If you're american and don't read this, you're harming yourself.

[Bidet to you sir]

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2009/09/why-universal-health-care-is.html

Please read that, I'll post the whole thing now, but it just plain reads better and has its sources cited in there:

There have been a lot of debates and discussions recently, both on this forum and in other venues, about the state of healthcare. Looking at the rising costs of health insurance, and at the growing numbers of the uninsured, many are calling for government intervention, and the institution of a system where care is guaranteed to all — usually described as "universal" healthcare. It's a fascinating topic — the issues involved include humanitarian, financial and ideological ones. Unfortunately, debate on the subject is characterised by a startling phenomenon: one side is right, and the other is completely wrong.

Given the importance of medicine, I feel that it would be useful to clarify this issue. I will explain clearly, and with evidence, why it is that universal healthcare of any sort would be better than the current system in every significant way. If you find yourself disagreeing with this assertion, I ask that you read on before replying, as all conceivable objections will be addressed and resolved.


Why The Current Situation Is Bad
At the moment, healthcare in America is provided mostly by private entities, who charge high fees. These fees can be attributed largely due to the difficulty and expense of the medical profession, and although they are significantly higher than those of similar nations this difference is only a small portion of healthcare costs. There then exists the health insurance industry, a loose network of corporations that charge individuals or organisations premiums and will pay for their health costs if any are incurred.

Unfortunately, this system has enormous problems. As of 2006, 44.8 million people in America do not have health insurance. Many are unable to afford it, many are denied coverage by insurers who believe that as customers they will not be economical, and others choose not to purchase it. Without health insurance, the up-front costs of health care are impossible for most people to afford. In fact, 50.35% of all bankruptcies were caused, at least in part, by medical fees. In 2001, this was 2,038,549 bankruptcies.

Furthermore, health insurance does not fully cover medical expenses. Different insurers and different plans have many exemptions, co-pays, threshholds and other expense-minimising devices. As a result, 62% of those two million bankruptcies occurred despite the debtors having health insurance coverage for the duration of their illness.

As well as failing to provide care, and driving individuals into bankruptcy, the existing system is also exorbitantly expensive. Health care spending is now 15% of U.S. GDP — the highest in the world. The costs to businesses, who commonly pay premiums for their employees in lieu of salary, rose by 13.9% in 2003. The annual cost increase has been above inflation since at least 1981. Paying more doesn't result in more value, either — obesity, diabetes, and similar disorders are more common in the United States than anywhere else in the developed world, the U.S. is ranked 72nd in overall health, and life expectancy is below that of 41 other countries.


What Is Universal Health Care?
Universal Health Care, or UHC, refers to a wide range of different systems, the common characteristic of which is that a nation's government guarantees all its citizens access to healthcare. Every developed nation (OECD member) in the world, apart from the United States, has a UHC system. There are three main types:

In a fully public system, there is no or little private healthcare, and the health insurance industry is not a significant one. Medical service providers are government employees, and the education of doctors is also subsidised. The most well known example of a fully public system is the original English NHS, although a private sector is now developing in the U.K. as well.

In an optional public, the government provides the same services, but a private health services industry also exists (generally regulated). Sometimes health insurers exist, used by people who prefer private services. This is the most common, and examples include Australia and Sweden.

In a subsidised private system, the government pays for health care, but it is provided by private entities. Either the government acts as a health insurer for the populace, or it pays the fees for private health insurers to do so. This is done in Canada.

For the purposes of discussion, I will be assuming the characteristics of an optional public system, like those used in most of Europe. However, the benefits of UHC apply to all of the above types of organisation.


How UHC Will Improve Things
The single largest problem with healthcare in America is that many people don't have it. It's obvious how UHC solves this: by providing it to all citizens directly (or paying for it to be done). By definition, this is no longer a problem under UHC. All developed nations other than the United States make this guarantee to their citizens, and have so far been able to uphold it. The two reasons which make a person uninsurable — insurer decisions and lack of money — will no longer exist.

