The 50 most developed countries in the world and Universal Healthcare.

[AzogtheDefiler]

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

Again, 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world are already providing Universal Healthcare for all their citizens Employers in these countries don't have to worry about providing healthcare for their employees. So that actually helps business, especially many small business's.

A for profit healthcare system that allows and industry to profit off of people being sick and ill is not a good system. Its why healthcare cost grow over year and it is bankrupting the country. Healthcare cost right now are on an annual basis are over 22% of annual GDP. Compare that to spending on the military which is only 4% of GDP.

Its time that the United States adopt a healthcare system that is ubiquitous in the developed world. The evidence shows that such a system increases life expectancy, covers everyone, and on average cost about half as much as our system. Its one sector of the economy, not the entire economy by any means.

As far as taxes go, when IKE was President, the top federal tax rate each year he was President was 80% or more. Today its only 37%. In 1990, the top federal tax rate was 28%. This was increase by Bush and then increased by Clinton up to 40%. After that you had the ECONOMIC BOOM of the late 1990s. Raising taxes on the rich at these levels does not hurt the economy. The evidence for that is widespread. Yes, keep taxes low for the 90% of the workers who make less than $100,000 a year. But over that level, it needs to be gradually increased, especially once you get to the millionaire and billionaire levels. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate every year was always above 70%. U.S. economic growth from 1945 to 1980 was much stronger then, than it has been since then, especially since the year 2000.

The top 20% of income earners in the country have 80% of the wealth. The bottom 80% have only 20% of the wealth. Yet, most consumer spending is done by the bottom 80% of income earners. That is why you want to keep the bottom 80% of income earners taxes low. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives real quarterly GDP growth. The lower class and middle class do most of the consumer spending. That's why their taxes need to remain low or even cut. The Rich though typically don't change their level of consumer spending based on their tax rate, another great benefit of being rich. The rich don't go to the movies and out to eat less when their taxes get raised. That's why you can increase tax rates on the rich without hurting the economy.

How would you pay for it. Of those 45 countries how many have even close to the population of the US?

The United States is the wealthiest country in the world. 3rd wealthiest per capita. So the size of the US population is not a problem since the United States has more wealth per capita than all those countries except two. The fact is, these countries have LESS wealth per capita than the United States, yet they still provide Universal Healthcare for their citizens. In terms of population and wealth, its easier for the United States to provide Universal Healthcare than it is for these other countries.

It’s less about money and more about supply and demand. If MDs aren’t being paid why would people
Still want to pay the money to become MDs. In those countries you listed, is the education free?

Its called caring for people. I'd prefer a doctor who was more interested in me and my health outcome than one who was just interested in cashing a pay check.

Unrealistic. Sorry you live in a fantasy world.

 

[forkup]

Fact remains people in the US die because some medical care is prohibitively expensive for a significant portion of the populace. I'm sure there are circumstances were medical care in the US is preferable. I'm talking about what medical care system is better for the LARGEST percentage of the populace.

Fact remains that since you stated it as a fact, but provided no proof of it, it's not a fact. It's just what you "know" is true, because you're "sure" of it, but have never bothered to verify it.

https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/3BackgroundPaperMedBankruptcy.pdf
"Health care costs pose a significant problem in the United States, and a 2007 survey found that 70 million Americans owe medical debt or experience difficulty in paying for treatment.4 Another found that 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000"
Here you go.

Which amazingly doesn't prove that people die because they can't get medical care. Proof of your statement should involve your actual statement.

I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source when it comes to healthcare systems. Any group who ranks the quality of a healthcare system on how socialized it is has a little too big an axe to grind in my book.

-You don't think, that not being able to pay for medical care makes receiving medical care impossible? Or is it that you don't think that not getting medical care can make people die?
-As to you not liking my sourcing. I at least provided a source. You did no such thing. You just went with a general, "oh I don't trust the WHO". Since you want me to provide sourcing for my claims, I invite you to source an actual example of the WHO fudging data.

One doesn’t have to pay for medical care here. I just posted one of many ways to acquire expensive medication. And medicade covers doctors. I’m with the other poster. Please provide cases where people have died from lack of medical care here.

Sorry your link as provided is the advertising to get an app There's nothing on it that shows me how to get free medicine.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll

Until they find out how much it costs.

As I have pointed out at least twice in this topic so far, we currently spend $3.5 trillion a year on health care. That's $35 trillion over ten years.

So when UHC proponents say it will cost $32 trillion over ten years...so what? That's less than what we are paying now!

Except people aren't looking at it at a macro level. They are saying, "Yeah, I think everyone should have health care" until you tell them their income tax will go up 20 to 30% to pay for it and they may no longer have private insurance and then their support for it does a 180.

