So hey, it's current hot topic in Americaland, but of course it's something that matters in each and every country in this world.

Is the health of human beings too important to be a profit-lead pursuit? Or are human beings merely another resource to exploit for monetary gain?

The reason this is getting so much press in the UK is that seemingly the American right, while going out and shouting rather than trying to have an intelligent debate on a topic which surely warrants one, have been attacking the British National Health Service. Not to mention the usual drivel about healthcare being administred by the government being EVIL and COMMUNIST. Which is clearly utter pish, Canada isn't communist, Spain isn't communist, Italy isn't communist, Britain isn't communist, nor is France, or for that matter any other nation in Europe. And yet they all have nationalised healthcare.

Is the NHS a buearucratic mess? Aye. It's far from perfect, but that is down in large to mismanagement through out the years, playing politics with it and so on. I believe firmly that a homeless individual should be entitled completely to exactly the same standard of medical care as the Prime Minister. Of course the American right also ignore that the UK system HAS A PRIVATE SECTOR! So if you have the cash you can go private. Now I think that's BS myself, but if Yanks are going to ignorantly attack my country as socialist (fuck me, I wish) I will feel the need to point out that they are painfully wrong.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpo...s-his-deat.php?ref=recdc

An interesting article. Some US idiot slandered the NHS, saying that Professor Stephen Hawking would be dead if he got health care in the UK. He disagrees...

Anyway folks, opinions.

I'm not sure why governments controlling healthcare is seen as more evil than leaving it in the hands of corporations whose mandate is to continuously seek greater profit year on year. Americans think free market means everything is absolutely fair for absolutely everyone when in fact it means the exact opposite. It's all about getting the most profit from the least investment. Americans are just so used to low taxes, it's like a Ryanair flight; you get the seat, but you have to pay extra for luggage. Want an in-flight meal? Maybe a parachute? An oxygen mask? The idea that free market encourages competition and consumer choice is ridiculous when majority of your options are subsidiaries of one or two supermassive corporations.

Edited by user 14 August 2009 09:22:57(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

This is a great time to bring up the documentary Sicko which can be viewed on google video. (Look up sucko or sicko.avi.)

As with my own personal thread, this is more republican fear mongering. It was origionally implied in 1947 (I believe.) This was about the time Germany implemented it's own healthcare, and the Repubs labeled it as communist and wrong, and due to Germany's bad image, it was killed.

Another attempt was by Mrs. Clinton, and due to male superiority complex, and republican stupidity complex, that too was killed off.

What makes this even more sad is that in Brittan, a bottle of pills or meds, no matter what kind is about 10 American dollars, or something like that. In Cuba, which all Americans think where the gates of Hell are for some godforsaken reason, a medication that costs 200 in the US is only 1.50

Another fact is that we are ranked 34th overall on healthcare. France, a Socialist country, is ranked first. Canada, an this is likely only due to lack of doctors and nurses, is ranked at 32nd. The UK I believe was somewhere in the 20s. This idea that the US has the best healthcare is total bullshit.

Something needs to be done. I vote we take all republicans, wait for an island to pop up somewhere, and put them on it, with guards, electric fences, and spikey pits of death.

Hah, the worst thing is that France isn't even a socialist country. I mean France is a capitalist nation at the end of the day, and Sarkozy is anything but a commie!

But yeah, actually in Scotland they are currently doing away with prescription fees altogether by 2011!

COF COF.

Depends by which definition you are going by. The Soviet Union under perestroika was meant to be a new form of communism, much more open, with real elections but still ultimately more about what's best for all than for a minority. Of course, that fell apart because the Stalinists revolted and then there was a failed coup, and all the soviet republics broke away, etc. And of course socialism was what Marxist-Leninists called the step BEFORE communism, before the "withering away" of the state. Or socialism can refer to social democracy.

France is currently led by Nicholas Sarkozy, and he is on the right. He's pro-economic liberalism. Indeed, France since the end of the Second World War has been dominated by the figure of one man: Charles De Gaulle. So yes there are socialist elements in the French system, and France's second biggest party is the Socialist Party, but don't let that fool you into thinking France is actually socialist. France is if anything Gaullist.

Ok to get this out of the way, I am an economics major at Indiana University Bloomington (major American Research institution) so I am a hardline capitalist. Now that you know where I am going to come from I will get into my point.

Health care in the hands of the free market in theory works fine. The problem comes from HMOs, insurance companies, etc and fee for service based care. Restructuring the system in such a way to as to eliminate the problems caused by those factors and a free market health system works and like all capitalist models show works magnificently.

However, in reality that won't ever happen. Even knowing that a free market system cannot be perfect a nationalized health care system is something I can't support. There are two many factors that can't be accurately controlled or accounted for:

First of all, nationalized health care cuts the income that doctors/hospitals make. That in turn cuts corners on training. Lets say there is a new method introduced that allows for a safer surgery of some kind but the implementation costs $100,000. Under a free market system the hospital can increase fees to cover this cost, so the technology may eventually bring the hospital an extra $5000 per surgery. Under a nationalized system they are receiving only what the government will give them so it may not be worth it for them to adopt new technologies as quickly.

Secondly, a nationalized health care system assumes that the people are ok with paying for part of another person's health care. I understand that I should care for my fellow man, but I do not think it is something the government should require. For every person that legitimately needs assistance there are people who will simply game the system. Incentive based charities are the best way to help those less fortunate. By incentive based I mean those that are tax deductible or offer some similar benefit. Rather than take the rich and tell them that they will be taxed heavily because they are rich (whether they worked to earn it or not) give them better benefits in regards to charity. For instance, for every $X you donate to this health care based charity we will allow you to deduct 1.5$X in taxes this year.

Thirdly, nationalized health care may cause an increase in risk. There is empirical evidence to suggest that health insurance causes increases in risk taking behavior. One US economic study found that after seatbelts were made mandatory in automobiles accident rates increased. While correlation does not equal causality there is still some implication that a relationship between these two specific factors exists. If everyone has insurance Joe may be more likely to build that ramp for his dirt bike, Mike may decide now is the time to start street racing, and so on. Increased risk that leads to a higher need for health care will cause costs to rise which will cause taxes to rise which will cause taxpayers to become worse off.

Finally, the government, with its bureaucratic nature isn't the most well equipped to handle the health care industry. I am not claiming that the current system doesn't have its own share of bureaucratic red tape (insurance companies and hospitals make sure to give you an entire forest worth of paperwork every time you get sick) but to hand it over to the government doesn't fix that problem, it could even exacerbate it. Depending on how quickly the government responds to your claims waiting times could rise, the level of overall care could fall, or any number of other circumstances.

Given the circumstances and history of the US the taxpayers would not support an expensive health care bill so the chance that the US ends up with a low cost low care level bill is likely. In this system, as imperfect as it may be, there is at least a slight guarantee that I can expect a certain level of care based on how much I am willing to pay. While it may not help everyone equally it does make some people better off. The real way to determine which system is better is to find out if the current benefits (that is the benefits those that can afford health receive) are larger than the benefits in a nationalized system (those who have care take a step down in the level of care but that lower level of care is now provided to those who had none before). Whichever instance is higher wins, of course that cannot be determined so I go with what modern economic thought has found. The free market by and large creates the largest amounts of benefits.