How do you feel about the way the healthcare system is structured in your country, and how do you believe it should be set up?

This is going to (I predict) start raising a lot of voice. Socialized may seem fine, but it comes out of everyone's pocket in the form of taxes (We'd see a huge increase in taxes and as minimum wage and all sorts of wars about worker wages are always a hot topic, the average person can't afford such an increase in tax).

Privatized... is a business. No insurance? Here's a band-aid and a foot in the ass and there's the door. Insurance = yes? what 'type' of insurance?
Hospitals are interested in expanding their budgets. Very little concern towards the paitence (at the hospital admin level). It's corporation and 'who's wallet is bigger'.

So I vote "other", but I don't really know what 'other' types could come about. Full government funded hospitals? yes that could work but only if you could channel all of that wasted expenditure of tax dollars governments are known for, and towards other fields that actually would matter (like hospitals and schools).

I certainly hope it does! I'm keeping quiet on my position for now, as I wish to see what others say and I still have some research to do.

Social Healthcare is another pointless commie organisation. Why should I pay for someone else to go to the hospital? And you know that lots of people will go just to get some drugs. I don't feel that it's right for me to give money to some druggie. I'll just pay for my own well being. Sure insurance companies may be corrupt, but they're still better than having this country become more socialised than it already is.

Exactly! And what's up with all this school nonsense?

I mean, you'd have to be an absolute moron to not have figured out by now that a lot of kids only go to school in order to learn how to make drugs. Screw government-funded schools; I'm not going to give all my money away to help some prepubescent drug addict learn how to cook meth. If my children want to learn to read or something, they can just work for it on their own, in the only manner that's right and fair, by mining for coal or selling themselves off to a pedophile or something. The only thing public schools can really teach children is how to be social parasites.

I think that attitude is the sickest, most diseased outlook and a prime example of of the destructive nature of selfishness.

Having said that, I can't help but agree. Sure, I believe it's morally twisted, but that doesn't affect the factual evidence from which these conclusions are drawn. The abuse of medication has become all too widespread (see the unfortunate Heath Ledger, may he rest evermore) and I'd hate to see my cash go towards funding a habit. Also, I drink. I drink a lot. Would you want to pay for me to have something as pricey as a liver transplant- even though I know my drinking could result in bodily harm?

Private healthcare, of course, excludes much of the poor, but we already do that in most other areas concerning capitalist America, where dollar decides self-worth. So screw em, unfortunately. I'd rather make a pragmatic choice than an ethical yet, ill-considered one.

To the above poster - your idea is pure genius. With luck the poor will all catch some horrendous epidemic which will wipe them all out (including of course the majority of health care workers who are on very low incomes). So as the hospitals will then be unable to operate (no pun intended) all the selfish idiots who think diseases can't spread to them will be wiped out too. That will give me a really good belly laugh.

As one who has been obliged to use a hospital I am pleased we have both private and public hospitals that both are of reasonable standard in the UK.

I think this current health care crisis debate has been framed wrong by the media. Why there appears to be a crisis in health care has nothing to do with the system of health care used, but rather it is a symptom of the shrinking middle class and deunionization of America. If the US did not enter every concessionary "free" trade agreement around, we would not even be having the debate since the only jobs that would not have health care as a fringe benefit would be crap jobs (in theory, people in these jobs either deserve them or are not using them as a career/long term job) and jobs provided by small businesses because of pooling agreements. Obviously, there need to be regulations to deal with externalities, but over regulation can be just as bad as not enough regulation; not all regulation is bad, only bad regulation is bad. Another thing that makes the health care issue a symptom is illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are required to have emergency treatment because of a Supreme Court decision involving Prop 187; this itself is not a bad thing, but it does put a strain on the system since illegal immigrants have jobs which have injury risks. I do not want to start an immigration debate here, but my point is that before anything is done with health care, immigration needs to be fixed.

Next issue, "Why is the health care debate such a hot button issue?" This can be answered very simply, demand for personal health is inelastic. It takes economic understanding to why the issue is so hotly debated, so IMO, it needs to be debated as an economic issue rather than a social issue.

To answer the poll, I would say "privatized," since small government is my political philosophy. However, I am neutral on government being an insurer of last resort if the program equalizes itself out.

Have you gone mad!?! What are saying, that Canada's health care system is communist!?! Don't start me up you self-centred, ignorant pr**k - I resent the fact that you'd much rather have someone pay you for giving them medical attention, and if they don' have the $$$, it's "Sorry! Too bad, so sad!"