A government take over of health care isn't the way to fix the cost unless you're willing to sacrifice quality. The way to deal with the cost is to reintroduce market forces into the sector, which are fairly nonexistent these days.

 

[Brain357]

Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll

Until they find out how much it costs.

As I have pointed out at least twice in this topic so far, we currently spend $3.5 trillion a year on health care. That's $35 trillion over ten years.

So when UHC proponents say it will cost $32 trillion over ten years...so what? That's less than what we are paying now!

Except people aren't looking at it at a macro level. They are saying, "Yeah, I think everyone should have health care" until you tell them their income tax will go up 20 to 30% to pay for it and they may no longer have private insurance and then their support for it does a 180.

A government take over of health care isn't the way to fix the cost unless you're willing to sacrifice quality. The way to deal with the cost is to reintroduce market forces into the sector, which are fairly nonexistent these days.

Market forces don’t exist in healthcare, how can you introduce them? People never refuse emergency care because of cost...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Market forces don’t exist in healthcare, how can you introduce them? People never refuse emergency care because of cost...

Isn't emergency care what your insurance would be for?

 

[Brain357]

Market forces don’t exist in healthcare, how can you introduce them? People never refuse emergency care because of cost...

Isn't emergency care what your insurance would be for?

And it is very expensive.

 

[Andylusion]

Universal health care is coming to the US. It's just a matter of time.

You know why?

Because the GOP has never offered a comprehensive solution to skyrocketing health care costs.

That's right, over 50% of Americans support Universal Healthcare. Universal Healthcare is coming to the United States whether these anti-healthcare types like it or not.

Not entirely true. Everyone supports the idea of universal healthcare, as long as you don't talk about cost.

If you just ask people "Do you support everyone having healthcare" a majority say they do.

If you say "Do you support everyone having healthcare, and tax rates up to 50%-60% on the middle class, like most of Europe has", then almost no one supports universal healthcare.

The lies and myths, of the left-wing, is that you can get universal health care, and not have massive increases in taxes.... yet every place even inside this country, that has tried universal healthcare has either failed, or massively high taxes.

You look at New York city with their attempt to move towards universal health care, and taxes are insanely high.

When Hawaii tried just free health care covering all children, the system went bankrupt in months, and had to be repealed.

So when people say "everyone supports universal health care, they are being dishonest, because they are not asking people if they support it with cost. When you include the price, support is almost non-existent.

 

[Dragonlady]

Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll

Until they find out how much it costs.

As I have pointed out at least twice in this topic so far, we currently spend $3.5 trillion a year on health care. That's $35 trillion over ten years.

So when UHC proponents say it will cost $32 trillion over ten years...so what? That's less than what we are paying now!

Except people aren't looking at it at a macro level. They are saying, "Yeah, I think everyone should have health care" until you tell them their income tax will go up 20 to 30% to pay for it and they may no longer have private insurance and then their support for it does a 180.

A government take over of health care isn't the way to fix the cost unless you're willing to sacrifice quality. The way to deal with the cost is to reintroduce market forces into the sector, which are fairly nonexistent these days.

The quality of health care in the United States isn't great overall. You have centres of excellence in the treatment of some diseases, but these are private, for-profit hospitals, which are out of the financial reach of most Americans. If you happen to live close to one, and have good insurance, and can afford the co-pays, you are blessed. If you have to deal with doctors or hospitals which only take Medicare of Medicaid, your choices are limited, and those with private insurance have to navigate a system designed to minimize payouts, not ensure its customers get the best possible treatments.

I have heard it said that you everyone wants a health care system that is quick, good and cheap, but you can't have all three. You can have two out of three, but not all three. Most single payer systems are good and cheap, but they're not fast. The American system is fast, but its not cheap, and how good it is, is highly dependent on how much money you have.

 

[Andylusion]

The United States ranks 34th in the world in terms of Life Expectancy. That's despite the fact that the United States spend more on healthcare than any country in the world. Yet despite all that spending, the United States is not taking care of all of its citizens like the rest of the world is and essentially has a different system of care for those that are rich vs lower class. HOW IS THAT SMART?

Explain how our ranking in life expectancy is related to our health care system?

Healthcare saves lives which naturally increases the average life expectancy in a country.

Except it doesn't work that way. The reason American life expectancy is less than many of our counterparts is we have higher rates of automobile fatalities, we have higher rates of death due to poor eating habits and lack of exercise (Americans are fat and lazy) and we have higher rates of drug related deaths. None of that has anything to do with our health care system. It has to do with poor cultural habits.

With Universal Healthcare, people would have better access to doctors, nurses and others that could give advise and help with the conditions you describe. It would have a dramatic effect on U.S. life expectancy. The reason U.S. life expectancy is low, is that it gets brought down by those who live in poverty or near the poverty level and don't have access to low cost quality food and healthcare. It makes a huge differences in the averages and is why the United States continues to lag behind so many other countries in the developed world in life expectancy.

