The Free markets simply CANNOT manage affordable healthcare.

OK. There has never been a conservative prez and never will be.
Perhaps obama, gov't shrunk under his terms.

 

No it does not. Because we can get fined or jailed for certain speech. In other countries there is very little free speech. Think NK.

As for entitlements, the definition says they are rights.

 

When discussing what works and what doesn't, it's disingenuous to bring up the VA as a measure of how bad government or single payer systems work. Medicare works WELL! why don't conservatives bring this up?

NO LET'S LOOK AT FACTS, SHALL WE? let's look at the latest WHO rankings of healthcare systems and see how the 'free markets stack up' against the horribly ran nationalized systems.

Overall healthcare rankings, 2000

1. France (nationalized insurance)
2. Italy (nationalized system, free for all)
3. Andorra (can't quite find much info on it but seems public sector plays a large role)
4. Malta (nationalized system)
5. Singapore (government plays a large role in the form of subsidies and ensures affordability)
6. Spain (single payer)
7. Oman (public healthcare system)
8. Austria (everyone has access to public care but can also buy supplementary private ins.)
9. Japan (universal healthcare)
10. Norway (free healthcare for anyone under 16, then have to pay deductible before accessing free care annually)

above were top 10.

other notables:
19. UK (nationalized system)
30. Canada (single payer)
37. US (mainly private insurance and privately owned healthcare facilities)

So, now let's talk FACTS. Pretty much ALL of the nations above the US have some sort of publicly funded healthcare, whether it's nationalized insurance or nationalized care. Of the above listed Countries, the United States is the MOST PRIVATIZED yet is scores so terribly? HOW COME IF GOVERNMENT RUN SYSTEMS SHOULD BE SO MUCH WORSE? IT'S ALL A F LIE! FACTS ARE FACTS.

and here's the beauty - the US, even though is mostly privatized, spends MORE on healthcare per GDP than virtually every Country in the above list. The largely privatized system is a massive FAIL compared to nationalized systems.

Now, when confronted with these facts, conservatives then start rambling - 'Well MIKE! you idiot! the US' population is more complicated to manage!' AND 'The WHO has no credibility Mike!' and on and on and on, it's like listening to people that know they have lost the argument so time to discredit the WHO and make all sorts of excuses. The best excuse i hear is - 'These systems have their problems!' NO SH&T! NO SYSTEM IS PERFECT, what matters is how the overall system works. and what the avg. outcomes are for everyone.

FACTS ARE FACTS, look at how nationalized systems KICK THE SH&T out of this MASSIVE FAIL largely privatized system IN USA, it's a f mess. FACTS are totally on the side of nationalized systems being more cost effective and providing better outcomes for the population, FACT, FACT, FACT FACT!

 

Yet many are arguing against the golden rule in this very thread. The idea of a universal health care is a direct violation of the right to private property. In order to get that, they need to force people to pay into it. By forcing people to pay for something they don't want, that is a violation of a natural right.

 

It is a choice. I have known a couple people with cancer now who DECIDED to forego treatment and live out the remainder of their days the way they wanted and save their money for their spouses and offspring. I know one person who spent every dime he had trying to save his wife's life, sold the house, liquidated his retirement account, etc., only to have her die anyway, leaving him alone, homeless, and penniless. But he said if he had it to do over, he'd do it exactly the same way. Staying alive and healthy isn't a privilege so much as it is an accident, that you haven't died or become terminally ill YET, but you will eventually. And I don't hate government, I distrust government. I willingly rely on the government for protection from criminals (police), protection from invaders (military), provision of roads, and adjudication of disputes (courts).

And yet people have no problem paying $1,000 a month for their home but object to paying $500 a month for their health insurance. Wonder why. Blind hatred of government maybe?

I defy you to find anything in my statement that says everyone has the money to pay for health care. And I'm not accusing people of being freeloaders, I'm accusing people of wanting something (health care) for nothing, and that's not how it works. Perhaps you can explain why California abandoned single payer, or why the feds shouldn't based on the facts out of California. As for the last part of your statement, I have no hate for people with no money, I'm one of them. By what you have said, you are far far better off than I am.

