Universal Health Coverage --- Call It Socialized Medicine

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It it works wonderfully for the Brits and Canadians....why is it so horrible for the us to try it? People need health care and the US corprate insurance system is more intrested in $$$$ than the actual quality and quantity of health caer that people get.

The profiteers of the insanely expensive and incredibly inefficient system we have in place today spend huge sums of money to instill the fear into the American people that socializing health care is just one step shy of becoming a full blown communist nation - or at least a nation where no medical care would ever be available again. Where you'd have to take a week vacation to get in line to see your doctor. Oh wait, no, you wouldn't have a doctor anymore, one would be assigned to you based on availability. As long as there are any doctors left at all. It's all just propaganda. The sick thing is that Americans are paying for this propaganda machine that works against them with their hugely inflated health care premiums. It's really twisted.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It it works wonderfully for the Brits and Canadians....why is it so horrible for the us to try it? People need health care and the US corprate insurance system is more intrested in $$$$ than the actual quality and quantity of health caer that people get.

It also works very well in Germany and Scandinavia. That's not to say there aren't problems with those systems in those countries - but as we're not dealing with specific proposals (on the table - as it were) the debate always seems to boil down to rhetorical talking points about capitalist / socialist ideologies.

The fact is - those systems work, and they work better even in countries like the UK, whose NHS is far from a model of efficiency.

[Heracles 417]

I just noticed the UK budget for their NHS. So for 60 million people they spend $220 billion USD. Therefore the US would need to spend over $1.1 trillion to cover all Americans. On the other hand the US would also need to spend an addition $32 billion to cover illegal immigrants. So basically $1.132 Trillion dollars for UHS and Hillary proposes to pay for this using Cigarette taxes.... lol

Edited October 9, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[GaryC 7]

It it works wonderfully for the Brits and Canadians....why is it so horrible for the us to try it? People need health care and the US corprate insurance system is more intrested in $$$$ than the actual quality and quantity of health caer that people get.

It also works very well in Germany and Scandinavia. That's not to say there aren't problems with those systems in those countries - but as we're not dealing with specific proposals (on the table - as it were) the debate always seems to boil down to rhetorical talking points about capitalist / socialist ideologies.

The fact is - those systems work, and they work better even in countries like the UK, whose NHS is far from a model of efficiency.

But what is being overlooked is this isn't the UK, Canada , Germany or Scandinavia. We have a different system of government. What works there cannot work here. Those governments are a central government and we have a union of states. Envision this. What would happen if each country in the EU gave control of their health care to the EU? It wouldn't work! It's the same here. So to extend the example the only way to make a UHC system work is to have each state run one that works for that state.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I just noticed the UK budget for their NHS. So for 60 million people they spend $220 billion USD. Therefore the US would need to spend over $1.1 trillion to cover all Americans. On the other hand the US would also need to spend an addition $32 billion to cover illegal immigrants. So basically $1.132 Trillion dollars for UHS and Hillary proposes to pay for this using Cigarette taxes.... lol

The US currently spends the same amount of public money as a percentage of GDP as the UK (and Canada and Japan) on healthcare. The difference is that expenditure covers everyone in the UK (and Canada and Japan), unlike in the US.

[Marilyn. 340]

actually Canada has provincial governments too...

[Heracles 417]

It it works wonderfully for the Brits and Canadians....why is it so horrible for the us to try it? People need health care and the US corprate insurance system is more intrested in $$$$ than the actual quality and quantity of health caer that people get.

It also works very well in Germany and Scandinavia. That's not to say there aren't problems with those systems in those countries - but as we're not dealing with specific proposals (on the table - as it were) the debate always seems to boil down to rhetorical talking points about capitalist / socialist ideologies.

The fact is - those systems work, and they work better even in countries like the UK, whose NHS is far from a model of efficiency.

But what is being overlooked is this isn't the UK, Canada , Germany or Scandinavia. We have a different system of government. What works there cannot work here. Those governments are a central government and we have a union of states. Envision this. What would happen if each country in the EU gave control of their health care to the EU? It wouldn't work! It's the same here. So to extend the example the only way to make a UHC system work is to have each state run one that works for that state.

That is exactly why it would not work here. Unless they are proposing an overhaul of how the US functions and runs to a more centralized international style system.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But what is being overlooked is this isn't the UK, Canada , Germany or Scandinavia. We have a different system of government. What works there cannot work here. Those governments are a central government and we have a union of states.

As does the Federal Republic of Germany, for example. They are doing just fine with their universal health care system compared to the expensive mess we have here.