This is the one thing that WILL make me turn against you, no matter who, or what, or where, I WILL attack you. I resent capitalism, especially when it's applied to the health care system. By what you're saying, you'd much rather let some person, who for example may be in dire need of a organ transplant, die, than to say, "Yes, I will help you"

It is absurd to me why one such as yourself, would make such an arrogant, selfish opinion, when everyone does deserve health care, even the poorest of people deserve to be seen by a doctor if they have a cold.

What you wrote so far most closely represents my thoughts on the subject (voted other as well).

In the 50-60’s middle class people would go to the doctor, look at the bill, reach in their wallet & pay it.
Then in the 70’s the middle class started getting jobs with medical benefits, they thought this was the greatest thing since sliced bread & while some may have said something about how the cost has gone up most didn’t because they were no longer opening up their own wallets to pay.

The popularity of medical benefits grew & because of this doctors now have to have employees just to handle the required forms & paperwork. My wife use to work at a doctor’s office & it was half the staff for non-patent care (insurance & paperwork).
This legitimately drives the doctor’s cost up & then the added cost of malpractice insurance is another whammy.

What can be done about it now? There is no easy answer; we can kick ourselves for letting it get like this (by not scrutinizing our bills) but it needs to be fixed & soon.
First when you get your bill, read the thing, does it make since to you? Are they charging you $20.00 for an aspirin?

Second as much as I hate regulation for the near future at least we could introduce regulated pricing (I know another government agency) restrict the amount a company can mark up a drug, we all know the U.S. pays more than a lot of other countries for the same medicine (yes, I know this may stifle R&D).

Can we afford to cover people here illegally (I’m in no way talking about children) when we can’t even afford to pay for our own?
If you can find a way, I say lets do it, but our country is going bankrupt.
They must be documented & start paying.

Wow, calm down. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I value you as a friend, but that doesn't mean we have to agree on everything.

I'm going to say privatized. Why the hell should I waste my money on some thief expecting to get it? I bet he wants to drug himself on purpose, and there's NO way he ain't getting my money. He's the one who got himself in that mess. Nobody else.

Socialized healthcare would not always suit best. Because some druggies are asking for it, they did it to themselves. Waste of money.

Yes I know ninja, but this issue is much to personal to me, so I will let this one go, as I don't want to cause any friction between anyone, alright? Good

KTHNXBAI!

Wow. This topic has been totally inconclusive so far. I mean, we literally have a three way tie in the poll (As of this post, anyways). Very interesting... Would someone who voted "Socialized" (except for Rob, no pressure, my friend) like to explain their reasoning?

Religious reasons. Please do not debate me on this. If anyone replies to this message, they will be reported.

Humanitarian reasons. The percentage of people that abuse a public health service is minimal.

People do not only find times financially hard because of their own actions. Those who think they do need their heads examined.

I'd rather subsidise a few cheats among the hundreds of genuine cases than deliberately contibute to the unnecessary suffering of others because I'm too selfish to part with the cash.

I chose "other." I certainly believe that privitized is better, but it's come down to being purely a business to keep things in the black for the shareholders dividends. So, we end up with higher premiums and CEO's who get $50 million dollar severences. It ain't right, and it does need to be reformed, but socialism isn't the way to go - that will just create new problems with big business trying to get it's share of the pie somehow.

The real issue comes down to corporate lobbyists that are telling our representatives it has to be this way, and the people simply aren't able to do a damn thing to counter it. We all have lives that don't revolve around waiting in the halls of congress or state legislatures to testify. The representative system itself has been perverted, the current state of the healthcare system is simply a manifestation of the disease.

You obviously don't know much about the US. Brittan is different than America, as America is the number country for drug consumption. Every American town has druggies, especially the suburbs. In fact, there's an area of Philadelphia (I forget which neighborhood) where there are actually 'drive through' heroin dealers. People can just pull up to a corner, pay the money, grab the dope, and drive off.

I do believe what you say to a certain degree, but regardless of the fact USA has so many drug users their numbers diminish when compared to the number of poorer people that aren't able to pay for the full or even partial medical care. It's cold, rock-hard statistics. Of course the poor:junkie ratio for GB is a few times greater then in USA but it is still sufficiently large in USA to be something that can influence the need for social healthcare.

Besides, for rich people it's nothing to pay a few dozen bucks, while for the poor it's a matter of life and death, or having lunch this week. The only real reason any one of you can allow themselves to be against social healthcare is the fact you can pay for it yourself. If you couldn't it'd be a different story, wouldn't it?

As with all things, a nice little mixture of both would be ideal, so I choose "other".

I agree, the best form of healthcare would be a bit of both. I found this article while browsing blogs and such. I would encourage you to read it as it is quite thought provoking. I am still thinking about it, myself, so please do not attack me. Yet.


I would also like to point out that this article only really deals with Canada's healthcare system, and I have no idea what other's are like.