The evidence is obvious. Universal Healthcare would benefit millions of people in the lower class and in poverty in the United States. It would improve U.S. life expectancy and standard of living. Its the right, moral thing to do for people and the country as a whole will benefit. Yet, because some people are blinded by outdated ideology, they will not support the common sense thing to do to help people.

And when it bankrupts the country, like it did Greece, and you see hundreds of people sitting on the sidewalk outside their closed 'free' healthcare clinic.... do explain how much it benefited them.

 

[Andylusion]

Let me be among the first to say, we're not interested in emulating other countries, so telling us, "THESE countries do it, so we should" doesn't mean much. My advice is that if you think any or all of them are better than this country, you should GO LIVE THERE, rather than demanding that the rest of us becoming something different to suit your tastes.

Well, I love my country, and I think that once it has Universal Healthcare, the countries life expectancy and standard of living will dramatically increase. It will be good for the United States and will actually make the country stronger. The other countries on the list are of systems of healthcare that work. They cost less, cover everyone, and increase life expectancy. If someone does something better than you, you should try to emulate them or find a way to equal or top them.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care


Crossing the Border for Care
Frustrated by long waits, some Canadians are heading to the U.S. for medical treatment.



Why do they come here if it’s so good in Canada ? Are you just not going to answer? Name a country and people from that country come here to receive treatment for cancer and major illnesses. Why?

Its the assumption that the wealthiest country in the world has the best healthcare. The same assumption that drives people to go the hospital as best in the country. The reality though is much different.

Were not talking about the few with money who choose to travel because they believe something is better. Were talking about average life expectancy in each country and which countries are providing their citizens with Universal Healthcare. Most Europeans do not go to America to get healthcare. They stay in their countries and on average live longer than Americans. That last fact is by FAR the most relevant.

Let me ask you this:

Timely Medical | Timely Surgery at Affordable Prices

This is a company. It's a company operating out of Canada. The entire purpose of this company, is to setup patient, primarily in Canada, with doctors and hospitals in the US.

They charge money, obviously to provide this service.
This is an additional charge to the cost of getting whatever treatment or surgery they get in the US.

The company was started by a Canadian doctor, who was fed up watching patients die while waiting.

So my question to you is this.....

Canada has universal care, that is "free". Please explain to me how Timely medical can find enough consistent flow of customers, willing to pay thousands of dollars for surgery in the US, and to pay them to set them up for that surgery.... if those same customers can all get surgery for 'free'?

If government run health care is so great in Canada, how can this company started by a Canadian doctor, end up with thousands of customers every year willing to pay for health care? How can they find enough people willing to spend thousands of dollar for health care, to escape their Canadian system if it is so great?

Can you explain that to me?

Don't have to. These little individual examples, whether they are true or not, are irrelevant. What matters is the overall averages on life expectancy and the countries that provide Universal Healthcare. Look FRANCE, GERMANY, SWEDEN, NORWAY, ITALY etc. Most people in the top 50 most developed countries in the world stay in their own countries when it comes to healthcare. At least 34 of those countries citizens live longer than Americans on average. One's personal experience, or some off hand example will not change that reality.

France, where doctors went on strike for weeks, and people were left without care, not to mention people died of heat stroke in hospitals during a heat wave years back.

Germany, has a system of private insurance, the nearly all people are part of.

Moreover, nearly all those countries have double our tax rate.

Which is more expensive: Current insurance premiums, or a 50% tax rate on the middle class?

And yes, the fact is, if you want to support your argument, then you do have to explain why people come from all over the world from their 'free health care' systems, to pay for health care here.

If you can't, then whether you admit it, or believe it, you have undeniably lost the argument that free government care is better.

 

[Andylusion]

Below are the 50 most developed countries in the world ranked according to the UN Human Development index which measures development and standard of living through estimates of GDP per capita, life expectancy, and education. There are a total of 197 countries in the world today. 193 of those countries are part of the United Nations. 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world below provide UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for its citizens, essentially medicare for all. The following are the five countries from the list below that do not:

01. Cyprus
02. United Arab Emirates
03. Qatar
04. Bahrain
05. United States

Cyprus is currently In the process of moving to a Universal Healthcare system which will be completed in a few years. That will leave the United States alone with three Arab countries as being the only countries, of the 50 most developed in the world, that do not have Universal HealthCare.

Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens? How could anyone say that Universal HealthCare is impossible or too expensive for the United States when nearly all of the 50 most developed countries in the world provide it for its citizens?


