Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US spends more on health care each year than the GDP of most of the worlds countries that provide universal health care.
More than that, we spend more per capita on health care than some countries that surpass the United States with regard to health care. I asked before for an explanation of why that is. This is another example of taking narrowly-focused dollars logic and elevating it to something of more substantial importance. Assuming, as some have claimed, that the objective is shared, please explain why we're not achieving something closer to the objective, given that even the numbers say we're spending enough to achieve something closer to the objective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG120
They have just found a better way to CONTROL those costs.
Not reduce the services to keep them "within budget" - at least not with regard to universal access to what the average American has access to.
More than that, we spend more per capita on health care than some countries that surpass the United States with regard to health care. I asked before for an explanation of why that is. This is another example of taking narrowly-focused dollars logic and elevating it to something of more substantial importance. Assuming, as some have claimed, that the objective is shared, please explain why we're not achieving something closer to the objective, given that even the numbers say we're spending enough to achieve something closer to the objective.
Not reduce the services to keep them "within budget" - at least not with regard to universal access to what the average American has access to.
The easy answer would be profit. Everything is driven by the bottom line. But that is far to easy for such a complicated issue. The second would be that we have massive uninsured in this country that walk into an emergency room and get the care they need at massively increased costs.
But really, for most of those other countries, it is a basic philosophical difference. They place a greater value on society, whereas, we place a greater value on the individual.
People don't flock to this country because of what they are promised, the come here because they believe that the US is one place that if you work hard, have vision, drive and dedication, you can achieve anything you want to achieve. That is the epitomy of the individual.
They place a greater value on society, whereas, we place a greater value on the individual.
We don't value the individual more; we value individuals less. Valuing individuals more would prompt us to ensure greater access to health care, not less.
We don't value individuals more. We simply care less. More selfishness, less compassion; hidden under the guise of individualism.
More than that, we spend more per capita on health care than some countries that surpass the United States with regard to health care. I asked before for an explanation of why that is. This is another example of taking narrowly-focused dollars logic and elevating it to something of more substantial importance. Assuming, as some have claimed, that the objective is shared, please explain why we're not achieving something closer to the objective, given that even the numbers say we're spending enough to achieve something closer to the objective.
Not reduce the services to keep them "within budget" - at least not with regard to universal access to what the average American has access to.
Most if not all countries with "universal" health care have higher tax rates than the U.S.
Despite your expressed distress about dollars vs. care, sadly that's a current reality. That leaves two choices - higher, proportionate taxes across the board or redistribution of wealth. If the former is done without regard to income level and there is definitive bang for the buck, my guess is that it would be more widely accepted than the latter choice.
Most if not all countries with "universal" health care have higher tax rates than the U.S.
But we've normalized that out of the discussion, by just focusing on how much the respective nations spend on health care per capita, regardless of where that money comes from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostly1
That leaves two choices - higher, proportionate taxes across the board or redistribution of wealth.
That's what the opponents of health care reform want you to think. MG120 hit on the third variable, which those people don't want you thinking about, and it goes back to the question I asked above: How is it that some of these countries can provide health care superior to us while spending less money per person, all-in? I'm confident that the answer is finding economic inefficiencies, mostly in the form of excessive windfall profits and structural waste.
We don't value the individual more; we value individuals less. Valuing individuals more would prompt us to ensure greater access to health care, not less.
We don't value individuals more. We simply care less. More selfishness, less compassion; hidden under the guise of individualism.
That maybe true. There is big money in the delivery of healthcare. There would be big profits to be had if public education was replaced with all for-profit schools, which I'm sure many would applaud on the grounds that public education has failed and that current private schools do much better, although there are many public schools that are excellent. But the opposite would occur if schools went completely private. Many would not be able to afford education for their children at all. In time the middle class would see rates skyrocket and quality drop. Reason? Profit for shareholders. There is a reason we have public schools, fire departments, police etc.
But we've normalized that out of the discussion, by just focusing on how much the respective nations spend on health care per capita, regardless of where that money comes from.
That's what the opponents of health care reform want you to think. MG120 hit on the third variable, which those people don't want you thinking about, and it goes back to the question I asked above: How is it that some of these countries can provide health care superior to us while spending less money per person, all-in? I'm confident that the answer is finding economic inefficiencies, mostly in the form of excessive windfall profits and structural waste.
That maybe true. There is big money in the delivery of healthcare.
Precisely. And let's be fair: A lot of people bemoan the rampant consumerism in this country, with more iPods than people in some places, it seems. However, could our economy survive it if everyone suddenly turned frugal? I do think, though, that there is enough excessive profit in the system to make some in-roads, if such efforts would be gain the support of the majority in the House and wouldn't be filibustered in the Senate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
There is a reason we have public schools, fire departments, police etc.
Precisely, and quite frankly, I'm not sure how health care didn't get into that list in the first place. I'm all for education, but when ranking basic needs, seems to me that health comes before education. :shrug:
As much as it pains me to have to say/admit it, the free enterprise system upon which this country was somewhat founded and grew mighty over the years has fallen into the trap of conspicuous consumption and outright greed, both corporate and individual. Reasonable curbs do need to be introduced if we're to survive with most of our freedoms in tact. They can begin with the tax code.
Actually, what can they begin with? A system is generally interdependent, or even cyclical, like heat pump. You cannot shut down a part of the system, because that actually shuts down the whole system: The system works because it is a cycle, because the liquid medium moves through all he parts of the system, in turn. You cannot skip the compressor, while you're fixing it, and expect the heat pump to still cool the home in summer.
So the reality is that they cannot begin anywhere. They have to maintain the current system while they're building a new one, since, unlike a heat pump, health care cannot be shut down for a period of time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