I don't know what the different percentage rates are between the UK and the US but what percentage of the US population are 'druggies'? How does that compare with the percentage that cannot afford regular private health care who are not druggies? I'm happy to reconsider my views if I find a huge percentage of public health care in the US would be spent on drug cases but I need some reasonable proof. ATM it seems like a gut reaction. The wording of posts from several US posters gives the impression that public health care is spent 100% on drug users and I find that impossible to believe. Are you sure you aren't succumbing to media pressure?

There are other things to consider too. What exactly is the US health budget used for 'druggies' spent on? What in any case is a drug - do you include alcohol and cigarettes? How about computer games or sex?

I don't wear rose coloured specs suggesting abuse does not exist. I just feel it is being exaggerated. But, as I said, I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if the facts support it.

I'm poor. My family isn't in poverty, but we're still poor. We're just barely in middle class.



I don't watch the news, they're all rotten lairs. They say drug use has gone down since the 'War on Drugs' has started, but, in fact, drug use has gone up by about 30%. So, if anything, people who say drug use isn't a big deal are the ones controlled by the media.

You and I have quite different definitions of poor. The poor I'm talking about is poor that cannot in any way afford a Quad-Core Processor and the poor that cannot pay their medical bills. You fall at both presumptions, therefore you are not poor by my standards.

Even if drug use went up 100% it would still be an order of magnitude or a little more under the number of the poor. It is impossible to have more than a certain percentage of junkies because they'd literally be loitering and littering the streets. It is, of course, a big deal. But the number of poor people not provided with medical aid is a bigger deal. It's a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. Druggies would still use drugs just like they do anyway, but fair poor folk would be relieved of the fear of ever being injured or sick as it would cost their family years of recuperating.

Did you, perhaps, think for more than two seconds? This computer was a Christmas gift that my parents, grandparents, aunt, and uncle all saved up for months to get. Even still, we're not done paying it off yet. The poor limit is 25K a year, and my parents make about 32K a year. That's pretty close to poor.

Others good for me to.

NewtC

@ninja: I believe you are poor to a certain degree if you say so, but since you *can* pay your medical bills you are not the poor I'm reffering to. I don't want to debate you over this because we are both right and there's really nothing to debate. Please take my apologies for calling you unpoor. America simply has different standards for poor than where I come from.

Albertan politician Ralph Klein once proposed a system were the rich people could pay money to at the front of the line when it comes to waiting rooms. What do you have to say to that?

No, you got it right Xeniorn. 32K a year is quite well to do in this country. Ninja your my friend, your are very intelligent and very mature, so I am sorry to tell you that you do not know what you are talking about. At the ripe old age of 16 you have had everything handed to you and know absolutely nothing about having to pay your way in this world. I have been on my own since I was a year older than you and there have been years that I earned less than 5k and was homeless most of the time. That is poor my friend. I currently earn around 22k a year and I support a 15 month old and a stay at home mom. We live comfortably and want for very little. Of course neither I nor my wife abuse drugs or alcohol so our bills are paid (including health insurance for all of us), the fridge is fully stocked and i can afford to run out and fulfill most of my wifes whims. We are by no means poor and unless your parents squander all their money on drugs and alcohol then neither are you. Hell, your more well to do than I am especially since you ain't gotta do sh** to enjoy the comforts of life and by comforts of life I mean food, clothing, shelter, heath care and a wide array of entertainment outlets. You only think your poor because you have never seen it any worse than it is right now, but I'm here to tell you from first hand experience that you don't know the meaning of the word.


As far as health care in America is concerned, yeah it leaves a lot to be desired but in many ways it is no different than socialized health care and that is because of the laws in place. It is federally mandated that no privately funded health organazation may refuse emergency medical attention to anyone for any reason under penalty of medical license revocation. So you see we don't just let the poor die by the thousands in this country. Any child under the age of 18 receives free medical care if applied for. Well, as the parent you must make less than 18,700$ a year to be eligible for that program and all that money for child and emergency health care comes from taxes, just like socialized heath care. The difference is, here in America you will not be able to get your teeth straightened on tax payer dollars and if you are a healthy adult without health insurance then you just haven't been pulling your own weight and whatever happens to you is more than likely your own doing so i haven't got ant sympathy for ya, sorry. If I can take care of myself and my family and pay taxes then so can you. So if your to damn lazy to work for a living or just don't have the need to then I'm afraid as far as this matter is concerned your opinion don't mean sh**.

First paragraph final conclusion : Fact
Second paragraph final conclusion : Opinion

I voted for other because both systems are flawed but you make do with what you got. Life is not a picnic it's more like camping trip, if you wanna be comfortable you gotta work for it.

Point taken, but I'm 17.46 years old.

I can't complain; it's free. I will put up with over crowded emergency rooms.