly find themselves with free access to them, yes, there will be. Especially when doctors order a slew of additional, unnecessary tests to protect themselves from malpractice suits.
No, the doctors we have right now are not being effective at maximum capacity right now. All more demand will do is cause an expansion to higher working levels.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Liberals: Failing basic economics since always.



No offense, but that's as leftist a statement as it gets.

Originally posted by cdtm
No offense, but that's as leftist a statement as it gets.

You don't mean that, you can be way more leftist than that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't mean that, you can be way more leftist than that.

Society must provide for those in need? Sacrificing freedoms for a better society? Smells like far left philosophy.

He's obviously not a leftist, but making that statement after tearing into the left is kind of ironic..

Originally posted by cdtm
Society must provide for those in need? Sacrificing freedoms for a better society? Smells like far left philosophy.

He's obviously not a leftist, but making that statement after tearing into the left is kind of ironic..

That's a moderate left statement at best. Hell, there's lots of people on the right that agree with that to some degree.

Originally posted by cdtm
Society must provide for those in need? Sacrificing freedoms for a better society? Smells like far left philosophy.

He's obviously not a leftist, but making that statement after tearing into the left is kind of ironic..

Sacrificing freedom for a better society can be a dictatorial philosophy too.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Sacrificing freedom for a better society can be a dictatorial philosophy too.

To save man we must first save him from himself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To save man we must first save him from himself.

Right on.

Originally posted by cdtm
No offense, but that's as leftist a statement as it gets.
I'm pretty sure supporting a public option is a centrist position that is considered left-wing in the U.S. because of how conservative we are as a nation. Either way, supporting one leftist policy does not me a liberal make. (I also support publicly funding elections; what now, bitches?)

Please relinquish your right to vote now.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm pretty sure supporting a public option is a centrist position that is considered left-wing in the U.S. because of how conservative we are as a nation. Either way, supporting one leftist policy does not me a liberal make. (I also support publicly funding elections; what now, bitches?)

Please relinquish your right to vote now.

You seem destined to look for your pound of flesh Shylock!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm pretty sure supporting a public option is a centrist position that is considered left-wing in the U.S. because of how conservative we are as a nation. Either way, supporting one leftist policy does not me a liberal make. (I also support publicly funding elections; what now, bitches?)

Please relinquish your right to vote now.
lol. If I had a 50 gallon bucket that had four gallons in it, and was planning on adding four more, you'd be yelling at me that it was going to overflow.

So, what do you have to say about waiting lists in countries with universal health care? That they don't happen and that I'm parroting FOX News's conservative propaganda?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo

5. Institute a public option.
Yes. We need one. People with pre-existing conditions need to be able to afford health insurance. If you don't like it, tough. Part of being a first-world country means that you sacrifice the freedoms of anarchy for a better society.

I wonder if all those lefties who really want Euro-style healthcare, actually think its to the benefit of Americans, or do they just wanna stir up some shit by making "a difference".

I think some people with signs, and who chant and protest all day long with other like-minded people, just like the act of demonstrating itself and fiddling with their Right to Assembly, MORE than the actual cause or protest itself. I've read that particpating in mob behavior releases certain feel-good hormones, similar to the rush a person gets when they receive a large paycheck.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
So, what do you have to say about waiting lists in countries with universal health care? That they don't happen and that I'm parroting FOX News's conservative propaganda?
That they do happen, and their health care system is still better than ours.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That they do happen
And why is this?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And why is this?
Because, in general, you don't get everything done at once in medicine.

From everything i've seen, the best single payer systems have less waiting time than we do in the US.

Or it might be because the supply of doctors can't keep up with the demand for their services.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Or it might be because the supply of doctors can't keep up with the demand for their services.
Or maybe they can. Because, countries like Japan both have far more common visits to the doctor (people go more often), and less general practitioners, and they get by fine (and are rated higher than the US in almost all measurable categories).

