Simple question...

Is it a right or privilege?

I personally don't think it should be a right. The right that people should have is to purchase their insurance privately, if they choose to have any at all. Making people have national health care would be revoking their right to freedom of choice, and a substantial amount of every paycheck would be taken away to fund this healthcare system, which would be very bad for the state of the economy. That's my opinion on the matter, anyway.

I think everyone should have a right to it, although Momoko-chi has a very good point.
But I don't think it should be a privilege per se, since that would mean only priveleged people could get it. I mean if you are poor, you should still have a right to it. The economy is in bad state already, and although a lot of people are lazy or refuse to get jobs, some people need serious aid. Especially around here, my mom is a nurse and sees people who just refuse to work and have 387294789 kids and live off of food stamps, but then you have people like my sister who just have debt from college and their job doesn't offer anything.

It's a failure.

Don't forget I'm french... I see how things are working in our country, and it's the biggest failure ever.

Of course it is!
Having to spend money just to save someone? Ridiculous!
I have the same opinion about education.
If the governments can afford billions of dollars for big businesses, they can afford to help their own citizen.

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.
Source: WHO World Health Report - See also Spreadsheet Details (731kb)

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.

See also: Healthy Life Expectancy By Country
See also: Health Performance Rank By Country
See also: Total Health Expenditure as % of GDP (2000-2005)
See also: Main Country Ranks Page

      Rank       CountryView this list in alphabetic order View this list in alphabetic order View this list in alphabetic order

      1         France (Burocratic?)
      2         Italy (Mafia!)
      3         San Marino (RICH RICH RICH)
      4         Andorra (RICH SKI RESORT)
      5         Malta
      6         Singapore
      7         Spain
      8         Oman
      9         Austria
      10        Japan (They make something called Anime!)
-----------------------
18        United Kingdom (NHS, biggest European employer)
22        Colombia (Drugs capital!)
29        Morocco (African Country!!)
37        United States of America
-----------------------
SPENDING, % of GDP 2005 (Not GOV spending but private spending too)

1 Marshall Islands 15.4%
   2 United States of America 15.2%
   3 Niue 14.5%
   4 Timor-Leste 13.7%
   5 Micronesia (Fed. States of) 13.5%
   6 Kiribati 12.7%
   7 Maldives 12.4%
   8 Malawi 12.2%
   9 Switzerland 11.4%
  10 France 11.2%
--------------
41 United Kingdom 8.2%

So to clarify, most of the 8.2% spending by UK will be by the government through taxation.

Most of USA's 15.2% spending is not by governments but by people through insurance premiums.



Riogi, if your health care system is bad, I may as well quit. This world sucks, beam me up to another.

Just to add, United Kingdom spends half as much of its GDP on health than USA does... yet UK is seen to have a more cost effective health care system. (USA spends 16%? of GDP on health)

Riogi, please brief us on your health care system... My understanding is that it is a cross between public and private. Private companies run the hospitals but its heavily subsidized by the Government. (I am probably totally wrong as this is all based one one news article I read a few years back!)

The UK is almost totaly public.

The NHS (National Health Service) is a massive organization (biggest org in Europe, bigger than any government!) and basally owns hospitals, clinics and employs doctors. You walk in, you get treated, you walk out... But like all gov organizations, they are inefficient, underfunded and 'bulky'.

However, the NHS is not a monopoly (apart from A&E), their are private health care providers (most notably Bupa) which provides anything you want more quickly and effectively but you pay a price. Because they compete with the NHS, they focus their activities on more affluent clientele and cosmetic ops.

Poor get treated, affluent get treated better...

(Critically, the main difference is Europe over America is that Health care is seen as a right and in the UK, they voted the party in who promised to start a NHS... and they did.

Some voted Obama over promises he made to reform the Health industry)

My views
To me, having some level of government health policy is important... I support Obama on his plans to have a kind of half way house. Not Public like the UK and not private like USA... perhaps a little simmilar to France?

It should mean the GDP spending will reduce while improving the quality of USA's health care system.

Unfortunately, some will benefit more than others. The rich will be worse off as they will have to pay taxes for something they are unlikely to us, while the poorer families will benefit as they will receive better health care while not paying for all of it.

