With all the controversy about Obamacare we have forgotten the real facts and issues. Here is a reminder of them. (links at the bottom.)
According to Harvard university studies 45 000 people die yearly in the United States because they are uninsured medically.
According to the OECD America has the third worst Years of potential life lost index in the developed world, being beaten by countries like Poland, Slovakia and New Zealand and only ahead of Mexico and Hungary.
According to the WHO the US spends 6719$ per person on health care (before Obamacare) for a life expectancy of 78 and 26 doctors per 10 000 people, Cuba spends 671$ (pretty much a tenth) per person for a life expectancy of 78 and 59 doctors per 10 000. The UK Spends 2815 for more nurses per person, more hospital beds per persona and a longer life expectancy by two years.
The system before Obamacare is just not working at all, private ownership of health care has failed an has been abandoned by basically all developed nations.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ … hs-a-year/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog … orld-obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_p … _life_lost
It's hard to explain to Americans just how horrified most Australians, Brits and Scandinavians are at the heartlessness of Americans.
When we listen to the news about Obamacare, the message we're hearing loud and clear from Americans is: "if you're poor and sick, it's your own fault, so you can just suffer - or die".
Agreed, in most developed countries it is unfathomable that you might die for lack of health care.
Yeah, I bet you're one of the ones begging Cameron to introduce American style health care to the UK!
No I'm begging for freedom and personal responsibility.
How ever good the health care in any country is, it's only as good as the recipient.
I'm perfectly free to take responsibility for the number of cigarettes that I smoke and the amount of booze that I pour down my neck.
And I didn't have to beg anybody for that freedom.
Exactly, as liberty promotes. I wouldn't suggest compelling another to pay for your bad health decisions, however.
But I've worked for around forty five years, most of them in good health, never seeing even my doctor. That's about 45 years when I've willingly been paying for the health care of others.
You know, it's a bit like driving your car, you hope that you never have to claim on your compulsory insurance but you feel more secure knowing that if you do you won't end up bankrupt.
Tell me, how much do you have in your bank account, if you were hit by a car tomorrow would you have enough to pay your medical bills? Upwards of 200 000$ sometimes.
I had a rock load fall on my arm when I was working as a miner, total cost of repair was more than 150 000$ if the company had not been forced to pay it I would have lost my home, my car, everything I had ever worked for (not to mention most of the use of my arm) in one fell swoop due to no fault of my own. This is the reality you want for your country?
It is what it is. America is really slow to change. We'll get there eventually though.
Potential life lost, when taking into consideration America's obesity and diabetic rates, shouldn't be much of a surprise. Those two factors account for a tremendous amount of deaths, and have nothing to do with healthcare.
You have to always ask if something is correlation or causation.
As mentioned in another forum we were discussing in a few minutes ago, several countries doing better on the years lost index have obesity problems just as severe, like Australia and New Zealand or the UK.
United States - 35.7%
Australia - 20%
United Kingdom - 23%
http://www.theage.com.au/national/nine- … -2tjv.html
http://www.japantoday.com/category/worl … ion-us-2nd
According to both these sources Australia is the "fattest" nation in the world, what are your sources?
Overweight is not the same thing as obese.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ … ve/obesity
look at this chart
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/ … sity-5.jpg
Our sources seem to contradict each other but it seems to be that the difference must be relatively small.
The difference isn't relatively small.
US has 15% more obese than Australia, which is a rate 75% higher than Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in … ted_States
2008 - US had 33.8%. The age says US had 25% in that year, as did your other source.
My mind reading skills are weak, I was expecting an actual reasoned response to the facts but instead I got emoticons
Everyone wants Health Care. Everyone can get Health Care.
I have no issues with Obama placing specific restrictions on Health Care Industry as such as "no one can be denied Health Care".
I have a problem with the Government getting involved with the Health Care Industry, because as in the past, the Government has proven it cannot handle it's own house, much less anything else. These people are so pathetically stupid, it's not even funny.
Secondly, in order to pay for it? It won't be paid for at all. Universal Health Care actually stays intact(providing the Supreme Court allows it to), then the U.S. will be dead as a Nation inside of 2-5 years.
It will crush the only thing holding up the Economy presently. When it does this, then you will complain that it was corruption in Government which made things and you would be partially correct, but not in the frame of mind you would think.