[Caladan 19]

It it works wonderfully for the Brits and Canadians....why is it so horrible for the us to try it? People need health care and the US corprate insurance system is more intrested in $$$$ than the actual quality and quantity of health caer that people get.

It also works very well in Germany and Scandinavia. That's not to say there aren't problems with those systems in those countries - but as we're not dealing with specific proposals (on the table - as it were) the debate always seems to boil down to rhetorical talking points about capitalist / socialist ideologies.

The fact is - those systems work, and they work better even in countries like the UK, whose NHS is far from a model of efficiency.

But what is being overlooked is this isn't the UK, Canada , Germany or Scandinavia. We have a different system of government. What works there cannot work here. Those governments are a central government and we have a union of states. Envision this. What would happen if each country in the EU gave control of their health care to the EU? It wouldn't work! It's the same here. So to extend the example the only way to make a UHC system work is to have each state run one that works for that state.

Just as a data point, Canada's UHC is federally mandated but provincially managed. Provinces aren't states, but C. paid money to Alberta Health Care. That suffices to give you the sort of flexibility you'd need to deal with smaller problems.

While many of the details would be different, there's no particularly structural or constitutional reason that states couldn't, e.g., receive some federal funding and meet a set of federal guidelines, but be responsible for the administration of the plan.

[Heracles 417]

I just noticed the UK budget for their NHS. So for 60 million people they spend $220 billion USD. Therefore the US would need to spend over $1.1 trillion to cover all Americans. On the other hand the US would also need to spend an addition $32 billion to cover illegal immigrants. So basically $1.132 Trillion dollars for UHS and Hillary proposes to pay for this using Cigarette taxes.... lol

The US currently spends the same amount of public money as a percentage of GDP as the UK (and Canada and Japan) on healthcare. The difference is that expenditure covers everyone in the UK (and Canada and Japan), unlike in the US.

It is ridiculous to think the US could all of a sudden cover everybody at no extra cost. A UHS for 312 million people cannot be delivered for under a $1 TRILLION annually.

[Heracles 417]

Just as a data point, Canada's UHC is federally mandated but provincially managed. Provinces aren't states, but C. paid money to Alberta Health Care. That suffices to give you the sort of flexibility you'd need to deal with smaller problems.

While many of the details would be different, there's no particularly structural or constitutional reason that states couldn't, e.g., receive some federal funding and meet a set of federal guidelines, but be responsible for the administration of the plan.

The taxation system and general system of government in Canada is not like that of the US. Canada, Australia, UK etc have highly centralized government systems, whereas the US is quite the opposite. The introduction of a trillion dollar NHS / UHS would mean that there needs to be an overhaul of the way taxes are collected to pay for it.

Personally I have no problem with centralized governments as it gets rid of the inefficiencies of a system created and scraped overseas many years ago. For me Katrina proved that relying on the states is not the way to go. A nation needs a strong federal government with enough pull to make things happen. But I cannot see it happening as many here strongly believe in the power to the states style system.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Caladan 19]

Why, because you can multiply what the UK spends by five and a bit? Of all the ways to estimate how much an American system would cost, that seems to me to be the most, well, wrong. You wouldn't estimate the cost of your grocery bill in one town versus another that way; why would you do it with a health care system?

[Ban Hammer 13,637]

actually Canada has provincial governments too...

how provincial

[Caladan 19]

Just as a data point, Canada's UHC is federally mandated but provincially managed. Provinces aren't states, but C. paid money to Alberta Health Care. That suffices to give you the sort of flexibility you'd need to deal with smaller problems.

While many of the details would be different, there's no particularly structural or constitutional reason that states couldn't, e.g., receive some federal funding and meet a set of federal guidelines, but be responsible for the administration of the plan.

The taxation system and general system of government in Canada is not like that of the US. Canada, Australia, UK etc have highly centralized government systems, whereas the US is quite the opposite. The introduction of a trillion dollar NHS / UHS would mean that there needs to be an overhaul of the way taxes are collected to pay for it.

Personally I have no problem with centralized governments as it gets rid of the inefficiencies of a system created and scraped overseas many years ago. For me Katrina proved that relying on the states is not the way to go. A nation needs a strong federal government with enough pull to make things happen. But I cannot see it happening as many here strongly believe in the power to the states style system.

Look, Germany is a federal republic of states. We already have a way, even with our constitution to give FEDERAL funds to STATE universities. This 'we're too decentralized' claim is just nonsense. It means the mechanics are different, yes, but to claim the U.S. doesn't have a strong enough federal government ignores, well, pretty much everything about American history since the Civil War.

[Marilyn. 340]

actually Canada has provincial governments too...

how provincial

huh??

Canada has provinces..... and each province has their own government.... so Canada has a provincial governments too ...