Neoconservatism vs conservatism

[Freenhult]

Interesting. Perhaps if you lived in a family where you had to pay you'd understand Kraken. "erm...i have a wife and 3 kids...    so i..uh... DO PAY."

You pay with money when you go to the doctor? Hundreds of dollars too? Or when you have to see a specialist, you pay thousands? Well..Okay then. I concede the point.

Doctors and nurses are supposed to HELP people. Christ. Hospitals are supposed to be NON-PROFIT orginizations. I don't see why it costs $5000 to use the freaking bedpan

doctors and nurses become doctors and nurses for thier own reasons. and no, no no no no, hospitals are not supposed to be Non-Profit, *laughs* and if they charge $5000 for usage of a bedpan, thier buisness.
i suggest going to a community health clinic or something, if you wish to see what a non profit place is like. *laughs*

And yeah. I guess they can be profit/non-profit. But from my understanding the ones here are non-profit. So I'm amazed that it costs a bajillion dollars just to get an MRI or anything done. I don't really think it costs $400 per hour to use an MRI machine. Point is, they shouldn't beat people to death when they are already sick. Its immoral. And I'll leave America for Hungary if I have too. Its wrong and I won't have anything to do with it.

No. The government is there to SERVICE me. Thats it. So if I want free freaking Heatlhcare, up the goddang taxes and give it to everyone. Just like they did in Massachusetts.

*laughs*, of course they are there to service you, but! if you wish to be a sheep in a government pen, its your buisness and oh, i seriously dobut the taxes you pay actually go for anything too big, so, it wouldnt be out of your pocket that your free health care comes out of. call BS all of you want, but do try and be...hmmm...intellegent about it....

What... are you afraid of the big bad government and paying taxes. Grow up man. I don't know why I bother. Your just gonna come back with some lamearse responce anyway. Like that one ^^. I want standardized Healthcare.
1. Screw insurance companies and their bogus rates
2. Lower prices. You think the government is gonna pay that much?
3. Its smart. VERY FREAKING SMART. And civilized. America is the -best- according to you. So explain why the best country is forcing people to declare bankruptcy because their treatment is too much. Might as well just die to save yourself the cost.
4. Perk. If everyone paid into it, it would cost LESS than what anyone pays now. Atleast I'd assume so.
5. You know how you offset that? Easy. Michigan tax is 6%. Hey, why not raise it to 10? So what? Expensive? Sorta. Free Healthcare? Sure. 4 more cents per dollar. Heck yes. Then a direct tax or whatever out of the paycheck. Tada. Solved. No income adjustments because your rich. Everyone pays a flat rate. Screw trying to be fancy.

whatever. Spew forth more non-sense please. I'm having fun shreading it to pieces.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Kraken, I have 3 simple questions for you. Do we have the best quality of health care in the world? Do we pay the most per capita? If you ansewered no to one or both of those questions, does that seem like a good system?

[The Beatles]

Nuke answered some things I would have answered anyway, so I'll be cheap and answer only the rest. As to his last point: what exactly is wrong with learning from others? Far more efficient, if you can manage it. Now as to your other stuff...

okay, if healthcare is a element of social justice, then answer these simple questions:
1: who decides how much money a doctor can charge?
2: Who decides who will be a doctor or nurse when they do it for thier own reasons?
3: what percentage of doctors do you think actually go into buisness because they have a common love for common man, not the almighty $$$$$
4: who is going to pay for these doctors and nurses?
5: before you answer #4, just be aware that peeps hate paying more & more taxes to crutch up the usless out there.
6: if healthcare is no longer privitized in America, then guess what..you get the crap that is going on in Europe & Canada.
7: government control of the healthcare system is NOT apart of a democratic society. I wish, like a majority of Americans, for the government to shrink, not grow.

