Calling All Non-Americans!! Would You Trade Health Care Systems With Us?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'll trade with you Bono... you can have our system and fund the world's drug research and we'll have cheaper, universal, rationed care.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The problem in countries with socialized medicine is not a quality of care problem, but a funding problem.

If you paid the exorbitant prices in taxes that we pay in insurance premiums, you'd have care just like ours.

The problem is that the government wants to lower the cost for everybody, so quality takes a hit.

This is why I've said the government should insure children, the elderly, the poor, and the disabled.  Private insurers can cover healthy, working adults.

And there is nothing wrong with a supplemental insurance industry rising up for people who want to pay extra to receive more timely care.  I just want everybody covered and I want doctors and patients deciding on treatment, not insurance companies.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Our healthcare is clearly far superior. 

lol

If money is not an issue for you, our healthcare is far superior.  Our research hospitals are the best in the world... and of course we have the world famous Mayo Clinic.

It is a joke that the only time Minnesotans see celebrities is when they get their lives saved at the Mayo Clinic.

But I believe we can find a system that covers everybody while maintaining efficiency and quality.
I just tend to think that the European/Canadian style is better than our current system.  Neither are the best option, though.

[Ban my account ffs!]

But I certainly hope time machines are invented one day, so that those who think the 1800's were the good old days are welcome to go back to them.

To say that government policy in the 1800s was, in some respects, superior to what has replaced it, is a far cry from calling the 1800s the "good old days."

I have no idea what the rest of your post has to do with anything.

How were they superior?  Can you come up with broad examples of how society was better off in the 19th century than it is today?

To revert back to a 19th century style government policy would be disastrous. 

You might think things like Social Security would be better off not existing because you have the means to save for your own retirement... but there are millions of American seniors that never had enough to save.  What about them?

You economic conservatives never seem to answer the hard questions, instead dancing around them with economic theories that have never been put into practice and have no real proof of viability.

You know people would die.  People can't take care of their parents like they did back then.  Why?  Because today, everybody's parents live to old age... and rather than having 8 kids to look after them, they have 1 or 2.  Explain to me how an only child is supposed to care for 2 elderly people who never had enough means to fund their retirement?

[Ban my account ffs!]

To say that government policy in the 1800s was, in some respects, superior to what has replaced it, is a far cry from calling the 1800s the "good old days."

I have no idea what the rest of your post has to do with anything.

How were they superior?  Can you come up with broad examples of how society was better off in the 19th century than it is today?

It was, or at least appeared to be, better for the rich.  Therefore Philip prefers it.  We must remember, however, that Philip and his ilk do not in fact have any understanding of how society works, and labour under a willful refusal to look at the brutality of the world in which they actually live.  They are deludeds.

I'm starting to agree with you.  It's not a personal insult to Philip.  He's a very intelligent person, but I think his economic ideas are deluded because while they might function in a vacuum, he failes to add the human element into the picture.

[Ban my account ffs!]

But for cutting-edge technology, specialists, and immediate service ours is superior.

...if you have the money (and certain other things). And if you don't? Ordinary people can have rare-and-serious illlnesses as well...

I didn't say it was cheap or that it was universal. My point was that, in the US's system, we should strive to keep the good aspects of our care while simultaneously providing universal coverage (however one may go about it).

I think everybody is for that.  I believe the best way is to provide insurance to the poor, young, old, and uninsurable while letting private insurance cover the healthy, working adults.

If people feel the need to purchase supplemental insurance to cover bills in a case where they need expensive, high quality care, then they should be free to do so.

There should also be a catastrophic coverage claus where insurance companies and the government pick up the tab in extraordinary cases where people rack up huge bills to have their lives saved (like an accident or major, unexpected complications brought on by other medical problems)

The government could have a program where they provide a guaranteed loan to someone with huge medical bills that insurance won't cover.  The payments should be affordable, the interest rate low, and once the person has paid for a certain period of time (payments tied to income), the rest is forgiven and eaten by the government.