5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

Mexico is 10 places behind the US. Not THAT big a difference.
 
Steve Levin said:
You are correct that the average life expectancy in the US is 78, and for Japan (#1) it is 82.

Now, how much of Japan's population over, say, the past 82 years is composed of immigrants from poorer regions of the world that have significantly worse health care and shorter life expectancies? It's extremely low -- unlike the US -- as Japan is one of the most homogeneous populations on the planet.

You can actually pose that basic scenario comparing the US population to almost every country with average life expectancy between 78 and 82.

Steve
Click to expand...

Let me get that straight: Do you wanna say that there is no health care problem in the USA whatsoever?

Because if there is, it is a medical, financial and social problem, not a political or ideological one (just to make that clear). And that means there is something wrong with your society, not with your government.
 
Last edited:
MacGuffin said:
Let me get that straight: Do you wanna say that there is no health care problem in the USA whatsoever?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying. Every single health care system in the world has problems that can and probably should be fixed.

What I'm trying to point out is that the problem just isn't as big or as ugly as some try to make it to be. In the case of this particular statistic, it demonstrates that despite the US being a nation of largely poor immigrants, the average life expectancy is still 78 years... or less than 1 year less than the average of the United Kingdom, and only 1.2 years less than that of Germany.

In fact, given the aforementioned immigration issues, based on life expectancy alone (and I'm not saying that's the only stat that should be used, just putting this statistic in its place) one could make an argument that the overall level of healthcare delivered in those countries is substandard because, on average, given all the variables involved, it simply isn't delivering the results that it should.

Steve
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC
Except you are (rather conveniently) forgetting that in order to be behind the UK and Germany, your healthcare system costs between 1.5 and twice as much.
 
Plissken said:
Except you are (rather conveniently) forgetting that in order to be behind the UK and Germany, your healthcare system costs between 1.5 and twice as much.
Click to expand...

Given the large immigrant population of the United States do you really find that fact surprising?

Here's some numbers to think about, Population wise.

Germany's 1900 population: 56 million
Germany's 2009 population: 82 million

UK 1900 population: 30 million
UK 2009 population: 60 million

USA 1900 population: 76 million
USA 2009 population: 304 million

Steve
 
So what you wanna say is that the richest society in the world is unable to keep up with proper health care for their citizens, while it is on the other hand able to organize and maintain a war in every remote corner of the world? ;)
 
Last edited:
Steve Levin said:
Given the large immigrant population of the United States do you really find that fact surprising?

Here's some numbers to think about, Population wise.

Germany's 1900 population: 56 million
Germany's 2009 population: 82 million

UK 1900 population: 30 million
UK 2009 population: 60 million

USA 1900 population: 76 million
USA 2009 population: 304 million

Steve
Click to expand...
The US saw large immigration from Europe in the early 1900s, not to mention other immigration in the 1900s, and it's not like you've got 225 million immigrants without education, jobs, good health and so forth today.

Look at the current numbers, not the growth in population since 1900. And we are still talking about the fact that the US uses more per capita than any other nation on earth.

I just do not get it. Why can't you do it? Why is it impossible?
 
nomix said:
I just do not get it. Why can't you do it? Why is it impossible?
Click to expand...

Simple, the US government is entirely way to inefficient. Obama's current reform plays on the idea that it can be paid for by somehow fixing our horrible inefficiencies. It's a nice concept, but I doubt it'll work that well.
 
More than 1 in 10 Americans today were not born in the US. And that number is actually expected to RISE to almost 1.5 in the near future. About 4-6x the UK and Germany. So, the statistics remain consistent. :)

So I again pose the question:

The UK and Germany have universal health care and much smaller percentages of foreign-born population (especially when factoring in foreign-born from poorer countries). Yet they manage only very slightly longer life expectancies (less than 2 percent). How do you explain that?

Steve
 
Last edited:
thedguy said:
Simple, the US government is entirely way to inefficient. Obama's current reform plays on the idea that it can be paid for by somehow fixing our horrible inefficiencies. It's a nice concept, but I doubt it'll work that well.
Click to expand...

Well, you have a nationalized army, and it seems to work pretty well, doesn't it? Not to mention the nationalized space program.
 
US healthcare for all - how hard can it be?

If you are in the group who does not qualify for Medicare/Medicaid but have limited means, God help you.

Another point to be bourne in mind is that many people are in company funded schemes - this is a huge cost to business. If business was releived of the burden then things would improve I am sure.