1. Pay the doctor by the amount of work he does, not by the amount of suffering he alleviates, etc. Don't pay him by what he achieves but by what he makes. i.e. let the government decide how much he earns.
2. What's the question here? Doctors all over the world are mostly trained in public universities anyway.
3. I don't know, in America I am sure it is a high number. In countries with universal health and teaching systems, a lot higher percentage of doctors and teachers go into it out of idealism. In Hungary, they are paid badly, so almost all of them go there for idealism, certainly not for money.
4. The state, out of taxes.
5. Some peeps do. The Danish pay 50% of their income in taxes, and do you hear them complaining about it? They voted for those taxes.
6. Canada's healthcare is crap, I agree. Europe's is not. Sweden's or Denmark's or Germany's systems for instance are some of the finest in the world.
7. I just disagree with you there. Let us agree to differ on it.

I am studying in America because it is wealthy and liberal

no, you are studing in america because the schools are the best and because what you can get out of it.

I swear to you on my word that I am studying here because of your wealth. There are fine universities all over Europe, but there are many more people so they are harder to get into. Here, because of wealth and a reasonable past government investment in education and research, there are many more universities per capita. The quality actually, is far worse on average in American colleges (but about the same at the Masters and PhD level), but you can still get a decent education here. Not cheap, but you can get it.


Cheers. I think we agree on some points, witnes the number of subthreads we have dropped all over the topic.

[Kraken]

geeze, one at a time! i was just getting into a great debate with beatles when Nuke and Freen throw thier two-cents worth into it...so!
i will answer thier questions first...

Freen:

I don't really think it costs $400 per hour to use an MRI machine. Point is, they shouldn't beat people to death when they are already sick. Its immoral. And I'll leave America for Hungary if I have too. Its wrong and I won't have anything to do with it.

first off, such machines cost millions of dollars and the hospitals have to cover said costs. secondly, anyone can walk into any emergency room in america and get treatment, regardless if they have money or insurance, sure, a majority do not and dont end up paying their bills...but someone has to pay (hope i dont have to put two plus two together for you here) and as far as going to Hungary...*laughs*...go.
i hope you enjoy it. oh, and take beatles with you, im sure he knows all the great attractions to go and visit.

What... are you afraid of the big bad government and paying taxes. Grow up man. I don't know why I bother. Your just gonna come back with some lamearse responce anyway. Like that one ^^. I want standardized Healthcare.

first off, i am not afraid of the big bad government, i just do not want it so large. isnt that easy enough to understand? and i do pay taxes on everything from my property taxes to every day food consumption and gas...dont really see where your going with that one... and as for "standardized Healthcare" no, you dont want that, you want free Universal healthcare, i think that is what your aiming for..except...it wont be free to those who have to pay the brunt of it....

now, for your ridiculous count:

1. Screw insurance companies and their bogus rates

i agree, insurance companies are highway robbery. i pay too much for mine (in my opinion) but! they are a free enterprise and charge what they wish.

2. Lower prices. You think the government is gonna pay that much?

dear me...lower prices...here is an article from a SanFransicko paper (a very liberal paper) it shows how Universal healthcare has its pluses and negatives: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/14/BUGR28JFEN59.DTL or this one: http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html (do take time to read them and then make up your own mind)

Its smart. VERY FREAKING SMART. And civilized. America is the -best- according to you. So explain why the best country is forcing people to declare bankruptcy because their treatment is too much. Might as well just die to save yourself the cost.

*laughs* its smart according to who? you? but to others, its not so smart so it then becomes a matter of opinion. right? and as for dying...sure, they should. oh, owing money to hospitals and such for care doesnt hurt you credit...just thought i might throw that in there....

4. Perk. If everyone paid into it, it would cost LESS than what anyone pays now. Atleast I'd assume so.

Perk? wtf? anyway, everyone will pay into it! of course they would...that is why taxes are so Wonderful!

[/QUOTE]5. You know how you offset that? Easy. Michigan tax is 6%. Hey, why not raise it to 10? So what? Expensive? Sorta. Free Healthcare? Sure. 4 more cents per dollar. Heck yes. Then a direct tax or whatever out of the paycheck. Tada. Solved. No income adjustments because your rich. Everyone pays a flat rate. Screw trying to be fancy.