The second major problem with the current system is its high cost. This can be divided into two parts: individual cost, and government cost — which to the individual shows up as taxation. UHC is inherently cheaper — far cheaper — due to economies of scale, the bargaining position of monopolies with regard to drugs and salaries, reduced administrative costs, and the lack of a profit motive. When it comes to individual health care costs:

According to the World Health Organisation, average American individual spending on healthcare is $3371 per year. Since this includes the uninsured and those covered by their employers, actual costs are higher. For comparison:

    Australia: $1017
    Canada: $916
    Sweden: $532
    United Kingdom: $397

The first of those is the second-highest in the world — meaning that Americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation. This would be somewhat justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again — 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations.

It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America's health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison:

    Australia: $2106
    Canada: $2338
    Sweden: $2468
    United Kingdom: $2372

American healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the OECD, with France second at $2714. In conclusion, every single UHC system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the American health care system. By implementing UHC in the U.S., things can only get better.


Frequently Raised Objections
There are many incorrect arguments against the implementation of UHC in the United States. In order to better facilitate discussion, I will explain the errors found in the most common.

"America isn't Europe!", or It Won't Work Here
The argument from American exceptionalism states that what works in Europe will not work in the U.S. It's said that this is because European nations have more people in less space, resulting in less logistical difficulties, and because European government is more competent.

Firstly, not all developed nations are European. The most obvious example that counteracts the logistical argument is Australia, where there are 20 million people in only slightly less space than America's 300 million. This does indeed affect prices, as can be seen by comparing Australia to Sweden or the U.K. — but it doesn't bring them anywhere near the levels currently experienced in America.

The argument that American government is uniquely incompetent, and cannot do things that every other nation in the world can do, is simply nonsense. Not only has America, and American government, achieved many things that other countries have not, America has so many resources and the improvement in care and cost from moving to UHC is so large that even with incredible inefficiencies it would still be a good idea.


"It is immoral to force me to pay for others' healthcare."
You are already paying for others' healthcare. Furthermore, you are paying far more than you would be under UHC. The U.S. government incurs massive costs from paying hospital fees when ER visitors have no money, and from the limited coverage that it provides, which cannot take advantage of economies of scale and which has to subsidise corporate profit.

As demonstrated above, U.S. taxes devoted to healthcare are the highest in the world. Even if you choose not to have health insurance, under the current system, you are still paying more for others' healthcare than you would be paying for theirs plus your own under UHC.


"This is socialism."
It is not socialist to recognise that there is a service the free market is inefficient at providing, and to decide it should better be provided by the government. Even the most staunch libertarian admits that there are some services in this category, such as national defence.

Secondly, it is irrelevant whether this is a "socialist" policy; it's effective. It costs less and provides better care to more people, and as a result is used literally everywhere else in the entire world. Those who want to ensure that society remains ideologically committed to market capitalism need to look for other issues, as if they cling to this one they will only end up providing evidence against their position.


"I don't want more government bureaucracy."
UHC will involve much less bureaucracy than is commonly assumed, as it can replace the existing partial systems like Medicare and also the plethora of state-specific programs. Regardless, the lives and money saved are more important than any potential expansion of the state.


"Why don't we try making the system even more private instead? That might help."
It might. However, there's no evidence to suggest it, and many reasons to presume it wouldn't. By its nature, the less publicly-supported a system, the more people will be unable to purchase health services.

The only potential gain would be reduced costs due to some sort of market mechanism, and in practice this has never occurred; every private healthcare system that has ever existed in world history has proved inefficient and been replaced by public systems, and given the demonstrable gains that have resulted the U.S. must follow.


"Doctors will be paid less."
They probably will. In nations with UHC, doctors often earn less — for example, U.S. doctors earn 30% more than Canadian doctors — but this isn't an inherent problem. It is still one of the highest-paying professions in the world, and there are many other ways of attracting skilled people to medicine — such as subsidising their education.