50 MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD RANKED:

01 - Norway
02 - Switzerland
03 - Australia
04 - Ireland
05 - Germany
06 - Iceland
07 - San Marino
08 - Sweden
09 - Singapore
10 - Netherlands
11 - Denmark
12 Canada
13 - United States
14 - United Kingdom
15 - Monaco
16 - Vatican City
17 - Finland
18 - New Zealand
19 - Belgium
20 - Liechtenstein
21 - Japan
22 - Austria
23 - Luxembourg
24 - Israel
25 - Taiwan
26 - South Korea
27 - France
28 - Slovenia
29 - Spain
30 - Czech Republic
31 - Italy
32 - Malta
33 - Estonia
34 - Greece
35 - Cyprus
36 - Poland
37 - United Arab Emirates
38 - Andorra
39 - Lithuania
40 - Qatar
41 - Slovakia
42 - Brunei
43 - Saudi Arabia
44 - Latvia
45 - Portugal
46 - Bahrain
47 - Chile
48 - Hungary
49 - Croatia
50 - Argentina

Let me be among the first to say, we're not interested in emulating other countries, so telling us, "THESE countries do it, so we should" doesn't mean much. My advice is that if you think any or all of them are better than this country, you should GO LIVE THERE, rather than demanding that the rest of us becoming something different to suit your tastes.

Well, I love my country, and I think that once it has Universal Healthcare, the countries life expectancy and standard of living will dramatically increase. It will be good for the United States and will actually make the country stronger. The other countries on the list are of systems of healthcare that work. They cost less, cover everyone, and increase life expectancy. If someone does something better than you, you should try to emulate them or find a way to equal or top them.

No, I love my counry. YOU love what you think you could make it into. Not the same thing.

While you're envisioning all the wonderful things the US should have because other countries who are much better have them, has it at all occurred to you to ask whether or not your fellow Americans WANT them? Or to ask what your fellow Americans want AT ALL? Or is that just irrelevant because you know what's best for others better than they do?

Healthcare doesn't actually have a lot to do with a nation's life expectancy once it gets past being a third-world pesthole. I realize that your "brilliant" simpleton "logic" tells you it does, but that doesn't actually make it true.

And the other countries on the list have systems of healthcare that work ACCORDING TO YOUR PERSONAL STANDARDS OF "WORKING". Also not the same thing, because that brings us back to the fact that there are 300 million other people in this country, and they don't all want the same things you do. And they aren't required to want them. And they wouldn't consider YOUR system to be "working" at all.

The United States is a democracy, and one day the majority In this country will vote for Universal Healthcare. Its a tragedy that the United States is one of the few countries in the developed world not to take care of all of its citizens. Universal Healthcare is coming to the United States whether you like it or not.

Yeah, which is why so many socialist countries have fallen into chaos and death.

Maybe you missed it, but our health care is the highest quality in the world. By any objective measure, you have a higher chance of surviving in the US, than anywhere else.

 

[Brain357]

Well, I love my country, and I think that once it has Universal Healthcare, the countries life expectancy and standard of living will dramatically increase. It will be good for the United States and will actually make the country stronger. The other countries on the list are of systems of healthcare that work. They cost less, cover everyone, and increase life expectancy. If someone does something better than you, you should try to emulate them or find a way to equal or top them.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care


Crossing the Border for Care
Frustrated by long waits, some Canadians are heading to the U.S. for medical treatment.



Why do they come here if it’s so good in Canada ? Are you just not going to answer? Name a country and people from that country come here to receive treatment for cancer and major illnesses. Why?

Its the assumption that the wealthiest country in the world has the best healthcare. The same assumption that drives people to go the hospital as best in the country. The reality though is much different.

Were not talking about the few with money who choose to travel because they believe something is better. Were talking about average life expectancy in each country and which countries are providing their citizens with Universal Healthcare. Most Europeans do not go to America to get healthcare. They stay in their countries and on average live longer than Americans. That last fact is by FAR the most relevant.

Let me ask you this:

Timely Medical | Timely Surgery at Affordable Prices

This is a company. It's a company operating out of Canada. The entire purpose of this company, is to setup patient, primarily in Canada, with doctors and hospitals in the US.

They charge money, obviously to provide this service.
This is an additional charge to the cost of getting whatever treatment or surgery they get in the US.

The company was started by a Canadian doctor, who was fed up watching patients die while waiting.

So my question to you is this.....

Canada has universal care, that is "free". Please explain to me how Timely medical can find enough consistent flow of customers, willing to pay thousands of dollars for surgery in the US, and to pay them to set them up for that surgery.... if those same customers can all get surgery for 'free'?

If government run health care is so great in Canada, how can this company started by a Canadian doctor, end up with thousands of customers every year willing to pay for health care? How can they find enough people willing to spend thousands of dollar for health care, to escape their Canadian system if it is so great?

Can you explain that to me?