*laughs*....that is all i have to say about that...that and this: The state of Tennesse has TennCare, here: http://www.state.tn.us/tenncare/ this is where the peeps in Tennesse can get free health care should they need it. it is easy for you to sit there and say raise taxes when your income (which i have no idea if you even have one) does not rival a majority of people paying taxes out there. and as for a direct tax out of someones paycheck on Top of what they already pay! holy lord! i already live from paycheck to paycheck and eek by just barely after the taxes are taken out (the state of Tennessee does not have a State Income tax BTW) so, like i said, easy for you to say.

whatever. Spew forth more non-sense please. I'm having fun shreading it to pieces.

if you call that ripping.........

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now! for Nuke!

Do we have the best quality of health care in the world?

name one country better. oh and do make sure that it is one where people get to choose what doctor they see, choose wither or not they pay for insurance and dont have to go through miles of red tape just to see a doctor.

Do we pay the most per capita?

hmmm........you tell me.

If you ansewered no to one or both of those questions, does that seem like a good system?

i havent said that it was a good system, i mearly said that it is a democratic one. like or not, you live in a democratic society. deal with it.

big government is bad. dear god, dont you people enjoy freedom? or havent you read the Constitution? here is a copy: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
do tell me if there is any mention of intitlement to healthcare in there....


now! onto Beatles!

[Kraken]

sorry for the double post, but i feel like i am writing a book (a very silly one )

As to his last point: what exactly is wrong with learning from others? Far more efficient, if you can manage it.

sorry, but we are just simply just going to have to disagree...maybe it is because i have made many mistakes and learned from them myself and not looked to others for guidance because they were none to gleen it from. non the less! i will let you have to last word on it.

1. Pay the doctor by the amount of work he does, not by the amount of suffering he alleviates, etc. Don't pay him by what he achieves but by what he makes. i.e. let the government decide how much he earns.

tsk tsk. let the government decide. really, that is all you guys are whining about! help help government! help! well, when the government helps, you get disasterous results. doctors leave thier jobs because the pay sucks and they arent enjoying thier workloads that the government tells them to do. here: http://www.americandaily.com/article/17014 read it. from the ariticle: "Throughout Canada, the total number of procedures for which patients are waiting for surgeries in 2006 is 770,641. Many patients die while waiting to have surgeries." so on and so forth... here is another..: http://www.afcm.org/besthealthcare.html of course, these are american based reports and writings..gasp...such danger in them for one to read... i know a few people who are in the college of medicine here and they are only interested in the pay. if they had to put up with buracratic bs from the government on how much they make, vaction, benefits...and you know what, they are not a minority when it comes to the attitudes of people wanting to get into the buisness of making money and the best way to make it. accept it or not, but poor pay makes poor workers and as for the government deciding! see last post for a copy of the constitution (which i know doesnt apply to you and that you are mearly taking advantage of it and have no real appreciation for it)

3. I don't know, in America I am sure it is a high number. In countries with universal health and teaching systems, a lot higher percentage of doctors and teachers go into it out of idealism. In Hungary, they are paid badly, so almost all of them go there for idealism, certainly not for money.

indeed.

4. The state, out of taxes.

indeed. but as long as people do not want it...good luck.

5. Some peeps do. The Danish pay 50% of their income in taxes, and do you hear them complaining about it? They voted for those taxes.

well..i must say that i do not keep up with danish news...sorry...
but paying 50% in income tax will never happen in America, garrruntee it.

6. Canada's healthcare is crap, I agree. Europe's is not. Sweden's or Denmark's or Germany's systems for instance are some of the finest in the world.

your opinions, of course. they are all crap if you ask me. people fly to America to get surgery done because of the long waits because of government red tape. how do you explain that?

7. I just disagree with you there. Let us agree to differ on it.

agreed to disagree.