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I wonder if all those lefties who really want Euro-style healthcare, actually think its to the benefit of Americans, or do they just wanna stir up some shit by making "a difference".

I think some people with signs, and who chant and protest all day long with other like-minded people, just like the act of demonstrating itself and fiddling with their Right to Assembly, MORE than the actual cause or protest itself. I've read that particpating in mob behavior releases certain feel-good hormones, similar to the rush a person gets when they receive a large paycheck.

There is no doubt in anyone reasonable's mind that having European style health care systems would be the best thing for the majority of Americans. There are other reason's to oppose it, not the benefit and welfare of the people though.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Or maybe they can.
No. You are dumb.

NO U.

Your "waiting list" idea would mean US health care would have to be superior to, say, Norway's or Japan's. By all empirical measures, it is not. Therefore, your idea is incorrect.

Liberals cannot into critical thinking. Health care waiting lists equate to a supply that cannot meet demand.

No, if the supply did not meet the demand then people would never get attended to. Waiting lists just show the demands are met at a delayed rate.

Besides... if you think that having a waiting list makes a country's health care automatically worse, why do single payer countries out perform the US health system to such a large degree? You are trying to claim that they are inferior, but you have no statistics to show for it.

BECAUSE THE SUPPLY CANNOT MEET THE CURRENT DEMAND YOU STUPID LEFIST TWIT

Listen, you ignorant, moronic liberal, I am doing no such thing. I am claiming that they are less efficient than they could be because liberalism is a mental disorder that ignores logic and common sense economics.

I'm reporting you. Like always in these threads your posts that consist of insults far surpass those that consist of content.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm reporting you. Like always in these threads your posts that consist of insults far surpass those that consist of content.

Stool pigeon.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Stool pigeon.

http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr258/kuntslaughter/Keep_on_trollin.jpg

It's too bad that the smart folks either left KMC or were banned.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I am claiming that they are less efficient than they could be because liberalism is a mental disorder that ignores logic and common sense economics.

You gotta admit, that's an amazingly stupid thing to claim.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You gotta admit, that's an amazingly stupid thing to claim.

Yeah, Zeal went a bit batshit over the last couple of posts. He started out so well, too.


Not that I have blind faith in certain reports as KK has.

Don't blame me; blame the guy who doesn't believe in economics.

blah, I hope I'm not just stepping on people's toes here, I wanted to rant on this issue earlier in the week, but I only got internet in my new place yesterday.

Anyways. The problem isn't the health system per se. In fact, unless we want a total big brother solution, there is no solution to "the-health-care-problem" through health care reform.

The reason is simple. Based on how the economy is structured, more people are going to require more government spending as prices become more expensive at a rate increasingly disproportionate to wage increases.

Reform the economy or go public, it is sort of the only long term option. I don't know if nations like France and Norway have a "baby boom" coming up, but in North America, the social servies associated with that generation are going to destroy most of our current budgets.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Don't blame me; blame the guy who doesn't believe in economics.

Well, I am sure KK riled you up, but you were the only one seemingly losing your cool. And then you went of antagonizing liberals, even though your initial post was certainly bipartisan at least.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The cost of health insurance and health care in America are not problems. They are symptoms. Universal health care treats these symptoms but not the underlying causes. To fix health care in America requires several steps.

1. Eliminate government-regulated health care monopolies.
Seriously. Why can't we buy health insurance out-of-state? There is absolutely no reason for this to exist except for lining the pockets of insurance companies. Let people buy insurance from any company in any state across the nation. Given the opportunity to buy cheap insurance in other states, people will flock toward lower-cost insurance providers. The "invisible hand" of the market will (hopefully) ***** slap the insurance execs who have flourished under anti-competitive policies.

2. Remove all licensing restrictions on doctors and hospitals.
Simple supply-and-demand economics here. Make licensing an elective process rather than a mandatory. This will allow more doctors into the market. More supply equates to a decrease in cost. Likewise, what the **** is up with hospitals requiring permits to be built? That's a bunch of bull**** right there.