But imagine what America could do if it could half the health care bill! 8% of GDP is a lot... could be used to reduce other taxes on the rich?

I think the only losers long term will be health care and insurance companies... USA will lose many of these for profit orgs, but the USA economy will be a little slimmer and more efficient!

Health care to me is a right... mainly as the alternative is worse. Who do I trust more, Bureaucratic inefficient Governments or for profit Insurances companies?

Both are weak (though I lean towards Governments)... so why not have a mix? A heavily regulated Health industry perhaps?

So as I think its a right, I will moan at my government to make it better! I don't care if its public or private... JUST MAKE IT WORK and NOT COST ME THE EARTH!

Veve La Revilusion!

Randee, aren't you British..? Why do you care about American Health Care Reform?

Should it be a right? Ehhhh, most arguments for it I've seen are emotional appeals. Arguments against it say "if all doctors make the same wage no-one will have motivation to work" and thus seem to think that doctors only work for money. Some doctors do the work for the money and when the money is gone they'll do a crappier job, sure, but some doctors will still have pride in their work. I honestly don't think the government should be worrying about spending more on healthcare right now when we're still dealing with the effects of the recession (Even though Rahm Emanuel seems to think they have defeated it like a bunch of white knights ona crusade to defeat some mythical dragon or something). Also the ones mainly lobbying for socialized healthcare are, not the people who need it, but the medical industry. It's not what it seems at first glance.

Health care is not a right any more than having a house or car and I certainly don't want the government that helped bugger up the world economy this badly with their greasy paws in the pie.

I have been constantly been tweaking my post... and only noticed your posts now. I will repost the last amendment I made.

Health care to me is a right... mainly as the alternative is worse. Who do I trust more, Bureaucratic inefficient Governments or for profit Insurances companies?

Both are weak (though I lean towards Governments)... so why not have a mix? A heavily regulated Health industry perhaps?

So as I think its a right, I will moan at my government to make it better! I don't care if its public or private... JUST MAKE IT WORK (Like France) and NOT COST ME (or my country)THE EARTH!(Like France?)

Veve La Revilusion!

Quoted^(ref) Yoshiyuki (on 16 August, 2009, 12:09 PM PDT) —

Randee, aren't you British..? Why do you care about American Health Care Reform?

We have got alot of news from America about how bad the NHS is... I feel thats unfair, particularly when comming from America.

I don't think the NHS is the best model, but I think its better than what America is doing at the moment.

ALso, I think this argument should be had. I have always wondered what is the best way forward...

Health care is not a right any more than having a house or car and I certainly don't want the government that helped bugger up the world economy this badly with their greasy paws in the pie.

So your happy with how its going now? Or just not prepared for the Government to get involved and want the Private sector to reform it self?

I personally don't care if its the Poor vs the health care companies only that it seems to cost America too much for what it gets in return. I don't think American health care companies are evil... but where is the value for money?

I honestly believe life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is really an unalienable right - one that everyone should have and one everyone deserves, regardless of how much money you have or in what situation you're born, and, as far as I see it, gettin' sick, gettin' injured, and then financially drowning in medical bills certainly violates that last part.

I'd honestly like a health care system that works, that gives stable, reliable, and cheap medical care to those that need it. I think it should be a right, and I think we should find a way to make it work, because I don't want myself, anyone I love, or anyone else to have to bankrupt themselves just so we can enjoy medical care. It's wrong to have to pay that much just because you're sick or injured - and if you don't believe the same, well, I can't fault you for thinking so - that's your right.

Quoted^(ref) randee (on 16 August, 2009, 12:22 PM PDT) —

So your happy with how its going now? Or just not prepared for the Government to get involved and want the Private sector to reform it self?

No I'm not happy with how it is right now, but I'd be even less happy if the government tried to get involved. Government involvement never ends well in nearly everything. They have no clue of the consequences of what they try and the country suffers for it.

Socialized healthcare is not the answer.

Quoted^(ref) Frostburn (on 16 August, 2009, 04:01 PM PDT) —

Quoted^(ref) randee (on 16 August, 2009, 12:22 PM PDT) —

So your happy with how its going now? Or just not prepared for the Government to get involved and want the Private sector to reform it self?