I swear to you on my word that I am studying here because of your wealth

fine, i believe you.

Cheers. I think we agree on some points, witnes the number of subthreads we have dropped all over the topic.

*laughs*. indeed! we are getting somewhere, it is good to debate. now! if i can get the guy who listens to john stewart as his main news source and the guy who hasnt even seen his first trauma outside of his bubble out of the way, then all will be better!

[Gen. Volkov]

Nuke, we have one of, if not the, best healthcare systems on a sheer quality basis. Do you have to pay for it? Sure, but then no where in the Constitution does it say we get free Healthcare, and furthermore, no where is it said that doctors are not allowed to charge for their services. Besides, this is not something the federal government should be involved in. If individual states want to do it, ok fine, but I'll be voting against it in my state. I don't want that sort of tax burden leveled on me and my family.

Freen, a flat tax is not smart. A flat tax is felt far more by the poor than the rich. Why the hell do you think Republicans are always promoting it? 10% of 30,000 (A reasonable lower middle class income) is 3000 dollars, 10% of 100,000 (reasonable upper middle class income) is 10,000 dollars. Lower middle class guy has 27,000 left over, upper middle class guy has 90,0000 left over. Who do you think feels the tax more?

Sweden, Denmark, and Germany do have great healthcare systems, and they get heavily taxed to create them. They got what they paid for. The point of that statement is that healthcare costs money. I don't think America is prepared to accept the kind of taxes a good free national healthcare system would require. So, I'd rather get to pick my own doctor than have the government pick. I really don't want my healthcare provided by the lowest bidder, which is what it's going to end up being. It will probably be worse than Canada.


(Just my thoughts)

[Devari]

I honestly haven't read much of this thread... But I have to nitpick on one matter.

Healthcare "as bad as Canada".

I'm afraid I really have to disagree with the use of that statement without substantive evidence to back it up. Canada hardly has the best health care system, and certainly not the best amongst countries with socialized health care systems. However, numerous studies rank Canada as having a roughly equal or better level of care as the US.

Here are a couple references:

A study that claims comparable levels for both countries:

http://www.ices.on.ca/file/Health care delivery in Canada and the United States - Are there relevant differences in health care outcomes.pdf

Following an extensive search, this systematic review found 18 relevant studies that compared health outcomes between the United States and Canada. None of these studies proved that differences in health outcomes were due solely to differences in the health care systems of these two countries. As a result, formulation of a distinct hypothesis regarding the relationship(s) between quality of care of each distinct health care system and outcomes in comparison to each other is unlikely.

Slightly better overall ranking for Canada (admittedly, slightly older data):

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/annex/en/

I believe it's 30th (Canada) vs. 37th (US) on "Overall Health System Performance" and 35th (Canada) vs. 75th (US) on "Level of Health".


Obviously, Canada has some work to do, and our system isn't that great. However, it's spreading misinformation to imply that Canada has inferior health care, overall, compared to the US. Impartial (to my mind) studies show a parity or even a slight advantage for Canada. Heck, the Canadian study is the one that says there is similar performance between the two countries, at least without a new objective metric for making such a measurement. You can certainly debate the merits of private vs. public health care in America, but please don't drag misinformation about things getting "worse than Canada". They already are (slightly) or are on parity, depending on what studies you look at.

Also, lowest bidder? Ehhh? Well, yeah, for health care services contracting, of course you're going to hire the lowest cost bidder that complies with technical requirements... I'd assume it'd be the same in the private system; especially in the private system, mind you, because it's profit-driven. But it's not like doctors and nurses are hired by price... The actually health care professionals are not the "lowest bidder" by any stretch of the imagination.

I assume you mean pick your own doctor once you're in the hospital? Huh, you can really do that in the US system? Interesting.


[edit]
Please note: I'm certainly not claiming that Canada's health care system is great. We've got a long way to go to catch up to a number of European nations. To that end, yeah, it's crap. But, worse than the US? More like on par...