It is sometimes claimed that doctors paid less in a country with UHC will instead go elsewhere where they can be paid more, but once the U.S. has UHC there will not be an elsewhere to go.


"Medical research is funded by the payments of the rich in the current system, and will be reduced."
It is not true that most medical research is done in the United States. In 2000, U.S. research spending was $46 billion, but European spending was also $43 billion. And although U.S. research spending doubled in the last decade, the funding's efficacy has actually decreased.

Secondarily, if the option for private healthcare still exists — and there is no reason why it should not — there will still be people choosing to pay more for a higher quality of care, faster service, et cetera. Their profits will still be reinvested in the development of new drugs, equipment and understanding of the human body, as they still are in nations with UHC today. Even in the United States, private spending accounts for only 57% of research spending.


"With the option of private healthcare, the rich will 'opt out' and costs will go up."
This isn't necessarily true at all; although private healthcare is usually allowed in UHC nations (for good reasons), it doesn't have to decrease the taxes paid by all to support the public system!


"Other countries fix drug prices, so the US has to pay more for drugs."
This is another common misconception. U.S. healthcare does not include higher pharmaceutical spending than other countries; it's around the average or even slightly lower. From the OECD:

    Canada: 17.7%
    Germany: 15.2%
    Iceland: 13.3%
    Australia: 13.3%
    US: 12.4%
    Sweden: 12%
    Ireland: 11.6%


In Conclusion
Thank you for reading. To those who were not previously supporters of UHC, I apologise if anything seemed condescending, but there's no shame in being wrong due to not having all the facts or having been misled. If anyone has questions feel free to ask, and hopefully we can now discuss what sort of UHC system ought to be implemented or how the political will for it can be gathered, rather than being bogged down by misconceptions about its desirability.

— Gul Banana, 2008

Now, thats my opening point, we haven't actually had a proper healthcare debate on here as far as I can tell, but well, I hope the dissenters from those views have some strong counterarguments.


Oh I thought I'd throw in this old post by me, with some ammendments:

Mega Post extravaganza!!!!

Lots of health info here, and I haven't taken anything out where America is better off.

Basically more people spend money they don't have in the US on healthcare.


Basically America is fairly average across the board for waiting times, Canada is awful, especially for GP visits and emergency treatment (which is awful really), and well the UK is the worst for specialist treatment and elective treatment.


However the US and canada are the worst 2 countries for same day treatment.


More proof that you spend a ridiculous amount of money on non-universal healthcare.


The US doesn't have as many available hospital beds.


You have terrible rates of lung disease, second only to japan, and well I've been to japan, the pollution is ridiculous.


Oddly everyone seems to be fairly equal for neoplasms.


Circulatory deaths high in the US compared to others.


Diabetes is rampant in the US


Respiratory Deaths high as well.


Ridiculous wage disparity in treatment.
Canada and US suck either way, UK poor get treated faster than US rich.
Not that the rich deserve better treatment.


Death rate high in the US, oddly used to be lower than many European countries.


This, this is amazing, how can you pay so much with so little increased benefit?


Thats pretty damning.


Yeah Canada sucks. US isn't much better.

Basically what this post shows is a clear advantage (in most cases) to a universal health system.
Canada shows the problems of a universal insurance coverage, which is why, while I agree with the basic principle Obamas plan is not a great step.

What it clear shows is that while no health service is perfect, the US spends too much on healthcare that is not much better (and in a lot of cases worse) than the european equivalent.

And the ammendments:














And always remember, the US figures are for the covered, the uninsured will be the minority because many will simply not visit their doctors.





Debate away:


Edit: sorry for the edit hups.

[Adam]

I'd love to debate this with you, but quite frankly, I pretty much agree with all your points.

So my only question left for you is: what do you like better for the US, fully public health care, a public option, or something else?

[Bidet to you sir]

Probably a public option.
It'd be quite hard to adjust to fully universal care such as here.
We already had an employer funded health insurance scheme nationwide before we got the NHS.