3. Drastically alter how drug patenting functions.
Sorry, folks, but we need heavy, heavy restrictions on how this works. Patents are a government-granted monopoly on drugs that prevent the free market from working. Once a drug can be made generic, costs drastically plummet due to competition.

4. Tort reform.
And lots of it. Malpractice insurance is too expensive as-is (meaning that doctors charge more for procedures to pay for this out-of-pocket expense), and defensive medicine drives up the demand for medical services. Greater demand equates to higher price.

5. Institute a public option.
Yes. We need one. People with pre-existing conditions need to be able to afford health insurance. If you don't like it, tough. Part of being a first-world country means that you sacrifice the freedoms of anarchy for a better society.

Agree completely with 1, 4, and 5
Disagree with 2. Doctors and hospitals need to be licensed. Do you want a doctor caring for you that isn't qualified? You will get this without licensing.

3 is a gray area. many drugs take a decade or more plus tens of millions to develop. Drug companies need to be able to recover their investment. Limit drug patents to 1-2 years giving the drug companies time to recover their costs, then make the drugs available as generics.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's of course not true, at all. Even your WHO (whose metrics you know I am not quite in love with) states France to have the best health care system in the world...a hybrid system.

Hybrid systems can be as good, and often even better if done right. Because you can get the general safety for everyone as well as faster help from better doctors.

Additionally they tend to pay better for themselves.


I quite agree with the points Zeal raised, people need to be insured, but it shouldn't be at the expense of a functioning system. The biggest problem the US has is government backed monopolies. .

In fact, the best systems ARE hybrids. France - Hybrid. UK - Hybrid. Denmakr - Hybrid. Denmark - Hybrid. Canada - Hybrid. New Zealand - Hybrid. Switzerland - Hybrid.


And this is right off the top of my head. I'm sure I missed some obvious ones.


In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of european countries that are pure UHC systems.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hybrid. Canada

lol, ok, maybe, but, private care here has found a back door into existence. A huge percentage of the population still is against any type of two-tier system, but our courts have ruled it illegal to stop it.

UHC simply means that everyone has access to health care, and can be done even with 100% private insurance (like some state laws in the US provide). Almost every country in Europe has UHC. And even in these cases, the basic needs of every citizen are government covered; in france, private insurance is just "supplementary".

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, ok, maybe, but, private care here has found a back door into existence. A huge percentage of the population still is against any type of two-tier system, but our courts have ruled it illegal to stop it.

Can you purchase supplementary insurance for your healthcare like you can in the UK, France, Switzerland, and so forth?

Also, I've read lots of stuff about he Canadian hybrid system. You mean that's all illegal stuff? (Like "half and half" medical facilities. That was he most recent one I read about.)


Originally posted by King Kandy
UHC simply means that everyone has access to health care, and can be done even with 100% private insurance (like some state laws in the US provide). Almost every country in Europe has UHC. And even in these cases, the basic needs of every citizen are government covered; in france, private insurance is just "supplementary".

But "only" a UHC system is not the best option. It is the hybrid systems that are seeing the best numbers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But "only" a UHC system is not the best option. It is the hybrid systems that are seeing the best numbers.
But those systems are also UHC. UHC has nothing to do with whether they're government funded or not. There are US states that are 100% UHC and have very little government funding. There could theoretically be single-payer countries that are not UHC.

All Euro countries are more or less equally UHC; "hybrid system" and UHC are not mutually exclusive. A hybrid system is one way of achieving UHC, not a system in competition to it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But "only" a UHC system is not the best option. It is the hybrid systems that are seeing the best numbers.

I take it you mean Single Payer" when you say UHC and KK just means any system where health coverage is universal.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I take it you mean Single Payer" when you say UHC and KK just means any system where health coverage is universal.

No, that's not it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I believe in the principle of following evidence rather than guesswork, and nothing is more obvious than the fact that single payer consistently creates better results than hybrid or purely private systems.