I hadn't seen that chart before. It's interesting, as is the methodology by which it was created. I noted in the discussion below the chart that the reason there hasn't been a more recent ranking is that the list was so controversial and so criticized that the WHO has never updated it. So perhaps it isn't quite as "factual" as you would like to think. However, let's do a little analysis on it and see what we come up with. First off, I note that far from the US being at the bottom, 37th is actually fairly high on the list, with Mexico at #61, Moldova #101, Nepal #150, and Nigeria #187. Second, I see that one of the criteria for ranking was life expectancy. The example countries you gave are almost all white, or in the case of Japan, almost all Asian. The US, on the other hand, is 12% black and 18% Hispanic. White longevity in the US is the same as white longevity in Europe, but black and Hispanic longevity is much lower, dragging down the US average. It would be interesting to see how #1 France does now that they have taken in 18 million Somalis. Probably not quite as good now. Third, I observe that one of the elements of the rankings is "equality". Naturally in a free market system, equality of service is going to be quite low. This is like expecting everyone to be driving the same quality of car when you compare East (communist) Germany, where everyone drove a Trabant, a little piece of crap that broke down constantly, to West Germany, where you could buy a Volkswagen, a BMW, or a Mercedes Benz, and say, "East Germany is more equal than West Germany." Yes, but nearly every East German would have much rather had a Volkswagen than a Trabant. So there are three good reasons for the US's ranking to be #37 in that list that have nothing to do with nationalized vs. free-market health care. Here are six more charts that put the quality of US health care at a much higher level than #37, even #1 in breast cancer survival rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_of_healthcare
As for efficiency, you are correct, I do not believe government will EVER run anything as efficiently as a free market company could, simply because government has zero reason to cut costs or improve service, while free market companies do. I accept the necessity of the government providing roads and live with the inefficiency. We don't have to accept the inefficiency of government provided health care unless we're poor.

Rant, rant, rant, rant, is more like it. Would you like some cheese with that whine? As for Medicare working "well", Medicare was deliberately set up to be more like private insurance than a nationalized health care system. The doctors are not employed by the government, the hospitals are not owned by the government, and the decisions are not made by the government. In the VA, on the other hand, the doctors are government employees, the hospitals are owned by the government, and the decisions are made by government bureaucrats. If health care is nationalized, it isn't going to be like Medicare (it can't, we simply cannot afford to provide everyone the same level of care the elderly get through Medicare today), it's going to be like the VA.

 

notice how you don't address the facts i bring up and divert to things like VA.

Question. The US healthcare system is mainly private insurance + privately owned healthcare facilities. Why is it that the cost per GDP is higher than in UK, Canada, France and many systems with single payer or nationalized healthcare? You cannot explain it and never will. I'm not talking about total costs but costs per capita. If there is one metric which measures efficiency, it's costs/capita and facts show government run systems in other Countries are more efficient. If the only thing you can do is bring VA, you have lost the argument before uttering a word.

and yes, Medicare is single payer, it can be done, just has to be funded by taxes. What's funny is that people would save $$ on average by paying a higher tax to fund medicare for all than paying for premiums. Imagine not having to pay these outrageous premiums that have been sky rocketing pre and post ACA and paying a but more taxes instead.

There difference between you and me is that you are a conservative, government hating person first and solutions oriented second. I'm solutions oriented first, then a far second conservative or liberal. I don't have a strong preference for free markets or government before i focus on what works, i look at what works first and then speak. People like Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders put their 'government sucks' and 'free enterprise is evil' lens on and they cannot reach any solutions because of it. People need to stop this BS and just analyze what works and what doesn't, what is logical, what makes sense. If we think as liberals or conservatives before we try and analyze a problem, no solutions ever come to be. You can find several threads here where i go after liberals aggressively and defend Trump, but in this particular topic, the evidence is clear - single payer or nationalized systems outperform the free markets in healthcare when it comes to cost effectiveness and quality of care for all.

 

Sure, sure....lets let the government take it over because they have done such a bang up job with student loans....

 

Have you spoken with your local government about this awesome money saving idea of yours?

If not, then... why not? Waiting for me? If so, you've got a long wait on your hands.

Or you could explain to governor Brown of CA just how much money his state could save if only he were to implement some kind of state-wide universal insurance program. I hear he wants to do it, but he just can't quite figure out how to fund it...