There's already corruption in Government before Universal Health Care and has for the longest time. So, now you want the Government to manage a Health Care System for every single citizen in the Country? Completely absurd.
The fact that people are forced to buy products from other companies, paying their ridiculous prices because we don't have a choice in the manner. As these prices continue to go upward, as with Gas, Food and other things also increasing in pricing, you want to force people to buy(using taxes?) to pay into a system a corrupt Government will operate/govern/manage?
You know, it is already absurd(Government) and you want to make it more absurd, instead of making it better.
If pretty much all the other developed nations in the world can handle it I am sure our government can too. As shown Universal health care is often much much cheaper than non universal health care, just look at the stats I posted above on the matter, the health care system in the US is ridiculously expensive. According to treasury expenditure estimates and independent economic review Obamacare would actually save money.
Then you're obviously not paying attention to the things the Government already fails at.
Yes, it's ridiculously expensive, but don't blame just Health Care Industry because it's NOT the only cause to prices.
Yeah doctors get paid less in countries with public health care, but strangely have a higher job satisfaction.
And you're still not taking other things into account. The fact that you want to turn Health Care over to government actually makes no sense, it's not doable, now or in the future.
You continue to talk about other Countries and I'm really getting tired of hearing it. Every country runs differently and NONE of them are exactly the same.
You want to solve the obesity problem? Educate them.
You want affordable Health Care in America? Educate them(citizens)
You want a better Economy? Educate them(citizens)
You want to force other people to do things they don't want to do or shouldn't have to do, then you are wrong. That's called TYRANNY!
I am not quite sure what you are referring to as tyranny but as for comparisons with other nations there is no other better method of analysis than to look at other examples and see how they turned out, sure countries are different but unless you can show a real reason why their health care should react differently than ours that argument holds no water.
You really don't have the concept down. It's a shame that you come to forum, spout off foolishness and never realize what you're talking about to begin with.
This is why I'm not fond of the willful ignorant in America. More and more people spout off claiming nothing of value, just so government can control other people's life, because specific individuals are unable to do for themselves.
The problem is you fail to properly identify your topics, it's one of the most basic rules of debate, when you say something is Tyranny define what exactly you mean, when you say you don't have a concept down explain what concept so a proper rebuttal can be made, until you learn to discourse properly the conversation will be faltering (and you have the nerve to tell others to educate themselves ).
More importantly, I have educated myself on the subject and when I presented my case I did so with facts, figures and sources all you have done is spout suggestions and baseless assumptions without presenting a shred of evidence and then claim that other people are not properly educated which is hopeless really.
Debate? Who was debating anything. I was having a simple conversation. I don't debate things I know. Never.
Apparently, you've not done enough. So, I guess this thread now becomes a pathetic subject.
This conversation was a debate in the informal sense or as the dictionary puts it, Debate: 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points (which is exactly what we did) but if you want to define it as a conversation then fine, your conversation structure was terrible.
As for not doing enough you again fail to present any evidence or demonstrate any knowledge of the topic which leads to the obvious conclusion that you have none.
Yet another person who cannot read.
I was not debating with you. You might have been attempting to debate the issue, but I wasn't participating in the debate you claim to bring forth. I was simply discussing the issue.
Again, I don't do debates. If you don't like, oh well.
Brilliant conclusion however foolish.
Government doesn't have the ability to do it. Period!
Government doesn't have the ability to handle what it does now. Period!
Government doesn't have the ability to do anything properly. Period!
If you're not going to pay attention to the HISTORY of this country and the present problems going on, then conversing(not debating) is meaningless.
@Josak and Cagsil . This section of debate seems to have become pointless, due to misunderstandings. This is what I gathered: Josak thinks Universal Healthcare should be made available for everyone. Cagsil thinks the government should not have control over healthcare. Solution: have the government make healthcare available to all, but not mandate it. I'm well aware that would be unreasonably expensive to put into place right now, but I believe that's what our reform should be headed towards.
I'm saying that physician salaries are a large reason why costs are high in America.
And I am saying that private ownerships is a large reason why their wages are so high.
If we lowered doctor salaries to match, we would have lots of doctors defaulting on student loans, and nobody would be willing to go into it anymore, as the cost of education is too high.
Which is why other countries sponsor health education.
America never has been a land where the government does things for you. America shouldn't become that kind of country.