Don't have to. These little individual examples, whether they are true or not, are irrelevant. What matters is the overall averages on life expectancy and the countries that provide Universal Healthcare. Look FRANCE, GERMANY, SWEDEN, NORWAY, ITALY etc. Most people in the top 50 most developed countries in the world stay in their own countries when it comes to healthcare. At least 34 of those countries citizens live longer than Americans on average. One's personal experience, or some off hand example will not change that reality.

France, where doctors went on strike for weeks, and people were left without care, not to mention people died of heat stroke in hospitals during a heat wave years back.

Germany, has a system of private insurance, the nearly all people are part of.

Moreover, nearly all those countries have double our tax rate.

Which is more expensive: Current insurance premiums, or a 50% tax rate on the middle class?

And yes, the fact is, if you want to support your argument, then you do have to explain why people come from all over the world from their 'free health care' systems, to pay for health care here.

If you can't, then whether you admit it, or believe it, you have undeniably lost the argument that free government care is better.

Rich people come here. Just like only rich people here will be able to afford it soon.

 

[Brain357]

Below are the 50 most developed countries in the world ranked according to the UN Human Development index which measures development and standard of living through estimates of GDP per capita, life expectancy, and education. There are a total of 197 countries in the world today. 193 of those countries are part of the United Nations. 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world below provide UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for its citizens, essentially medicare for all. The following are the five countries from the list below that do not:

01. Cyprus
02. United Arab Emirates
03. Qatar
04. Bahrain
05. United States

Cyprus is currently In the process of moving to a Universal Healthcare system which will be completed in a few years. That will leave the United States alone with three Arab countries as being the only countries, of the 50 most developed in the world, that do not have Universal HealthCare.

Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens? How could anyone say that Universal HealthCare is impossible or too expensive for the United States when nearly all of the 50 most developed countries in the world provide it for its citizens?


50 MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD RANKED:

01 - Norway
02 - Switzerland
03 - Australia
04 - Ireland
05 - Germany
06 - Iceland
07 - San Marino
08 - Sweden
09 - Singapore
10 - Netherlands
11 - Denmark
12 Canada
13 - United States
14 - United Kingdom
15 - Monaco
16 - Vatican City
17 - Finland
18 - New Zealand
19 - Belgium
20 - Liechtenstein
21 - Japan
22 - Austria
23 - Luxembourg
24 - Israel
25 - Taiwan
26 - South Korea
27 - France
28 - Slovenia
29 - Spain
30 - Czech Republic
31 - Italy
32 - Malta
33 - Estonia
34 - Greece
35 - Cyprus
36 - Poland
37 - United Arab Emirates
38 - Andorra
39 - Lithuania
40 - Qatar
41 - Slovakia
42 - Brunei
43 - Saudi Arabia
44 - Latvia
45 - Portugal
46 - Bahrain
47 - Chile
48 - Hungary
49 - Croatia
50 - Argentina

Let me be among the first to say, we're not interested in emulating other countries, so telling us, "THESE countries do it, so we should" doesn't mean much. My advice is that if you think any or all of them are better than this country, you should GO LIVE THERE, rather than demanding that the rest of us becoming something different to suit your tastes.

Well, I love my country, and I think that once it has Universal Healthcare, the countries life expectancy and standard of living will dramatically increase. It will be good for the United States and will actually make the country stronger. The other countries on the list are of systems of healthcare that work. They cost less, cover everyone, and increase life expectancy. If someone does something better than you, you should try to emulate them or find a way to equal or top them.

No, I love my counry. YOU love what you think you could make it into. Not the same thing.

While you're envisioning all the wonderful things the US should have because other countries who are much better have them, has it at all occurred to you to ask whether or not your fellow Americans WANT them? Or to ask what your fellow Americans want AT ALL? Or is that just irrelevant because you know what's best for others better than they do?

Healthcare doesn't actually have a lot to do with a nation's life expectancy once it gets past being a third-world pesthole. I realize that your "brilliant" simpleton "logic" tells you it does, but that doesn't actually make it true.

And the other countries on the list have systems of healthcare that work ACCORDING TO YOUR PERSONAL STANDARDS OF "WORKING". Also not the same thing, because that brings us back to the fact that there are 300 million other people in this country, and they don't all want the same things you do. And they aren't required to want them. And they wouldn't consider YOUR system to be "working" at all.

The United States is a democracy, and one day the majority In this country will vote for Universal Healthcare. Its a tragedy that the United States is one of the few countries in the developed world not to take care of all of its citizens. Universal Healthcare is coming to the United States whether you like it or not.

Yeah, which is why so many socialist countries have fallen into chaos and death.

Maybe you missed it, but our health care is the highest quality in the world. By any objective measure, you have a higher chance of surviving in the US, than anywhere else.

We aren’t living to be the oldest.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Good deal. Fact remains, rich people from other countries come
Here for treatment.