I know, I know... you really trust President Trump to do this correctly, but I'm just not sure that a federal solution is the best solution. After all, we did try with obamacare, and that obviously wasn't good enough.

So I guess your only option is a municipal or state government solution.

Good luck!

 

Purchasing health insurance and seeing a doctor are not private property.
Again, there is NO such thing as a natural right. Perhaps 'right to life', but that is it.
Every other right is granted by humans, mostly through some type of gov't.
A natural right means it is inherent in all humans. And nothing like that exists.

 

Why are food and shelter any less a necessity than health care? Both are more necessary.

So tell me: why do you not demand 'national food distribution'? Or federal housing for all?

 

You haven't answered my question, and providing a generalization fallacy isn't an acceptable form of debate, even if the attempt is to move the goalposts.

I am asking you a very straight question. When does an objection to having to pay more move from selfish to legitimate?

 

Says the guy who completely ignored the first part of my post where I completely debunked his argument.

I'll explain in small words so you understand: We spend the most on health care for the same reason we spend the most on cars, houses, and frozen yogurt... because we're the richest people on the planet.

 

You're just punting on the debate. You choosing to mock something that you don't believe in means that you're simply mocking the people who believe in something you don't - and when you attempt to use a statement of supposed logic to support your mockery, you should be able to at least hang in there with logically consistent responses.

But you're not. Here you are attempting to pass off the challenged premise as fact, and you're not willing to face the challenge to it I just offered.

You thought you were clever in claiming that an omnipotent power could create something that It could not lift, and I responded that such an omnipotence could simultaneously do so and be responsible for you being unable to understand.

We see evidence of the possibility of such in our most recent physics discoveries, where matter can find itself in a simultaneous phase state, occupying the characteristics of both a particle and a wave.

That was considered impossible before. This also dispatches the notion that those who believe in a Higher Power cannot also believe in science, or scientific pursuits.

Yeah. I'm sure Schrodinger's Cat agrees with you - and the guy who first offered the particle/wave theory.

 

This is a fantastic rebuttal.

 

You're simply providing your belief as fact. You cannot establish your belief as fact. By your standards, a murderer is not wrong unless caught, and has not violated your rights unless caught.

Because - after all - if a right is granted by humans, then that right can be taken away by humans.

Making your life no more valuable than lead that comes from a pencil.

What a hollow belief system, and one so easily snuffed out.

 

Name a universal natural right that every human always had and always will.

 

Perhaps if they legalised all drugs, and used sin taxes to pay for single payer.

 

What if we just kill anyone who presents as ill? There difference between you and me is that you are a conservative, government hating person first and solutions oriented second. I'm solutions oriented first, then a far second conservative or liberal. I don't have a strong preference for free markets or government before i focus on what works, i look at what works first and then speak.

Just because you have irrelevant "moral issues" doesn't make it a bad plan. It would eliminate all illness at minimal cost.

 

You already ceded it - while contradicting yourself in the process, I add.

 

It does. Nowhere can you cite the text of the Constitution or federal law that grants the right to free speech, as per your claim
You know this, and thus, you know your claims is false.

When you choose to use the invalid definition, sure.
When the term is used correctly and in context, they define a privilege.
You do not have a right to SS benefits.

 

Perhaps. I was a practicing Christian for many decades. Questioned it for most of them.
I know believers will make things up so they can continue their belief. So, debate is pointless.

I am not passing it off as fact, but for the fact, there is no evidence of any creator. All creators, gods, are based solely on a belief.

And so you made up something like, I'm not suppose to understand. Don't worry, all believers make that stuff up.

Because particles can be wave or particle has nothing at all to do with some invisible creator. Unless one wants to argue energy is the creator, I can agree with that. But not the fable stories concocted about floods, talking snakes, and the like.

 

Nope.

 

Sure you did. You first claimed such things don't exist, and then you immediately ceded that there is a right to life.

 

Definition of entitlement

1. 1a : the state or condition of being entitled : rightb : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
   
   
2. 2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
   
   
3. 3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
   

Is the constitution the law of the land?
How is using an actual definition invalid?

 

I said perhaps.