And, of course, when you consider the working class? Uh, yeah, socialized health care just about always is better for them.

Produce actual ACADEMIC studies, and then we'll talk. I'm not an intellectual elitist, but I'd like to see some studies that actually follow scientific methodology before we go around claiming one country's health care is better than another's.

And, no, "studies" from the Fraser Institute or anything else from any left or right wing "think tank" doesn't really fly in my mind. Think tanks exist solely for the purpose of advocacy; this introduces biases that, to my mind, ruin the scientific process. They make for interesting editorials, but rarely examine the full picture.

You can certainly debate the merits of private vs. public health care in the US, but I don't really think you need to be bringing in what appears to be misinformation about how Canada's system stacks up to the US. I'm not really trying to get drawn into the debate here, I really just want to tackle what appears to be an overuse of the "omgs us health care > canada lolol" myth that seems to be so prominent.

Once again, I'm not denying that Canada's system is in a sorry state. Hell, it really is. I'm more pointing out that, based on some interesting benchmarks from some academic studies, the US isn't exactly doing much better.

Oh, yeah, there is an interesting wikipedia article on American vs. Canadian health care, but I'm not linking to it, since wikipedia is far more dismissable than actual studies. The citation is a bit weak in places (but strong in others), so it isn't really a good thing to bring in to the discussion.

[Gen. Volkov]

However, numerous studies rank Canada as having a roughly equal or better level of care as the US.

Ahem, those studies tend to be biased at best. Canada has a much lower doctor to patient ratio, a severe lack of advanced technologies like MRI machines, not to mention major issues with results getting back to individual doctors once the patients do get an opportunity to be examined by the machines, and don't forget year long waitlists for surgery.

US Healthcare, when looked at qualitatively, is on par or better than the Europeans. The problem with these studies is, they aren't looking at it that way.

I assume you mean pick your own doctor once you're in the hospital? Huh, you can really do that in the US system? Interesting.

Well, yes, unless it's an emergency, you can pick who you want to operate on you. I know, because when I had my wisdom teeth out, I had the option of several oral surgery specialists.

Also, lowest bidder? Ehhh? Well, yeah, for health care services contracting, of course you're going to hire the lowest cost bidder that complies with technical requirements... I'd assume it'd be the same in the private system; especially in the private system, mind you, because it's profit-driven. But it's not like doctors and nurses are hired by price... The actually health care professionals are not the "lowest bidder" by any stretch of the imagination.

Really? So the doctors who charge the government the least don't get picked by the government? Seems unusual to me, given how governments operate. What sort of contracting do you mean?

Produce actual ACADEMIC studies, and then we'll talk. I'm not an intellectual elitist, but I'd like to see some studies that actually follow scientific methodology before we go around claiming one country's health care is better than another's.

The "academic" studies you are talking about have their own faults, like I mentioned above. It's scientific methodology, but the methodology they picked for the studies is flawed. This has been pointed out by other scientists I believe.

Glad you didn't bring in the wiki link.

[Nuclear Raunch]

US is 45th in life expectancy (well below those crummy Europeans)
42nd in infant mortality (again, behind those crummy europeans)

Belgium
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  69.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  73.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  5 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  4.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  4.49 (2002)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  5.83 (2003)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  3363 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  53.0 (2005)

Denmark
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  69.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  71.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  5 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  4.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  2.93 (2002)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  10.36 (2002)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  3897 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  38.0 (2004)

France
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  69.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  75.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  5 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  4.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  3.37 (2004)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  7.24 (2004)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  3464 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  75.0 (2004)

Germany
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  70.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  74.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  5 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  4.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  3.37 (2003)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  9.72 (2003)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  3521 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  84.0 (2005)

Greece
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  69.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  73.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  5 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  4.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  4.38 (2001)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  3.86 (2000)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  1879 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  47.0 (2004)