Fact remains people in the US die because some medical care is prohibitively expensive for a significant portion of the populace. I'm sure there are circumstances were medical care in the US is preferable. I'm talking about what medical care system is better for the LARGEST percentage of the populace.

Fact remains that since you stated it as a fact, but provided no proof of it, it's not a fact. It's just what you "know" is true, because you're "sure" of it, but have never bothered to verify it.

https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/3BackgroundPaperMedBankruptcy.pdf
"Health care costs pose a significant problem in the United States, and a 2007 survey found that 70 million Americans owe medical debt or experience difficulty in paying for treatment.4 Another found that 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000"
Here you go.

Which amazingly doesn't prove that people die because they can't get medical care. Proof of your statement should involve your actual statement.

I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source when it comes to healthcare systems. Any group who ranks the quality of a healthcare system on how socialized it is has a little too big an axe to grind in my book.

-You don't think, that not being able to pay for medical care makes receiving medical care impossible? Or is it that you don't think that not getting medical care can make people die?
-As to you not liking my sourcing. I at least provided a source. You did no such thing. You just went with a general, "oh I don't trust the WHO". Since you want me to provide sourcing for my claims, I invite you to source an actual example of the WHO fudging data.

No, I don't think that. I don't know what country YOU think this is, but I can assure you that the US provides lots of ways to get life-saving care.

What I actually think is that you're making a whole lot of ASSumptions based on your own personal and simplistic version of "logic". I have very little patience with people who say, "I just KNOW this is true, because it's just so OBVIOUS to me that it MUST be, therefore it IS true and you must treat it that way."

As to me not "providing a source", what assertions exactly did I make that I was supposed to source and didn't? Please cite them.

And I did NOT "go with a general" anything. I told you precisely why I don't trust the WHO, and I didn't say "fudging data", so please do not attempt to hold ME responsible for what YOU assumed I said because you're too damned illiterate and sloppy to bother reading and understanding the words.

Here's what I said. Take another run at it, and maybe those weird things we call "letters" will make some sense to you this time:

"I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source when it comes to healthcare systems. Any group who ranks the quality of a healthcare system on how socialized it is has a little too big an axe to grind in my book."

And yes, I can and will source that, since you've obviously been too busy gulping down anything they say that fits your worldview to bother researching.

From their original report ranking the US 37th in the world:

"The world health report 2000 also breaks new ground in presenting for the first time an
index of national health systems’ performance in trying to achieve three overall goals: good
health, responsiveness to the expectations of the population, and fairness of financial contribution."

From "MEASURING OVERALL HEALTH SYSTEM PERFORMANCE FOR 191 COUNTRIES" on the WHO website:

"The first is improvement in the health of the population (both in terms of levels attained
and distribution). The second is enhanced responsiveness of the health system to the
legitimate expectations of the population. Responsiveness in this context explicitly refers
to the non-health improving dimensions of the interactions of the populace with the
health system, and reflects respect of persons and client orientation in the delivery of
health services, among other factors.1 As with health outcomes, both the level of
responsiveness and its distribution are important. The third intrinsic goal is fairness in
financing and financial risk protection. The aim is to ensure that poor households should
not pay a higher share of their discretionary expenditure on health than richer households,
and all households should be protected against catastrophic financial losses related to ill
health."

From the Cato Institute's analysis of WHO's ranking report:

"WHO’s index is based on
five factors, weighted as follows:

1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent"

"Financial Fairness. A health system’s financial fairness (FF) is measured by determining a household’s contribution to health expenditure as a percentage of household income (beyond subsistence), then looking at the dispersion of this percentage over all households. The wider the dispersion in the percentage of household income spent on health care, the worse a nation will perform on the FF factor and the overall index (other things being equal).

The FF factor is not an objective measure of health attainment, but rather reflects a value judgment that rich people should pay more for health care, even if they consume the same amount. This is a value judgment not applied to most other goods, even those regarded as necessities such as food and housing.Most people understand and accept that the poor will tend to spend a larger percentage of their income on these items.

More importantly, the FF factor, which accounts for one-fourth of each nation’s OA score, necessarily makes countries that rely on market incentives look inferior. The FF measure rewards nations that finance health care according to ability to pay, rather than according to actual consumption or willingness to pay."

Unfortunately, I cannot just give you a link to any of these reports, because they all have to be downloaded as pdfs from their host website. I have done so, which is why I can quote them. You're welcome to do so as well and fact-check me if you think I'm making up what they said.

 

[Dragonlady]

The United States ranks 34th in the world in terms of Life Expectancy. That's despite the fact that the United States spend more on healthcare than any country in the world. Yet despite all that spending, the United States is not taking care of all of its citizens like the rest of the world is and essentially has a different system of care for those that are rich vs lower class. HOW IS THAT SMART?

Explain how our ranking in life expectancy is related to our health care system?