Edit: I forgot, based on discussions I've seen on other boards (something awful) it's actually fairly easy to sway hardcore libertarian free market guys to UHC with the data from the OECD and the commonwealth fund.
I'd go with the OECD though because even though they're pretty much not, based on the commonwealth fund being a pro healthcare reform group people like to accuse the data of being skewed (hard to argue as the data clearly points out that the US is better in some cases).

EDIT EDIT: OPERATION CADUCEUS (funny if you're aware that caduceus actually is the wrong symbol for healthcare it's actually meant to be the rod of asclepius (the god of healing) while the caduceus is the rod of hermes (the messenger of the gods)) is an actual grassroots movement started by something awful goons, they want to make this as succesful as 4chans war on scientology, but well actually worthwhile, and not full of memes.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3224489



A TRIPLE EDIT!:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

a major quote in this owns, read or die:

These four models should be fairly easy for Americans to understand because we have elements of all of them in our fragmented national health care apparatus. When it comes to treating veterans, we're Britain or Cuba. For Americans over the age of 65 on Medicare, we're Canada. For working Americans who get insurance on the job, we're Germany.

For the 15 percent of the population who have no health insurance, the United States is Cambodia or Burkina Faso or rural India, with access to a doctor available if you can pay the bill out-of-pocket at the time of treatment or if you're sick enough to be admitted to the emergency ward at the public hospital.

The United States is unlike every other country because it maintains so many separate systems for separate classes of people. All the other countries have settled on one model for everybody. This is much simpler than the U.S. system; it's fairer and cheaper, too.

[VideoGameGoddess]

Unfortunately, I'm also generally agree with all that you've said here.

It was all a great read though, thanks a ton for compiling all of that. :D

[Carl Jr.]

 Wait a minute Zim... you think most Americans are harming themselves by not reading about something they already know and believe? I'd feel like I wasted fifteen minutes if I hadn't gotten factual supporting arguments out of it.

[Bidet to you sir]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124253/Say-Health-Coverage-Not-Gov-Responsibility.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123815/Half-Own-Costs-Worsening-Healthcare-Bill.aspx

Remember the bill only passed in the house of representatives by a small margin, and sure some of its down to senators being funded by insurance companies.
But would they get away with it if that ignorant half weren't ignorant of the facts?

[DarkLink]

tl;dr. Not of concern to a 15 year old who doesn't care. Well it does concern me, it's health and shit... but frankly, that's not of my personal concern at this age

[Bidet to you sir]

Yes yes it is, imagine you go to hospital, I imagine you have health insurance, your family will likely have to make a co-pay, the average is $1351 according tom this http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb////data_files/publications/st209/stat209.pdf, thats a lot of money, but oh wait lets not forget, pre-existing conditions, imagine a few years ago you had a reaaaaly bad case of acne, and this was when you were between insurance packages, maybe a lapsed payment and you were without insurance for 2 months.
And for this acne you got some cream for that, that'd be on your medical records, guess what having acne as a pre-existing condition is a way insurance companies try not to foot a bill, they do the same thing with guess what? PREGNANCY! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803501.html
so for that minor problem you now have to pay the full bill.
It does concern you, your family could easily pay out the nose for healthcare in the current system, because insurance companies will do anything to get your money.
That simply does not happen in a universal system.

[Big Tater]

That's all good and well Zim and that article makes some good points but in all honesty, I don't want the government to control what health care I get.  Flat out, I don't trust the government and I have no reason to. I'm a libertarian and I'm not going to deny that. It's not that I don't think the current system should be fixed, because it desperately needs to, and honestly I have no idea of how to fix it without universal health care.  And I'm also not saying that everyone doesn't deserve health care; I mean it's freakin America for cryin' out loud, one of the richest countries in the nation and not everyone has something as basic as health care. But this opens up a whole new argument: a lot of people don't want to help themselves, they just want the government to do it and this might just make that worse. I think that the food stamps and government housing situation should be fixed as well 'cause that goes right along with that attitude.

