Which country has the best Health Care System?

[John Dibble]

To the original question - 'best' is relative. My best and your best could easily be different. In terms of quality and advancement, the U.S. is the best. In terms of availability and affordability to the public, the U.S. is likely not the best.

However, I think this needs to be said - other countries around the world, socialist or not in their healthcare systems, rely on the U.S. for much of their medical advancements. Socialist countries do sometimes advance their medicine, but there is little motivation compared to the motivation of profit that is present in the U.S. system. We have quite a number of private companies working constantly to advance medicine - are they altruistic? Probably not, but they want to get the job done so they can make money. These companies also want to sell their products in other markets, so they sell to other countries, socialist or not. Unfortunately for the socialist countries, their systems sometime set price caps too low, so they don't end up getting these new products until they become cheaper(generic) which can end up costing lives.

[John Dibble]

The standards for poverty in the United States are much lower than in Europe. The average American in poverty has a higher standard of living than the average European.

Depends what standard of living is defined as, and what an average European is defined as.

A study I saw showed that 85% of Americans in poverty had a vehicle, 50% had more than one. 96% of Americans in poverty had a TV. Over 50% had computers with internet service!

I was shocked.

This goes to show why I have said that capitalism is the best way to help the poor. Unlike more socialist systems, it doesn't help immediately, instead it is a long term way of helping with short term detriments. Advancement in technology, which is more often brought about by capitalist self-interest than by altruism(though it does happen), usually makes old technology cheaper or good more cheaply produced, both of which will benefit the poor by decreasing the prices of goods. They may not be able to afford the latest and best goods, but goods formerly out of their reach will be attainable(One unmentioned problem with the U.S. system is that everybody demands the latest, doctors usually will not recommend older, and now cheaper, but still effective methods of treatment to those who can't afford the latest. If they would the poor in the U.S. would have better healthcare available).

"The capitalist engine is first and last an engine of mass production which unavoidably means also production for the masses. . . . The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls for steadily decreasing amounts of effort." - Joseph Schumpeter

Consumer goods are not and never have been an accurate way of meausing either poverty or standards of living.

What do you think food, housing, and medicine are? Consumer goods of course.

[John Dibble]

Food, housing and medicine are human rights IMO.

A right is something you always have. So if someone refuses to work - not can't work, just flat out refuses to do so - does he still have the right to food, housing, and medicine? If we had a right to such things, they would just pop out of thin air.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poverty is relative. But that's not my point. There will always be poverty - some people will always be better off, and those on the lower scale of the not better off will be considered in poverty. My point is that those in poverty now are much better off than those who were in poverty decades/centuries ago - their lives are much, much easier than those who were considered poor in the past.

[John Dibble]

A right is something you always have. So if someone refuses to work - not can't work, just flat out refuses to do so - does he still have the right to food, housing, and medicine? If we had a right to such things, they would just pop out of thin air.

You say you have a right to own a gun. What's the difference?

I have the right to own a gun, not the right to a gun. If I wish to have a gun, I must earn money to purchase it. I do not have an automatic right to have it without doing something for it. Once I have earned it, it is my property and I have the right to keep it. The same goes for food, housing, medicine, or any other good - I have the right to keep it once I have payed for it, as it is my property(with the exclusion of goods that violate or are used to violate the rights of others, such as a slave, which violates the rights of the enslaved individual, or a gun used to commit murder, which used in such a way violates the rights of the murdered). Basically I have a right to what I legally earn, not a right to anything I need or want just because I need or want it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes... but poverty in the U.S was at it's very worst during the late 19th Century. There have been some great leaps forward in the 20th century in most industrialised countries.
[/quote]

Poverty fluctuates, for sure, with the economy and other factors. Of course, do consider that the late 19th century was after the Civil War, during reconstruction, and blacks had yet trouble establishing themselves economically(they still need to in many ways) which resulted in higher poverty.

[John Dibble]

It might be Japan.
Life expectancy of 81.3 years.
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=18

I've argued this before, but life expectancy doesn't necessarily have much to do with health care(it's a factor, but there are much bigger factors). This single biggest factor is quality of life - do you get enough food, exercise, sleep, and not too much stress, things like that. The best way to live long is to not get sick in the first place, and the above help with that greatly. The Japanese are a very healthy people - their diet consists of lots of rice and seafood(fish is good for the brain, has lots of omega-3 fatty acids), they get decent amounts of exercise(for one thing, you are more likely to own a bike, it's too crowded to always use a car in the city), and various other things they do. Americans on the other hand are more likely to be obese, have higher levels of stress(longer work hours), and many other factors. Genetics can also play a factor in lifespan. Getting sick will generally knock off some of your potential lifespan, even if you get good treament, so living in a way that ensures you do not get sick often is the best way to increase lifespan.