Healthcare saves lives which naturally increases the average life expectancy in a country.

Except it doesn't work that way. The reason American life expectancy is less than many of our counterparts is we have higher rates of automobile fatalities, we have higher rates of death due to poor eating habits and lack of exercise (Americans are fat and lazy) and we have higher rates of drug related deaths. None of that has anything to do with our health care system. It has to do with poor cultural habits.

With Universal Healthcare, people would have better access to doctors, nurses and others that could give advise and help with the conditions you describe. It would have a dramatic effect on U.S. life expectancy. The reason U.S. life expectancy is low, is that it gets brought down by those who live in poverty or near the poverty level and don't have access to low cost quality food and healthcare. It makes a huge differences in the averages and is why the United States continues to lag behind so many other countries in the developed world in life expectancy.

The evidence is obvious. Universal Healthcare would benefit millions of people in the lower class and in poverty in the United States. It would improve U.S. life expectancy and standard of living. Its the right, moral thing to do for people and the country as a whole will benefit. Yet, because some people are blinded by outdated ideology, they will not support the common sense thing to do to help people.

And when it bankrupts the country, like it did Greece, and you see hundreds of people sitting on the sidewalk outside their closed 'free' healthcare clinic.... do explain how much it benefited them.

Your for-profit system is already bankrupting your country, and 33 cents out of every health care dollar is now going to administration. You could cut health care costs by 25% just by eliminating for profit insurance companies, and switching to single payer. The largest department in any public hospital is the billing department. Doctors hire third party companies to do their billing.

In single payer countries, the doctor's receptionist bills the government office once a month for all of his attendances on patients. It eliminates all of that administration which is not helping patient care at all. The administration office in our local hospital is 5 people, one of whom is the receptionist.

There are no preapprovals, and no paperwork. Every citizen gets a swipe card, like an EBT card. No card, no treatment.

 

[Andylusion]

Market forces don’t exist in healthcare, how can you introduce them? People never refuse emergency care because of cost...

Isn't emergency care what your insurance would be for?

And it is very expensive.

BULL CRAP.
You people....

In 2006, I had catastrophic health insurance coverage, for a whooping $67 a month. Covered up to a Million dollars.

It was perfectly affordable. After Obama-Care-ap, now the cheapest coverage is $300 a month.

It wasn't expensive, until the democraps screwed up the market.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Fine, so long as I can prevent my tax dollars from going to your causes. How about we have a check-off system where we get to choose what our taxes pay for?

In Britain?

You're British? Well, you have the healthcare system you deserve - one of the worst in the industrialized world.

The average Brit lives longer than the average American.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with healthcare.

As much as I realize that it confuses and bewilders you, the world is not a simple place, and humans are not simple creatures. People aren't interchangeable cogs, and nations aren't either. Simplistic answers like "Let's just do this the way the Brits do, and that'll make us just like them!" only make sense to children and fools.

First of all, there's just the math to consider. Life expectancy is an estimate, an average figured by the age at which other people die. Great Britain has a population of approximately 64 million people. The United States has a population of approximately 300 million people. How do you suppose that difference might affect the outcome of the equation?

Then there's the fact that life expectancy figured just by geographic area is wildly imprecise, because you're often lumping together people who vary hugely in individual specifics. Women have a longer life expectancy in general than men, so while my life expectancy might be X because I'm American, it's Y because I'm female. This is why life expectancy is usually figured and reported in groups within the larger group: life expectancy for women, life expectancy for white people, life expectancy for Arizona, life expectancy for non-smokers.

Great Britain is a mostly homogenous society in terms of race and ethnicity; the United States definitely isn't. As politically incorrect as it is to mention it, other racial and ethnic groups have quite different life expectancies from white people, some better and some worse, for a variety of different reasons. Those factors change the averages quite a bit. And noticeably, when you break down US life expectancy by racial and ethnic group, they often become comparable to the life expectancies of people in the origin country. It's almost like there are other factors at work there.

I can keep going, listing other factors that have far more influence on life expectancy than how socialized the healthcare system is, but the point is that the differences between countries are varied and complex, which means that making life expectancy the exact same is also far more complex.

Fine, take France, Italy, Spain, Germany and the United Kingdom. That's 315 million people. On average they live longer than Americans. They have Universal Health care. They only spend about 1/2 to 2/3 of what the United States does on health care. Everyone is provided for, they live longer, then spend less on healthcare. WIN, WIN, AND WIN!

Fact: People living in countries with Universal Healthcare on average live longer than people in countries without Universal Healthcare.

Maybe the reason why they live longer over there, is that they dont add inner city murders to their statistics. Universal healthcare doesnt do shit for people who want to kill each other, but they do hack them to death and run them over with a box truck...

 

[Brain357]

Market forces don’t exist in healthcare, how can you introduce them? People never refuse emergency care because of cost...