[Ignus]

the optional public plan universal healthcare does not put the government in charge of healthcare. you get an option to use either the private or public plans. Obviously with your political views you would choose a private plan, and that's fully possible under the proposed plan. It sounds like you're actually a supporter of the bill going through the house and senate right now.

[Big Tater]

Totally the opposite.  I don't trust Obama at all, and certainly not Congress or the House.

[Bidet to you sir]

I don't "trust" the government, I have no idea what all their interests are, and I don't know everything they know.
What I do know is that you have millions of people not just living badly but DYING because there are corporations that won't pay for services that in my country are considerred standard and free at the point of use.

Do you really trust anything like an insurance company?
If you've had acne treatment in the last 2 years some insurers won't cover you.
If you're a cop, they won't cover you.

This happens in no country with government controlled or regulated healthcare, and when they deny some drugs, it's usually for a good reason, such as it only working in 2% of cases and only longers life by 1 month or some shit.
If I had cancer, I would go into an NHS hospital and be supplied with chemo, radiotherapy and surgery until the day I either went into remission or unfortunately died, I know that, I've had 2 people in my family go through it, in your last hours they will send nurses to your home to make sure you are as comfortable as possible, and they weren't your last hours because they refused to help, it's your last hours because it didn't work out.

In your country there are millions who with cancer would become bankrupt trying to get treatment, and when they become bankrupt are guaranteed death.

The Government may not be trustworthy, but history has shown us, it's better by a long shot than what you've got.
For the simple reason, you don't have a choice with insurance they're all set up the rules, and they're not budging.

You can vote out a president or prime minister who denies you healthcare.
Try voting out your insurance provider.

[Big Tater]

I don't like my insurance provider, either.  Like I said, it's not that I don't think health care should be fixed, just not by the government.  Fortunately for me, I do have insurance, but why should I pay for the people who decided not to finish high school or get their GED to get a decent job?  You have to understand that a lot of people who rely on the government for food and housing here have an attitude like "well why should I do anything for myself when the government's just gonna do it".  Yes, I feel bad for people who are suffering because they don't have insurance, but again, what about obese people who have diabetes? That's their fault, nobody made them get obese and have diabetes. I know this sounds really cold, but I'm just fed up with that attitude. I don't know who's going to fix health care, but not Obama.

[Bidet to you sir]

ike I said, it's not that I don't think health care should be fixed, just not by the government.

There are pretty much 3 options for healthcare, public, private or charitable.

Charitable will never be able to raise enough money.
Private will always try to take your money without treating you.
A Public healthcare system has no desire for a profit margin.

but why should I pay for the people who decided not to finish high school or get their GED to get a decent job?

Yes, if thats actually how it worked, that might make sense, this is a gross oversimplification.
What you really should be asking yourself is "why should I pay for people that have most likely been born into a lifestyle whereby they live underneath the poverty line and due to a variety of reasons will never get out, because those that do usually do by luck"

Social mobility is not something that is done easily, most will never leave the class they were born in, it's not due to laziness it's society as a whole.

In fact the middle classes if they move into a social class actually go down, you also have to remember that the gap between rich and poor has increased, not decreased.

You really think thats all due to being lazy?

So the reason you should pay for them?
Because they're poor BECAUSE you're not.
Thats the fundamental basis of capitalism.

You have to understand that a lot of people who rely on the government for food and housing here have an attitude like "well why should I do anything for myself when the government's just gonna do it".

You are aware that people in public housing actually still pay rent?, it's just subsidised, as I pointed out, the poor exist, because the rich exist, not because they're lazy, once they have a house over their heads much like everyone else in the world, they work to keep that house, not get a bigger one.

I recently saw this: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3256833

While alarmist, his arguments are sound, it is fact that very few people will ever get up a social class, and that applies even to the middle classes that probably did get a good GED etc, social mobility is for most people an impossibility.
But it's even harder for the working class, they recieve the lowest levels of education they can afford little to begin with, imagine the kids in some of these families, without being the smartest kid in the world they will likely never be able to afford college, and will likely live in areas with poor public schools, so they are unlikely to even become smart enough to achieve a scholarship.