No I'm not happy with how it is right now, but I'd be even less happy if the government tried to get involved. Government involvement never ends well in nearly everything. They have no clue of the consequences of what they try and the country suffers for it.

Socialized healthcare is not the answer.

Regardless if goverments have proven it to work and almost all of the best healthcare systems in the world owe it to goverment intervention/subsidy!? Brits often hear about fear of Socializism and that's why they fear socialized health care... are you in that boat? You have a socialized police system, socialized Army, Socialized firefighters (The latter being private not that long ago)... Could not a Socialized Healthcare... work?

Equally, have you offered any solution? You have only made an objection, no to government and no to socialism. So the only thing left for you is to ask businesses to be better... I know you are reasonably religious... so is faith the answer? (Indeed, the first pioneers of health care was religious institutions. Science was born thanks to that!)

Perhaps the problem is only limited to America?

England is next to France and we are many places adrift from their death rates and general 'healthiness'... France is the home of Democratic Socialism.

However UK has one of the ultimate socialized healthcare system. Clearly it works, but not as much as Frances half way house.

Why would part socialism work there and not for America? Is Frances government less corrupt and get it right more often?

Jimmy, you hit the nail. I don't mind paying for insurance now just in case something happens to me where I cant afford it later. Health is too important to get wrong...

"Rights?"
Let's all point a finger, depend on the government. How bout we all have equal pay, equal healthcare, equal education. Let's take another step towards socialism.

^ Wheeha~

Yeah, let's take a look at how well socialized health care has worked in other countries around the world. While I might have to wait 30 minutes to get checked up on in a hospital, I might have to wait up to four hours for the same check up in Europe. Yeah, it works real well.

It also bothers me that this "great" health care system that we can all enjoy, one that we will be mandated to enjoy, will not be enjoyed by our congress. They have their own health plan separate from the standard package. If our government doesn't want their own health plan, I sure as hell don't want it.

I personally believe it is a right - after all, why should your paycheck determine if you live or die? Whilst the NHS is not perfect, and I don't really know enough about the French system to comment, I believe there must be a way for these matters to be fair. I agree that the government is unreliable, and often screws these matters up, but then again, so do businesses that are looking to make a profit. I'd rather have something as important as the health service controlled by a government that is meant to listen to it's people (it often doesn't, yes, but it's more likely to than a business (in theory at least)).

Let's all point a finger, depend on the government. How bout we all have equal pay, equal healthcare, equal education. Let's take another step towards socialism.

Firstly, there is a difference between someone having the right to choose something and using it. Everyone should have the right to the same level of education, but some will obviously choose to work over continuing on. Everyone should have the right to paid fairly relative to their hours, amount of study or training required, necessity, difficulty etc., there are so many jobs that are different that to them pay them all the same amount would not be fair. Everyone should have a right to healthcare.

Perhaps it's only fair if there are some private firms that operate at a higher standard than the government provided one, so people still have choice, thus not violating their right to do so. I don't see why this must be a 'choice' vs. 'state system' debate - the two can coexist (I gather France has this sort of system from what I've read in this thread? I really don't know).

Quoted Kurinshin —

Yeah, let's take a look at how well socialized health care has worked in other countries around the world. While I might have to wait 30 minutes to get checked up on in a hospital, I might have to wait up to four hours for the same check up in Europe. Yeah, it works real well. 

It also bothers me that this "great" health care system that we can all enjoy, one that we will be mandated to enjoy, will not be enjoyed by our congress. They have their own health plan separate from the standard package. If our government doesn't want their own health plan, I sure as hell don't want it.

It's just another example of the government's hypocrisy. They say they want everyone to be equal in every way, and yet they put themselves on a higher pedestal by taking the best for themselves.

But that's getting off-topic.

As stated by Frostburn, socialized healthcare isn't the way to go. There has to be a better way to get better healthcare for our country than bringing it one step closer to socialism.

Quoted^(ref) EverybodyLovesRamen (on 18 August, 2009, 01:19 AM PDT) —

"Rights?"
Let's all point a finger, depend on the government. How bout we all have equal pay, equal healthcare, equal education. Let's take another step towards socialism.

Your post has almost no baring on this topic and is very close to being spam.

Please talk about solutions... not the negative connotations of socialism.