Finally, the cost of Drugs in the US is completely insane! Is there no competition allowed?

I am not a socialist but come on you chaps the first stage is to admit that there is a problem and that EVERY ONE should have access to healthcare. The next stage is to work out how to provide and fund it. Finally carry it out - I do suspect that the OBAMA idea sucks though.
 
It might very well suck, but the GOP's been slaughtering every single idea of universal health care for ages now, not to mention a buckload of democrats as well..

The last guy to do that in Britian and carry some weight what-so-ever was, well, Churchill? And he just didn't like Labour or Attlee in any way. Heck, even the Iron Lady didn't touch NHS.

Universal coverage is so uncontroversial over here, it's regarded as a fundamental right, and I just can't get my head around the universal opposition to any idea of universal coverage..

Well.. I AM European, after all.
 
Cobol74 said:
Finally, the cost of Drugs in the US is completely insane! Is there no competition allowed?
Click to expand...

Pharmaceutical price controls - many other countries have them; the US does not. The majority of drug research costs are passed onto the American consumers.
 
nomix said:
Universal coverage is so uncontroversial over here, it's regarded as a fundamental right, and I just can't get my head around the universal opposition to any idea of universal coverage..
Click to expand...

IIRC I've posted a few times from the Declaration of Independence "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Can't really take advantage of the latter 2 without the former.

I'd like to point out that I'm not against the idea in anyway, just I've seen plenty of the points against it and responded.
 
nomix said:
Universal coverage is so uncontroversial over here, it's regarded as a fundamental right, and I just can't get my head around the universal opposition to any idea of universal coverage..

Well.. I AM European, after all.
Click to expand...
There is not universal opposition; far from it. Depending on what poll you go by 60-65% of US citizens want a public option. All this crap in the media, this supposed fervor over the Democrats attack on our "right to choose", is just fabricated bullshit from health-insurer backed politicians (Republicans and Dogs alike) and assholes like Limbaugh.

Personally I think that in this day and age, in a first world nation (especially the one with the "best healthcare in the world hurrdurr") universal coverage should be considered a right. Hell, it's sure not going to get anymore expensive.

Lupin_IV said:
Pharmaceutical price controls - many other countries have them; the US does not. The majority of drug research costs are passed onto the American consumers.
Click to expand...
And to make matters worse, one of Bush's FDA commissioners (iirc it was Crawford) made it extremely difficult for the US to negotiate lower drug prices. Guess what? He's now a healthcare industry lobbyist.
 
tigger said:
There is not universal opposition; far from it. Depending on what poll you go by 60-65% of US citizens want a public option. All this crap in the media, this supposed fervor over the Democrats attack on our "right to choose", is just fabricated bullshit from health-insurer backed politicians (Republicans and Dogs alike) and assholes like Limbaugh.
Click to expand...
I'm more and more ready to declear the United States Congress broken.

I'd like to quote John Adams.

"If someone proposed that to and to is four, and the motion was seconded, congress would spend a total of three days debating the issue."

There's some truth in that.

Personally I think that in this day and age, in a first world nation (especially the one with the "best healthcare in the world hurrdurr") universal coverage should be considered a right. Hell, it's sure not going to get anymore expensive.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more.

And to make matters worse, one of Bush's FDA commissioners (iirc it was Crawford) made it extremely difficult for the US to negotiate lower drug prices. Guess what? He's now a healthcare industry lobbyist.
Click to expand...
Wasn't he that during the Bush years? Like, really?
 
Steve Levin said:
Given the large immigrant population of the United States do you really find that fact surprising?

Here's some numbers to think about, Population wise.
Click to expand...

Oh looky, another swerve and obfuscation. 1.5 to twice as much per person.
 
As I said: It is a problem of the U.S. society.

Not politics, not technicalities, not ideology, not money. Just a problem in the minds of people.

It's like telling a German that there actually is good beer available in other countries: Useless :D
 
Lupin_IV said:
Pharmaceutical price controls - many other countries have them; the US does not. The majority of drug research costs are passed onto the American consumers.
Click to expand...
Congress should not permit it - why are your Drug (prescription not illegal ones) importation controls so bizarre?

And Germans there is good beer in other countries - Belgium for one - and if you know what you are doing here too. Mostly it is crap now though - thank you 'the beer orders' (Bloody John Major what a turd)!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top