It's a vicious cycle, and the poorest will stay the poorest until the system is changed, the first step would be to allow them to live longer, seeing as the life expectancy  is 7 years lower for the poorest people in the united states, urban african americans. it's even worse in New Orleans where a Black man can be expected to live as long as a North Korean.

hat about obese people who have diabetes? That's their fault, nobody made them get obese and have diabetes.

Yet again, and I don't mean this in the specific sense, but in fact with large numbers of the poor, you made them obese and have diabetes, many of the unhealthiest foods are also the cheapest, the poor will buy these. As well as this they are less well educated due to a lack of funding for education, and last but not least, they're allowed to reach this state more readily due to less access to a healthcare professional.

On top of this, this argument is well, weird, almost all health problems are to some extent caused by the person who is afflicted with it, I have very pale skin and have large numbers of moles, my family has a history of skin cancer, I still go out in the sun, when I get skin cancer will you then say "well thats your own fault!, why should I pay for it!?"

And last but not least, A PUBLIC OPTION HAS ALL PEOPLE PAYING INTO ONE LARGE INSURANCE COMPANY RAN BY THE GOVT, IT IS EXACTLY LIKE PAYING INTO A NORMAL INSURANCE COMPANY! EXCEPT 3 DIFFERENCES, IT'S CHEAPER!(as has been shown by other countries) IT HELPS MORE PEOPLE! AND YOU WILL NEVER BE DENIED CARE FOR ANY REASON!

[Big Tater]

If public healthcare is run by the government, don't they want a profit?

Saying that you can't get out of a certain lifestyle just because you were born into it is ridiculous; didn't you see the Pursuit of Happyness? I agree, it is harder to get out of those situations, but it's still possible if one tries.  Community college is very affordable and if you do well enough in school you can get a full scholarship to a college; that's no excuse.  And I haven't caused anybody to be poor.  And in fact, my parents have money, I don't.  If I lived on my own, I'd have to live on food stamps and the like.

And yes, I know that people have to pay rent to live in government housing, but it can be as little as a dollar.  My mom teaches at an elementary school where most of the kids that go there live in government housing; but yet, you have parents that live in said government housing pulling up in their tricked out Escalades...tell me how this makes sense. This is the attitude I was talking about: "well if I don't have to pay a lot of live here, I'll just spend my extra money on a nice new car and a flat screen TV". That pisses me off because the tax payers are paying for the government housing.

[Bidet to you sir]

If public healthcare is run by the government, don't they want a profit?

Saying that you can't get out of a certain lifestyle just because you were born into it is ridiculous; didn't you see the Pursuit of Happyness? I agree, it is harder to get out of those situations, but it's still possible if one tries.  Community college is very affordable and if you do well enough in school you can get a full scholarship to a college; that's no excuse.  And I haven't caused anybody to be poor.  And in fact, my parents have money, I don't.  If I lived on my own, I'd have to live on food stamps and the like.

And yes, I know that people have to pay rent to live in government housing, but it can be as little as a dollar.  My mom teaches at an elementary school where most of the kids that go there live in government housing; but yet, you have parents that live in said government housing pulling up in their tricked out Escalades...tell me how this makes sense. This is the attitude I was talking about: "well if I don't have to pay a lot of live here, I'll just spend my extra money on a nice new car and a flat screen TV". That pisses me off because the tax payers are paying for the government housing.

The Govt might be lucky and make a surplus, but they don't plan for it, thats why all govt run healthcare plans are run at a loss in fact, they make up for that loss on anything they may happen to have made a surplus on, or as most govts always have to some degree and at some point they have a defecit.

No it's not impossible social mobility is possible, but yes I did see the pursuit of happyness, and well heres the thing Gardner got lucky, he got into a program, most people will never get that chance, when he was poor and homeless he was fortunate to get a place inside a shelter, many of the poor will rarely get that chance.