Please talk about Healthcare and how to do it better.

Quoted^(ref) Kurinshin (on 19 August, 2009, 07:13 AM PDT) —

^ Wheeha~

Yeah, let's take a look at how well socialized health care has worked in other countries around the world. While I might have to wait 30 minutes to get checked up on in a hospital, I might have to wait up to four hours for the same check up in Europe. Yeah, it works real well.

It also bothers me that this "great" health care system that we can all enjoy, one that we will be mandated to enjoy, will not be enjoyed by our congress. They have their own health plan separate from the standard package. If our government doesn't want their own health plan, I sure as hell don't want it.

Who says you have to weight 4 hours? Unfortunately, I don't reconise those times. I have only visited a hospital once in A&E... 15 mins before I saw a doctor who told me to take this slip to a counter down the hall and they gave me some treatment and showed me the door. (Had a swollen eye lid that prevented me from opening that eye...)

The British news has showed what the American News has been saying and has little bearing on popular opinion in the UK. Indeed, that single MEP (European MP) that commented negatively on the NHS has been distanced by his party after the public reactivated angrily at it..

One of the biggest problems in how non American systems are perceived is American news casters.

Quoted^(ref) Momoko-chi (on 20 August, 2009, 07:53 AM PDT) —

As stated by Frostburn, socialized healthcare isn't the way to go. There has to be a better way to get better health care for our country than bringing it one step closer to socialism.

Please don't talk about socialism in a thread that talks about health care. It has little bearing on this thread and is very close to spam.

Again I hear about negative socialism... but not a single idea on how to make health care better or advocating that the current system is ok?

Quoted^(ref) randee (on 20 August, 2009, 11:53 AM PDT) —

Quoted^(ref) Momoko-chi (on 20 August, 2009, 07:53 AM PDT) —

As stated by Frostburn, socialized healthcare isn't the way to go. There has to be a better way to get better health care for our country than bringing it one step closer to socialism.

[color=blue]Please don't talk about socialism in a thread that talks about health care. It has little bearing on this thread and is very close to spam.

Yes, don't bring up the facts, they only get in the way. We can't have that. Frankly, it's a step towards socialist policies, with the full measure being state-run healthcare industry, a stated goal of this movement. Claiming otherwise is either willfully naivety or intentional disinformation.

Fact of the matter is, it IS a privilege. So is a computer and the internet. You're using the latter two, so this "for privileged people" notion includes you. You have access to it only insofar as someone else provides it for you. "Privileged" does not mean wealthy, it means someone who has access to things that others do not.

What's being debated is whether or not to make it a right. Just because you want something really bad doesn't make it a right, even if you believe you deserve it and clap your hands for the healthcare fairy.

Does someone who chose to buy cable, cell phone and internet service instead of health insurance deserve health coverage? No.
Does someone who doesn't work despite no disability deserve health coverage? No.
Does someone who works hard and doesn't make enough for health insurance AND food/shelter/clothes deserve health coverage? Maybe.
Does someone who can't work deserve health coverage? Looks like someone thought so - that's already covered by medicare and medicaid, depending on your age.

This nonsense that the rich will pay for it all shows a profound lack of understanding of basic logic, let alone economics. If you raise taxes on the people best equipped to move elsewhere, what happens to your tax base? Those people move and you end up taxing the lower pay grades for both your new plan AND what was being paid by the wealthy before. For that matter, you really believe the people who paid in the bulk of Obama and others' campaign funds are really going to be taxed to death at the end of the day?

It also shows a failure to read the bill, though admittedly, Obama and the members of Congress haven't read it either. The bill doesn't pay for healthcare, it requires everyone to purchase health insurance with tax credits for having done so. There are additional tax credits for being less affluent, but the way the current bill is worded, if you're too poor for health insurance, you get to float the cost of that health insurance you couldn't afford until the next tax season. So we all lose. Yay...

Quoted^(ref) Merennulli (on 20 August, 2009, 07:52 PM PDT) —

Quoted^(ref) randee (on 20 August, 2009, 11:53 AM PDT) —

Quoted^(ref) Momoko-chi (on 20 August, 2009, 07:53 AM PDT) —

As stated by Frostburn, socialized healthcare isn't the way to go. There has to be a better way to get better health care for our country than bringing it one step closer to socialism.