Sadly, America has hurt itself with reckless spending, counter-intuitive regulations, and high tax rates on job creators. Now we are in a place where we can't pay our bills, 11% unemployment, and the idea to fix it is to go into more debt to give everyone healthcare.
When the doctors can't afford their bills anymore, we'll subsidize their debt. Since doctors won't get paid so much, we'll have to pay them to go to school for it. These are moves that are anti-America.
America is about opportunities, not entitlements.
On the contrary sponsorship gives opportunity more fairly, as it is most people who go into the medical profession in the US are people with parents who can afford the expense of putting them through university and a few brave souls mange to struggle through on their own terms but never through the best colleges because they can't afford them, in New Zealand (where I am currently on business) on the other hand the cost is pretty much covered and what is not is only taken off the top of your wages once you are earning 45 000 a year or more as a consequence the best students get into medicine not the ones with the richest parents.
Economically this has proven to be beneficial to the country in studies done it's shown that the investment is paid back several times over though the higher wages and consequent taxation, New Zealand now do this with all degrees and not only that but if your parents cannot afford to put you through the government will also cover accommodation and food costs as a consequence the have a more educated nation and better quality of life.
The costs are high in America for a lot of reasons and it's not Dr.'s salaries, they're always the scapegoat. Think of the Dr. salaries and then think about the salaries of the administrators and CFO's, etc. that you NEVER see or hear about, the ones behind the scenes make even more money depending on their position and duties. Doctors are always the victims of assumptions such as being overpaid or greedy. For the most part they are not and are highly trained, must undergo continual training, and many have erratic schedules and/or are on call. They often have little work/life balance. Doctor salaries are very well justified for these reasons.
Costs of medical care are high for many reasons, frequently because the vendors and medical equipment manufacturers maintain high profit margins due to little competition in their tightly regulated fields and the purchasers such as hospitals, clinics, etc. do NO negotiating for the equipment & supplies to keep their costs down. Only gov't programs such as Medicare negotiate prices down. Also, costs of caring for overweight and obese patients are very expensive and much of the US is overweight with large numbers becoming obese.
There are a lot more ways to fix America's healthcare than just mandating a public option.
Doctors are also stressed because they can be sued for $100 million if they don't order a slightly dangerous, expensive test every time someone has the sniffles.
At this point, I'm not even asking for a mandate, just an option!
It's maddening that freelancers (like myself) and entrepreneurs have to lose their insurance or pay higher premiums in order to pursue their dreams. (Startups, by the way, are statistically responsible for every single job created in the US since 1980 - and there would surely be more startups if people didn't have to risk their health as well as their money in order to found them.) It's maddening that American companies have to pay for health insurance for their employees while competing with foreign companies whose governments take on that burden (and who often have healthier employees as a result). It's maddening (and immoral) that we cheerfully shell out trillions of dollars to blow up other people's children when more than 10% of our own children have no insurance. I could go on and on.
Universal healthcare is an excellent idea. It just shouldn't be mandated by the government.
Of course i support healthcare being make available to everyone; who wouldn't? Yeah, I'm willing to pay more taxes so my fellow Americans don't die from easily curable causes that aren't their fault. Are some of you far right-ers really not willing to do that?
But mandated by the gov? How can you justify that? The private sector will provide competition, improving both the quality of the gov healthcare and healthcare in the private sector. Yes, it's expensive, but I guess freedom is. Prioritize.
There are ways to make it work, but adding trillions more to our debt isn't the answer.
America could go bankrupt the way we are going. We could turn into Italy or Greece. Our spending has GOT to change or we're going to be in much more pain than we are now.
I agree. Reform should take place slowly and carefully, keeping in mind reality and priorities. But before we start anything, we need a clear goal in mind. That's the major problem we Americans can't seem to pull together as a country. IS IT SO DAMN DIFFICULT???
I smile, but it's true.
According to Treasury and independent review Obamacare would save money, not cost money.
Most single payer systems I know of have government health care available for everyone that covers pretty much anything an average person could need, and then private insurance for those willing to pay extra for extra perks. That seems like the most reasonable system to me.
Yeah I don't know why people assume that it's meant to force you into some plan you don't want. National healthcare wouldn't obliterate private industry, it would just be there as a net for those who don't have private.
This seems fair to me, though I think it would be far better if the gov healthcare wasn't mandated, though if it was of decent quality I wouldn't think many would refuse it.