I honestly would like some evidence on public housing being availiable for a dollar, because I'm not believing you on this.

Community College may be affordable but for those who are on low means on the first place they can be pressured into work early on, I know right outside an incredibly poor area in my country, our university education costs a pittance compared to the american alternative but even then the poor in my area, even those that could go to it will have family commitments to work that they can't renege on, thus the cycle continues.
You have caused people to be poor simply by your existence, all those that have more than others are the direct cause of the poverty of others, there is only so much money that can go around.
And sure you may not have money, I don't I'm a full time student who is currently outside of part time work, but my family does, so does yours, your entire background is based on the fact that you've been born into a more priveleged background.
Yes unfortunately with all welfare systems it can be open for abuse.

However healthcare doesn't work that way, as I've pointed out, you pay whatever you pay every month to the insurance companies ANYWAY, the only differences are that in a public option what you pay in helps other people as well as yourselves, you don't have to pay anything once you get treated there are no copays and the insurance itself was cheaper to begin with, and they won't look for a pre-existing condition to deny you care with.

I've lived under that system for 19 years, in those 19 years I have spent a good £10 on healthcare, once I'm earning sufficiently, me and my employer will pay a portion of my earnings towards it every month, it will still be cheaper than any american insurance company, when I walk through the door of my local doctors surgery I will be able to see him the day I have my medical complaint (much rarer in america), once I'm in the surgery I may wait slightly longer, although I'd wait less if it was an emergency, I'd be diagnosed, If I was prescribed anything it would always cost around £6 for my medicine, whether it's a pain killer or even something as expensive as an anti cancer medication, if it was administered in hospital, I would pay nothing.

If I had to get a taxi to a hospital or had to travel out of my way, when I leave hospital I may be able to get my taxi fare back.

And yet again, while in america you may spend $8000 a year on health insurance http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29355231/
In Britain the Average person spends only half that on national insurance which covers all benefits and your state pension as well as healthcare.

Even from a "I don't think lazy people should profit off my money", a Universal healthcare system will lower your premiums.

Also remember this

"It is immoral to force me to pay for others' healthcare."
You are already paying for others' healthcare. Furthermore, you are paying far more than you would be under UHC. The U.S. government incurs massive costs from paying hospital fees when ER visitors have no money, and from the limited coverage that it provides, which cannot take advantage of economies of scale and which has to subsidise corporate profit.

As demonstrated above, U.S. taxes devoted to healthcare are the highest in the world. Even if you choose not to have health insurance, under the current system, you are still paying more for others' healthcare than you would be paying for theirs plus your own under UHC.

[Big Tater]

Well, the thing is, and this may be wrong because all universal health care systems are different, if someone has to have heart surgery, don't they have to wait longer?

And yes, Gardner did get lucky a lot of times but he also was very persistent in getting where he was.  

And the rent thing just may be in my state..I'll have to do some more research though.

[Bidet to you sir]

You're part right, http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Charts/Survey/2007-International-Health-Policy-Survey----Toward-Higher-Performance-Health-Systems--Adults-Health-C/W/Waiting-Time-for-Elective-or-Nonemergency-Surgery.aspx

Most Universal healthcare systems are comparable, it is poor in the UK but compare that to 2003
(it's up on the top), those figures have consistently dropped for the British and continue to do so.

And well the average waiting time for those not admitted to hospital is 4.6 weeks now, and 8.6 for those that do, as it takes time to find a slot where a hospital bed will be free.

So the answer is pretty much no, it was the case in the UK, but not so much anymore.


Also this:http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/295/17/2037

[Big Tater]

That's one of my biggest problems with it--the waiting. someone could die while waiting to get brain surgery, even when they could pay for it before the universal plan. but then there's the argument that it isn't fair for people who can't afford it. it's a double edged sword.

[Beh]

it's a double edged sword.

Except one edge is a helluva lot sharper.