Please don't talk about socialism in a thread that talks about health care. It has little bearing on this thread and is very close to spam.

Yes, don't bring up the facts, they only get in the way. We can't have that. Frankly, it's a step towards socialist policies, with the full measure being state-run healthcare industry, a stated goal of this movement. Claiming otherwise is either willfully naivety or intentional disinformation.

Fact of the matter is, it IS a privilege. So is a computer and the internet. You're using the latter two, so this "for privileged people" notion includes you. You have access to it only insofar as someone else provides it for you. "Privileged" does not mean wealthy, it means someone who has access to things that others do not.

What's being debated is whether or not to make it a right. Just because you want something really bad doesn't make it a right, even if you believe you deserve it and clap your hands for the healthcare fairy.

Does someone who chose to buy cable, cell phone and internet service instead of health insurance deserve health coverage? No.
Does someone who doesn't work despite no disability deserve health coverage? No.
Does someone who works hard and doesn't make enough for health insurance AND food/shelter/clothes deserve health coverage? Maybe.
Does someone who can't work deserve health coverage? Looks like someone thought so - that's already covered by medicare and medicaid, depending on your age.

This nonsense that the rich will pay for it all shows a profound lack of understanding of basic logic, let alone economics. If you raise taxes on the people best equipped to move elsewhere, what happens to your tax base? Those people move and you end up taxing the lower pay grades for both your new plan AND what was being paid by the wealthy before. For that matter, you really believe the people who paid in the bulk of Obama and others' campaign funds are really going to be taxed to death at the end of the day?

It also shows a failure to read the bill, though admittedly, Obama and the members of Congress haven't read it either. The bill doesn't pay for healthcare, it requires everyone to purchase health insurance with tax credits for having done so. There are additional tax credits for being less affluent, but the way the current bill is worded, if you're too poor for health insurance, you get to float the cost of that health insurance you couldn't afford until the next tax season. So we all lose. Yay...

[COLOR=blue]I will not argue with someone who clearly misses the point of this topic... though your answer is similar to most: Love or loathe it, we (Americans) will keep our system as it is. Every other system will spread socialism.

My gripe is that again, discussion/debate is stifled by Anti Socialism rhetoric. Not a single thing you said advocates the current system. To me that means you have not a single good word to say about it and hide behind America's fears of Socialism to avoid the subject.

Because the alternative is unbearable to so many Americans, the current system which costs twice that of any other system per head yet is less effective than systems which cost less than half per head. Love it or Lump it, to Americans, the American ways is the only way...

As for my theme/question, of whats the best way, clearly a system not involving government intervention within the Health Care system would work. Cold era fears of the spread of Socialism will prevent anything else from competing.

Therefore, for America's sake, they must move on to Which non Socialist path is best? Which for of Capitalism is best? Are the current Laws working or fit for purpose?

Merennulli, if you wish to get the point of this thread, you will need to move past Socialism and get to the point of
1) If USA's system works?
2) Should it change?
3) Which non Socialist method would work best to improve USA's rankings vs the world (if indeed it wants to or cares)
4) How to make it more competitive against other world systems.

Quoted^(ref) randee (on 21 August, 2009, 12:25 PM PDT) —

Merennulli, if you wish to get the point of this thread, you will need to move past Socialism and get to the point of

Speaking of needing to move past things, read past the first paragraph before ranting back. You made a false statement and I responded to that before addressing the rest of the topic, but in true pundit form, you focused in on one item and ignored the rest. The four items you threw out after this are your talking points, and in many respects less on topic to your initial question than what you're calling "rhetoric".

You asked if it was a right or a privilege, a distinction which is a large block of what divides socialists from capitalists. Being a right vs. a privilege has no bearing on if the existing system works, what would improve our "ranking" or make us more competitive. As for what should happen, that's essentially a restatement of your original question. If it's a right, it should be enforced as such, if it's not, it shouldn't be. I clearly stated my opinion that it is a privilege and why I feel that way.

So no, I didn't miss the point. I just don't agree with you. Hate to break it to you, but you're falling into the media-driven trap of calling the diametrically dissenting opinion "rhetoric".