US v European Healthcare

[brisbane buddy]

No, I'm not denying it, I'm genuinely interested to see what the results would be.

There's a line of debate over here that says a pure capitalist society actually inhibits rather than promotes innovation, and I was wondering if statistics (on this topic at least) would back that up - I'm not sure what side of that particular debate I come down on, and it's not entirely relevant to the OP in this case. Might make another interesting thread at some point.

Also off-topic, this is the only forum I've visited where capitalisation isn't considered shouting, by the way.

The statistics you are looking for really aren't compiled, nobody is seriously looking at abolishing capitalism, well not yet anyway. These statistics though can be verified, just look at how many students each year apply for scholarships and how many actually achieve them or those that miss out on Uni berth because there are no chairs available for them. The info can be gained from any University or bureau of statistics, of how many research grants are offered and how many apply for them. Both these factors take experience and potential out of the system which inhibit and limit human development and technology.

The end result is, society as a whole is left with a lesser Health and Education system.

Cheers.

[Cruella]

I wasn't talking about abolishing capitalism - nor was I interested in numbers of students applying for grants.

[Nono]

No attempt to "abolish" capitalism has ever succeeded.

What has succeeded, and very well, is strict regulation of capitalism and measures to ensure that nobody falls beneath an agreed minimum.

To get back to health care, if you view it as a fundamental right (like being able to call the fire deparment if you have a fire) then you view it as something society can't function properly without.

And the US is in big trouble health-care-wise. Apart from anything else, all that unmet demand (triple bypasses not getting done because they're too expensive, whatever) constitutes a huge market inefficiency.

[barts]

If it wasn't for the CHARITY and MORALITY of capitalist nations, every socialist inspired nation would have long ago died off and fell off the planet.

This assertion seems absurd on the face of it. You'll need to stipulate what you mean by "socialist inspired". Some--including me--would argue that countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany, Canada, etc. are "socially inspired" and none of them have availed themselves of "the CHARITY and MORALITY of capitalist nations".

So, please be specific about what you mean by "socialist inspired", which countries you are speaking about, and which capitalist nations extended "CHARITY and MORALITY" to them. And lastly what do you mean by "MORALITY".

[Osborn F Enready]

Aussie said:
I would have thought a Christian nation would be looking after all it's flock including keeping them healthy, no?

We are not a Christian Nation..... and I say that as a resentful agnostic.

From the Treaty Of Tripoli:

US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Brisbane said:
Like capitalism doesn't have people who don't want a free ride?

Who on earth said that? Every nation has them.... most famillies have them.

[Osborn F Enready]

Barts, Nono, Laura.....

Do you find it odd that your national governments act as capitalists, but refuse to allow your citizens to do the same? If not, why not?

What is economic equality of rights in your view?
Where does your view conflict with reality? (likely the labor vs income discrepancy)

Laura, no, you haven't won anything.... I simply have a limited amount of time to spend here.... if you "feel" that makes you a winner, keep on with the state of denial that has allowed you to get this far.

[Cruella]

Osborn, please stick to the OP, it's about US vs European healthcare systems. Thanks.

[Laurahill]

Do you find it odd that your national governments act as capitalists, but refuse to allow your citizens to do the same? If not, why not?

What is economic equality of rights in your view?
Where does your view conflict with reality? (likely the labor vs income discrepancy)

How is our "capitalist" government that different from governments in Europe. Other nations still elect leaders who run the country. Were not talking about turning American into the great soviet empire, this is a simple healthcare thread.

You are of course entitled to your desire for a world where everyone is simply responsible for his/her own life. But you should be aware that in a democracy the majority opinion that clearly disagrees with you has the power.

The US should NOT have to base its principles on the opinions of a select minority. The election of a pro-universal healthcare president and the sheer numbers of uninsured citizens in this country will result in some type of reform.

Laura, no, you haven't won anything.... I simply have a limited amount of time to spend here.... if you "feel" that makes you a winner, keep on with the state of denial that has allowed you to get this far.

Thank you for the clarification. Unable to come up with anything else to debate you've fallen to simple accusations and ego inflating excuses.

That kind or answer is akin to the Christian response: "well your going to hell so there...."

[Nono]

Were not talking about turning American into the great soviet empire, this is a simple healthcare thread.

Yes. Old-age pensions, unemployment insurance and a lot of other things people take for granted were once said to be "unworkable" and the thin edge of the Communist wedge. Once Americans have universal health care, they'll wonder how they ever got by without it.

[Century 25]

Because there is no such thing as a "right" to receive healthcare, there is a right to be able to ATTAIN healthcare, which is an individuals responsibility to provide the means to do so.

You can't have a right that is dependent on the labor of others, as those "others" have equal rights as you.

Healthcare workers have a right to charge for their labor as they see fit, just like any other service provider. Government "nationalization" of healthcare usurps that right, which is unconstitutional.

Before you say something silly like "how can you have a right to own arms then"?

We have a right to OWN arms, assuming we can provide them, make them or aquire them by legal means.

People in the U.S. have a RIGHT to ATTAIN by legal means, healthcare, which is THEIR INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. It is not the role of the government to provide that healthcare, provide funding for that healthcare, provide credit for that healthcare or do any other thing regarding healthcare other than to assure THOSE WHO ATTAIN IT LEGALLY, are provided what they contractually are obligated to receive.

Healthcare, like any other service, is a SERVICE.
Nothing is free, service is dependent on labor, and labor costs money.

This is part of basic economic liberty.

You should work for FOX propaganda network. Lard ass Limbaugh & O'Hannity spew the same lines.. ad nauseaum. Their mantra is: 'Save up' for your medical future. And the young & dumb are inculcated from the get go. They think, "gee, why should my paycheck get nicked, just because some old fossil gets sick..??" Yes.. when you are 20 you feel immortal, but - wait.. your turn at fossil-hood is coming..!! And, it gets here faster than anyone ever thinks. Go visit a nursing home, talk to the wisdom sitting there in their wheelchairs

Then too, Limbaugh gets $50 million/yearly for his drivel.. he and the lawyers that spew the propaganda (Hannity, et al) are plenty well off too. They of course could and should foot their own medical bills. But, I'd bet Fox picks up the tab too.. among the other little perks they lavish on their blowhards.

Medical care is not a 'product' one bargains for like a car. Only certain things like plastic surgery for facelifts, etc, & hair implants, etc, etc.. are 'products' one buys from the 'market' - the 'specialty' doc's living in the 12,000 sq ft joints at Malibu, etc..

.

[barts]

Barts, Nono, Laura.....

Do you find it odd that your national governments act as capitalists, but refuse to allow your citizens to do the same? If not, why not?

What is economic equality of rights in your view?
Where does your view conflict with reality? (likely the labor vs income discrepancy)

Democratic governments are non-profit organizations; they do not act as capitalists. Sometimes they provide services that are needed that the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide.

I have no idea what the term "economic equality rights" means. I've not seen it in any constitution or legislation. As best as I can tell, there's no such thing.

If my view conflicted with reality, how would I know? Your question is absurd.

[Aussie]

We are not a Christian Nation..... and I say that as a resentful agnostic.

From the Treaty Of Tripoli:

US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797

Totally agree with you, but Christians (the majority with a fair influence on politics over there) would say that the US is a Christian nation. And as Christians, aren't they obliged to help the sick, poor and needy? Seems like few cherry picked selections are happening again, that's all.