Isn't emergency care what your insurance would be for?

And it is very expensive.

BULL CRAP.
You people....

In 2006, I had catastrophic health insurance coverage, for a whooping $67 a month. Covered up to a Million dollars.

It was perfectly affordable. After Obama-Care-ap, now the cheapest coverage is $300 a month.

It wasn't expensive, until the democraps screwed up the market.

Heathcare costs were increasing rapidly long before obama. I’m confident you would have had lots of our of pocket costs for your $67.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Market forces don’t exist in healthcare, how can you introduce them? People never refuse emergency care because of cost...

Isn't emergency care what your insurance would be for?

And it is very expensive.

BULL CRAP.
You people....

In 2006, I had catastrophic health insurance coverage, for a whooping $67 a month. Covered up to a Million dollars.

It was perfectly affordable. After Obama-Care-ap, now the cheapest coverage is $300 a month.

It wasn't expensive, until the democraps screwed up the market.

What amazes me, is that the dumbass liberals (redundant statement I know) think that if the government ran our healthcare system, everything will be hunky dory. Hey dumbasses, walk into a DMV or post office and see how well the healthcare system would be run in government control...Geezes H Christo, you mother fuckers are stupid.

 

[Andylusion]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care


Crossing the Border for Care
Frustrated by long waits, some Canadians are heading to the U.S. for medical treatment.



Why do they come here if it’s so good in Canada ? Are you just not going to answer? Name a country and people from that country come here to receive treatment for cancer and major illnesses. Why?

Its the assumption that the wealthiest country in the world has the best healthcare. The same assumption that drives people to go the hospital as best in the country. The reality though is much different.

Were not talking about the few with money who choose to travel because they believe something is better. Were talking about average life expectancy in each country and which countries are providing their citizens with Universal Healthcare. Most Europeans do not go to America to get healthcare. They stay in their countries and on average live longer than Americans. That last fact is by FAR the most relevant.

Let me ask you this:

Timely Medical | Timely Surgery at Affordable Prices

This is a company. It's a company operating out of Canada. The entire purpose of this company, is to setup patient, primarily in Canada, with doctors and hospitals in the US.

They charge money, obviously to provide this service.
This is an additional charge to the cost of getting whatever treatment or surgery they get in the US.

The company was started by a Canadian doctor, who was fed up watching patients die while waiting.

So my question to you is this.....

Canada has universal care, that is "free". Please explain to me how Timely medical can find enough consistent flow of customers, willing to pay thousands of dollars for surgery in the US, and to pay them to set them up for that surgery.... if those same customers can all get surgery for 'free'?

If government run health care is so great in Canada, how can this company started by a Canadian doctor, end up with thousands of customers every year willing to pay for health care? How can they find enough people willing to spend thousands of dollar for health care, to escape their Canadian system if it is so great?

Can you explain that to me?

Don't have to. These little individual examples, whether they are true or not, are irrelevant. What matters is the overall averages on life expectancy and the countries that provide Universal Healthcare. Look FRANCE, GERMANY, SWEDEN, NORWAY, ITALY etc. Most people in the top 50 most developed countries in the world stay in their own countries when it comes to healthcare. At least 34 of those countries citizens live longer than Americans on average. One's personal experience, or some off hand example will not change that reality.

France, where doctors went on strike for weeks, and people were left without care, not to mention people died of heat stroke in hospitals during a heat wave years back.

Germany, has a system of private insurance, the nearly all people are part of.

Moreover, nearly all those countries have double our tax rate.

Which is more expensive: Current insurance premiums, or a 50% tax rate on the middle class?

And yes, the fact is, if you want to support your argument, then you do have to explain why people come from all over the world from their 'free health care' systems, to pay for health care here.

If you can't, then whether you admit it, or believe it, you have undeniably lost the argument that free government care is better.

Rich people come here. Just like only rich people here will be able to afford it soon.

Not true. My parents go to Childrens hospital, and serve the people who are here alone, because their family can't afford to come themselves.

They not just serve lunch and dinner, but they take ill-children out on walks and to the zoo, because their middle and lower class parents, have left their children here in the US utterly alone.

Why would parents do this to their 10-year-old daughter? Because in their home countries, they are told to just go home and die.

You are making up crap, to fit your stupid narrative.

Not only that, but even if your made up BS was true......

That would clearly show a two-tier health care system. A system where the Rich escape to find better care, and the poor are doomed to suffer under the government system.

Why would a rich person spend millions going to a different country, when the supposedly equal and fair system they have is free?

Because it sucks. Not only do you doom people to a universal system that sucks... but you tax away their money to pay for that system, which makes them more unable to buy health care from a country that has good care.

The rich laugh their way to better care in the US, while the poor are taxed until they can't afford to do the same.

That's your grand system of equality?