“Even among those with very good coverage who receive a lot of services don’t have very good health outcomes compared to other countries.”
I think I saw a recent study that pointed out that life expectancy is several years higher in most other “Western Industrialized” countries than it is in the U.S. You would think that, if our system was so much better at providing better quality care, that wouldn’t be the case.
You would think that, if our system was so much better at providing better quality care, that wouldn’t be the case.
No! Health care is only a portion of the equation. Look at the waist line of the average american compared with those other countries. There are a lot of factors that have nothing what so ever to do with our quality of health care. Is that really all you have?
However, these facts do not warrant our government taking over health care. In my humble opinion that is the pot at the end of the rainbow for those who forced the health care package down our throats. There are market based solutions to the problems that we both recognize do exist. Problems that our politicians will not and are not capable of solving.
The fundemental difference between our approachs to solving these problems is: you think the government is the solution, while I feel government will only screw thing up. I base my opinion on the fact that politicians will make political decisions regarding health care rather than intelligent business decisions.
Now, I’m going to go swim 2000m. Have a good evening.
I suppose it really depends on your experience with government. Canada has much smaller population and so our levels of gov are not as … complex as the US. Ie, city, county, state, fed, and probably 10 other levels in between.
So you’re right that it comes down to who you think can manage the monstrous system better. A corrupt/ever changing government or many corrupt profit driven corporations. I can bitch for hours about the gov run system and the transfer payments and whether a private company can provide the service under contract to the gov, the overuse of the ER, etc, but in terms of cost and the fact that we don’t have people declaring bankruptcy cause they broke their leg means I really think the public model is the better model, in general. There’s tons of variables in how it gets implemented though.
The gov should control/admin things that every citizen needs to pay a share of. Law enforcement. Roads. Can you imagine if a different company with a different billing model owned every few 100 feet of road? Bridges and toll roads are bad enough but at some point we said “that would be nuts, let’s pool our money and everyone pay a share, and a central agency run it.” If you’re against public healthcare why are you not equally against public law enforcement? Pay your fees or you don’t get police service. Same with fire - and how about military? How would that ever get funded if there wasn’t a central body dictating how it gets done?
I just want to repeat the percentages again. You spend 17% of GNP on healthcare. If you could get down to 11% you would basically get your entire defence budget for free. That’s how bad it is.
I too am off to swim 2000m. Have a good night.
“No! Health care is only a portion of the equation. Look at the waist line of the average american compared with those other countries. There are a lot of factors that have nothing what so ever to do with our quality of health care”
Part of health care is cultural education and awareness of things like healthy diet and fitness. Part of health care is early detection of risky habits and treatment or guidance toward a healthier living style. If your argument is that our health system is tons better, but we’re just too stupid to live healthy, and you’re ok with that, then I guess that’s your perogative.
“Is that really all you have?”
All I have for what? I wasn’t really making an argument. I was simply stating an observation. Take it or leave it; doesn’t matter to me.