To which Bardock replied and corrected.


To which I backed up Bardock's statements.


I want to type something snarky, but I'll stay my fingers.

Nevermind, I will anyway:

Is it really that hard, folks, to look at the posts quoted in posts? Even if you do not trust the information quoted (thinking the replier edited it) then just click the "post" hyperlink.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I take it you mean Single Payer" when you say UHC and KK just means any system where health coverage is universal.
Yes, that is what i'm saying.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, that is what i'm saying.

But that was not the post I was commenting on, regardless of what you were recently saying.

Originally posted by King Kandy
UHC simply means that everyone has access to health care, and can be done even with 100% private insurance (like some state laws in the US provide). Almost every country in Europe has UHC. And even in these cases, the basic needs of every citizen are government covered; in france, private insurance is just "supplementary".

Oh yes, you are right there, you were just completely wrong when you said single payer creates the best results. It does not, hybrid versions of UHC do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh yes, you are right there, you were just completely wrong when you said single payer creates the best results. It does not, hybrid versions of UHC do.
Yes, they do. It should be understood that what I meant was that primary care should be single payer... whether there are hybrids that are "supplemental" makes no difference to me.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, they do. It should be understood that what I meant was that primary care should be single payer... whether there are hybrids that are "supplemental" makes no difference to me.

Well, now that you defined what you meant initially, fair enough, however perhaps you should keep to accepted definitions in conversation, for clarities sake.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Can you purchase supplementary insurance for your healthcare like you can in the UK, France, Switzerland, and so forth?

I actually don't know, and I could see it going either way... My guess? no, because health insurance is state run.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, I've read lots of stuff about he Canadian hybrid system. You mean that's all illegal stuff? (Like "half and half" medical facilities. That was he most recent one I read about.)

not exactly. It was, but then courts ruled that it was against the constitution to exclude private care, in Quebec, and lots of places sprung up across the country based on that decision. There were private clinics in Toronto before it was, if it ever has been, made legal for private clinics to exist in Ontario.

i think that if uninsured individuals who use the emergency rooms is the main economic downfall of the 'private' system we have in place, then addressing this concern directly is the only way to approach.

hospitals that accept medicaid and medicare, as a condition of them receiving those forms of payment, are required to accept any patient regardless of their ability to pay. since there are so many old sick people who use those government subsidized insurance programs, it's not profitable for the hospitals to turn them down.

you can implement tort reform, you can allow purchases across state lines, and we probably should do both of these. but these are separate issues altogether. they will not address the hospitals which are closing down due to emergency rooms filled with uninsured patients. and the fact of the matter is that when hospitals do manage to stay in business, the costs are passed on to the 'customer.'

the fact is we have to make a choice. either government funded health care is a right or it isn't. if it's not a right then how do you justify the claim that hospitals should never turn anyone away? if it is a right, then lets drop the fabricated notion of private system which serves only as a way for a few people to turn health care into a vastly lucrative industry.

I've read a little bit about the Swiss system, and it seems to be a feasible solution.

Originally posted by inimalist
I actually don't know, and I could see it going either way... My guess? no, because health insurance is state run.



not exactly. It was, but then courts ruled that it was against the constitution to exclude private care, in Quebec, and lots of places sprung up across the country based on that decision. There were private clinics in Toronto before it was, if it ever has been, made legal for private clinics to exist in Ontario.

Then in that case, I may be confusing Canada for a hybrid system. A hybrid system has both state run insurance and privatized insurance. That is what I meant by hybrid. Almost always, private healthcare goes hand in hand with private insurance. What I'm getting from you is that Canada would be an exception: private healthcare without private insurance. That was too as sumptuous on my part.


Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I've read a little bit about the Swiss system, and it seems to be a feasible solution.

I agree. KK and I were talking about that and Norway: both have much better systems than all European countires (they always rank higher, lol) and especially the US's. See, you and KK actually agree on something. But just like myself, KK and you do not agree on the path to get there.