Italy
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  71.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  75.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  4 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  4.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  4.20 (2004)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  5.44 (2003)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  2580 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  40.0 (2004)

Luxembourg
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  69.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  74.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  5 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  4.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  2.66 (2003)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  9.16 (2003)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  5904 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  63.0 (2004)

Netherlands
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  70.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  73.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  5 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  4.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  3.15 (2003)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  13.73 (2003)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  3442 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  50.0 (2003)

Norway
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  70.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  74.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  4 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  3.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  3.13 (2003)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  14.84 (2003)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  5405 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  42.0 (2005)

Portugal
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  67.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  72.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  5 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  4.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  3.42 (2003)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  4.36 (2003)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  1665 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  37.0 (2004)

Spain
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  70.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  75.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  5 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  4.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  3.30 (2003)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  7.68 (2003)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  1971 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  35.0 (2003)

Sweden
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  72.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  75.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  4 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  3.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  3.28 (2002)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  10.24 (2002)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  3532 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  52.0 (1997)

Switzerland
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  71.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  75.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  5 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  4.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  3.61 (2002)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  10.75 (2000)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  5572 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  57.0 (2004)

United Kingdom
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  69.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  72.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  6 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  5.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  2.30 (1997)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  12.12 (1997)
Laboratory health workers (density per 1 000 population)  0.34 (1997)
Health management and support workers (density per 1 000 population)  12.77 (1997)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  2900 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  39.0 (2004)

United States of America
Indicator  Value (year)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) males  67.0 (2002)
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth (years) females  71.0 (2002)
Probability of dying (per 1 000 live births) under five years of age (under-5 mortality rate)  8 (2005)
Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births)  7.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population)  2.56 (2000)
Nurses (density per 1 000 population)  9.37 (2000)
Laboratory health workers (density per 1 000 population)  2.28 (2000)
Health management and support workers (density per 1 000 population)  24.76 (2000)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)  6096 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)  33.0 (2003)

Bear in mind that we spend the most in the world by a fair margin.

[Kraken]

okay, Nuke you seem to take every advantage availible to bash your own country, so why dont you leave it then? here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html
it is obvious you ignored my response to you questions. why did you do so?
because your lack of criticle thinking?
because you get your news from a comedian and from liberal/progressive hate sources?

you have mutated my and Beatles debate somewhat, but there agian: who cares what other countries have. *laughs*. i dont. if you do, Then Go! im sure you wont be missed.


and Daisy Head, i think Popov handled your thoughts throughly.

[Nuclear Raunch]

okay, Nuke you seem to take every advantage availible to bash your own country, so why dont you leave it then? here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html
it is obvious you ignored my response to you questions. why did you do so?
because your lack of criticle thinking?
because you get your news from a comedian and from liberal/progressive hate sources?

you have mutated my and Beatles debate somewhat, but there agian: who cares what other countries have. *laughs*. i dont. if you do, Then Go! im sure you wont be missed.


and Daisy Head, i think Popov handled your thoughts throughly.

Very typical response, if someone mentions an area we can and should improve they get bashed as being America haters and are urged to move. But while it's not OK for me to mention an area of improvement (our suspect heath care) it's perfectly OK for you to mention an area for improvement (our borders) www.doublestandardsftw.com

Of course I get my news from Jon Stewart, just like I get my knowledge of Kazakhstan from Borat, I get my knowledge of Englishmen from Austin Powers, I get my knowledge of spy agencies from James Bond, I get my knowledge of gladiators from Russel Crowe, I get my knowledge of extraterrestrial life from Steven Spielberg, I get my knowledge of rodent communication from Disney, and I get my knowledge of the ocean from Captain Nemo.

name one country better. oh and do make sure that it is one where people get to choose what doctor they see, choose wither or not they pay for insurance and dont have to go through miles of red tape just to see a doctor.

I named several countries who were better.

hmmm........you tell me.