In Australia they have full public care for everyone automatically and the option of going to semi private care if you can afford it for the luxuries like single occupant rooms and such. I think that is the best system.
Is the public health care mandated? like said previously, this is the biggest problem i have with this.
Mandated? I am not sure how it meets the definition, It's just automatic, any Australian citizen or permanent resident can go to a hospital, clinic or doctor and get free health care. That is included in their taxes. The obvious problem is that if is not mandated/automatic then people who do not pay for it will have no cover which means we have to be OK with letting people die because they did not pay for insurance otherwise no one will get it and the whole system falls apart.
There is no loss of liberty just a small tax hike.
What I meant was "is worker's insurance necessarily provided solely by the gov?" I never knew that about austrailia's healthcare, very cool. Definitely what we should aim for here in the States and in the world in general, but will take time to pull that together. Semi-quoting someone from above - would happen faster if we didn't waste money killing others. just saying.
Yeah I shudder to think that we could have accomplished health care wise with the money we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know New Zealand also has the same health care system, I believe several others do too.
The problem with getting that here is the States is that we're not in a position to get there anytime soon, and I don't trust our gov to hand them my health. So we 're left with just going at reform slowly.
That's quite the condemnation of US government. Let poor people have no healthcare at all, rather than everyone have a system run by the government. Makes sense only if the government is completely incompetent (arguable) and you are not poor or otherwise disqualified from insurance (which is largely a matter of fate).
"As it turns out, Americans have a better survival rate for 13 of the
16 most common cancers. Among men, an American has nearly
a 20-percent better chance of living for five years after being
diagnosed with cancer than his European counterpart. American
women stand a 7.2-percent better chance of living for five years
after a cancer diagnosis than their European counterparts. "
"And most states force residents to buy one-size-fits-all insurance
packages that include all sorts of services that only a small slice
of the population needs. The average state imposes 38 mandates on an individual health insurance policy. In 2007, there
were 1,901 different mandates nationwide. These extraneous
mandates increase the price of basic insurance by as much as
http://www.pacificresearch.org/docLib/2 … _Myths.pdf
This is getting way too specific, it's clear that overall US health care is a disaster the WHO has affirmed this. Not to mention that our health care costs close to three times as much as the Average European health care.
Have to say, agree with Josak. specific stats don't capture America's healthcare system in general, which in comparison to the world is really quite pitiful. I don't think, no matter in details whether there are disagreements, that AMerican healthcare could do with some improvment. Just trying to find out where we should go.
Pulling together a couple of threads from above, it seems like most people who've checked in on this forum are basically in agreement about the goal. All people should have basic healthcare available to them and the government should be the one to provide that healthcare, though in the process of creating an Austrailian-esque healthcare-for-all society worker's healthcare should not be mandated by the gov. We should aim for this by prioritizing and cutting down unnecessary funding (I'm thinking wars). Disagreements or tweaks?
As it stands if you are a single white male you won't qualify for healthcare whether you need it or not. I know this to be a fact since there is a three year waiting list in my state. If some one has children under 18 they will move the single man down to the bottom of the list.
by Paul Wingert 7 years ago
My dad listens to this clown only to mock him and I happen to catch this babbling idiot tell his listeners that he would pack up and move to Costa Rica (a country that has universal health care) if the Health Care Bill passed. Well it passed (although I agree that it needs some revisions and...
by Susie Lehto 2 years ago
HEALTHCARE REFORM TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAINSince March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare. This legislation, passed by totally partisan votes in the House and Senate and signed into law by the most divisive...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 weeks ago
Do you believe that the nuisance known as Obamacare will finally be repealed? Why? Why not?I believe that the government SHOULD NOT be in private affairs such as health care. I believe that health care is the sole responsibility of the individual. If individuals want health care,...
by scoop 4 years ago
What exactly is "Obamacare" and when does the law go into effect?
by nicomp really 9 years ago
"An Ontario woman who sought treatment for a growth in her brain in the United States is now the poster girl for a campaign to prevent universal health care south of the border, telling Americans in television ads that she would have died if she had waited to be treated in...
by The Shark 2 years ago
I'm not afraid of it. But I'm not in favor of it. The government screws up a lot. You can't always trust them when it comes to money. I would like the government to stay out of it as much as possible.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|