I did, we pay the most in the world by a mile.

i havent said that it was a good system, i mearly said that it is a democratic one. like or not, you live in a democratic society. deal with it.

big government is bad. dear god, dont you people enjoy freedom? or havent you read the Constitution? here is a copy: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html
do tell me if there is any mention of intitlement to healthcare in there....

First of all I find great irony in a Bush supporter complaining about a lack of freedom and linking to the Constitution, thanks!

Secondly a democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the type of healthcare available. You can have privatized health care in a communist, republic, democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, or theocracy. Likewise a social health care program can be available in any of the forementioned government types.

Actually now that I think about it a democracy may very well be the best form of government for a social health care program. It's probably the method that allows us the greatest amount of power over how our health care is run. If there's 7-8 insurance companies and each one are the same it's a matter of picking your poison, however in a democratic republic we can vote people/changes in/out. Less profitable but healthier options won't be dismissed immediately.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Here's my view on social health care in a nutshell:

Others have tried it and found that they can get better health care than we have for less than we pay. To me it's insane to not consider adopting a plan if it's a clear improvement over our current method.

Quality+affordable=good
Expensive+shoddy=bad

[The Beatles]

Thanks for your reply. Will reply too, but I just want to say: when citing statistics, leave Canada out. It has a nice system, but not even in the same league as most European UHC systems.

tsk tsk. let the government decide. really, that is all you guys are whining about! help help government! help! well, when the government helps, you get disasterous results. doctors leave thier jobs because the pay sucks and they arent enjoying thier workloads that the government tells them to do. here: http://www.americandaily.com/article/17014 read it. from the ariticle: "Throughout Canada, the total number of procedures for which patients are waiting for surgeries in 2006 is 770,641. Many patients die while waiting to have surgeries." so on and so forth... here is another..:

Let me reiterate, Canada does not have a good healthcare system! It may be better than Lebanon's (hence so many Lebanonians picking up Canadian citizenship), and it may be free, but it's hardly a shining example of universal health care.

your opinions, of course. they are all crap if you ask me. people fly to America to get surgery done because of the long waits because of government red tape. how do you explain that?

Simple explanation: they don't. About as many people fly from Sweden to America to get treated as fly from America to Sweden to get treated: a few nutjobs.

indeed. but as long as people do not want it...good luck.

QUOTE
5. Some peeps do. The Danish pay 50% of their income in taxes, and do you hear them complaining about it? They voted for those taxes.
well..i must say that i do not keep up with danish news...sorry...
but paying 50% in income tax will never happen in America, garrruntee it.

yep, so it goes. Agree to disagree on taxes as well. They vary from state to state in America anyway.

I think we're in almost perfect accord -- or agreed disagreement -- now, but I take exception to one thing yet:

big government is bad. dear god, dont you people enjoy freedom? or havent you read the Constitution? here is a copy: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html
do tell me if there is any mention of intitlement to healthcare in there....

Women's suffrage, equal rights for people of all color, voting rights for non-landowners... none of these were in the original Constitution. Some were added and today's democracy is different. Maybe in the distant future healthcare will be a part of democracy. Today, it certainly isn't, nowhere, but it is at least part of the abstract term "social justice".


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Social justice refers to conceptions of a just society, where "justice" refers to more than just the administration of laws. It is based on the idea of a society which gives individuals and groups fair treatment and a just share of the benefits of society. Different proponents of social justice have developed different interpretations of what constitutes fair treatment and a just share.

but be careful! Gay commie hippies might have written it!

[Nuclear Raunch]

As I recall slavery was written into the Constitution...

[The Beatles]

(Oh, Devari, I just noticed your post -- this topic is rather hectic. Just wanted to note that choice of doctor depends on the system. In the British and Hungarian systems both, you can choose your own doctor. That is not the case for all universal healthcare systems though, true enough.)

(And I just read a post or two of Kraken's and Nuke's. "If you don't like it then leave it" is the perfect example of a tantrum-answer. Don't you want to improve America? Of course you do. Of course I do. Of course almost all of us do.)