Welfare in the US

[LastVoter]

Actually, it is because it creates a culture of dependance on government, and rich or poor, Americans do not like government interference.

That is different than most European democracies.  In the UK, government is thought to be responsible for the people.  In the US, government is thought to be responsible to the people.

What is one of the objections to people receiving welfare?  "You want to get all in my business," "I have to show you everything," or things along that line.

Conversely, in PA, if you want to run for local, county, or state office, you were required to file a public financial statement.  You had to, in the 1990's, show any gift from a non family member of greater than $500, any source of income of more than $500 (I think that excluded interest).  You didn't have to show the amount.  I've known people that have refused to run for office because they didn't want to include that.

It''s pretty obvious that most people are irresponsible as . Hence why European systems work better.
@ Wonkish: Expensive cancer treatment is synonymous with death. It doesn't matter if the treatment that will extend your life by 3 months for $1 million is available. A UHC system in US would make it available because it's such a rare case that only 1% of population would need those expensive treatments, that it's better to make them available than face the public outcry at "death panels" and other bullsh**t like that. For example government agencies(like EPA) do improvements if it's going to come out cheaper than $4 million/life. I can't believe this point is even being argued.

[LastVoter]

@ Wonkish: Expensive cancer treatment is synonymous with death. It doesn't matter if the treatment that will extend your life by 3 months for $1 million is available. A UHC system in US would make it available because it's such a rare case that only 1% of population would need those expensive treatments, that it's better to make them available than face the public outcry at "death panels" and other bullsh**t like that. For example government agencies(like EPA) do improvements if it's going to come out cheaper than $4 million/life. I can't believe this point is even being argued.

You sure about that? You think that there have been no people that have had cancer and had it disappear? Also apparently you don't know what remission is?

You think cancer is rare?

So do you really think that our system just takes a lot of this massive expenditure and burns it? Or do you think its actually spent on expensive procedures, treatments, drugs, etc.?-- albeit on a lot of which isn't necessary or wouldn't be made if people were paying even part of it themselves.

Am I to assume that you are saying that a government run system in the United States would just approve anything?

Yes it does some of that thanks to the insurance industry taking a 5% cut + cut over fighting whether or not something is covered in the plan. The real reason is that wages in the healthcare industry are higher in US than nearly everywhere. I suspect covering the entire population under current average standard would probably increase the healthcare spending by about 10% in the us, because of elimination of bureacracy and savings due to preventative care in other areas(not necessary healthcare, but worker productivity etc(of course to do something like this you would have to mandate flu shots which would piss off about 10% of US population majorly)).
I thought that we are talking about "expensive" aka "non-mainstream" cancer that's currently not covered in the UK and the like(first world single-payer). I don't know why are we even having this discussion though, it's just an epic strawman drawing contest, since I suspect neither of us is in the healthcare industry and can break down the cancers by type/price to treat/average survival rate after treatment before writing the posts. Last part would be a yes, based on other governmental agencies and how emotional people will get if it's not that way.

[LastVoter]

Why don't you post your own examples?

[LastVoter]

You've heard of lung cancer, right?  It's not exactly what you would call a cherry picked rare type of cancer.  Let's look at the numbers...



Esophageal Cancer...



Remeber that vaccine that Perry mandated in Texas.  Yes, the one the lunatic right wing skewered him for.  It helps to prevent esophageal cancer.  So instead of vaccinating the population against this type of cancer we will just wait until they get it and spend six figures in a vain attempt to try and cure them.

All three cancers listed are in the top ten cancers that kill.  Lung cancer is the number one killer.  Still laughing?  It does not make sense to withhold treatment for cancers you can cure or at least get a good 5 year and 10 year survival rate.  Cancer is not a monolithic disease.  It simply does not make sense to spend billions treating every type of cancer for the entire population over 65.  You must pick what kind of cancer it makes sense to treat and you must also pick what stage of cancer is reasonable to treat.

How about Breast Cancer, Testicular Cancer, Brain Cancer, Lymphoma, Liver Cancer, Colon Cancer, Prostate Cancer the list goes on and on and on.

But I guess cancer really is just "synonymous with death". Tell that to Herman Cain and Rudy Guiliani as just 2 high profile public officials that are cancer survivors.

Link you must be a glutton for punishment.

Use the full quote. It was  "Expensive cancer treatment is synonymous with death". For example, pancreatic cancer has a 6% 5 year survival rate(wiki).

Here's a nice chart for you

Edit: Cancer treatment is delaying death 90% of the time. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated under Universal Healthcare. 41% of people will get cancer and 21% will die from it. Very small % of people will get expensive to treat cancer.

[LastVoter]

You've heard of lung cancer, right?  It's not exactly what you would call a cherry picked rare type of cancer.  Let's look at the numbers...



Esophageal Cancer...



Remeber that vaccine that Perry mandated in Texas.  Yes, the one the lunatic right wing skewered him for.  It helps to prevent esophageal cancer.  So instead of vaccinating the population against this type of cancer we will just wait until they get it and spend six figures in a vain attempt to try and cure them.

All three cancers listed are in the top ten cancers that kill.  Lung cancer is the number one killer.  Still laughing?  It does not make sense to withhold treatment for cancers you can cure or at least get a good 5 year and 10 year survival rate.  Cancer is not a monolithic disease.  It simply does not make sense to spend billions treating every type of cancer for the entire population over 65.  You must pick what kind of cancer it makes sense to treat and you must also pick what stage of cancer is reasonable to treat.

How about Breast Cancer, Testicular Cancer, Brain Cancer, Lymphoma, Liver Cancer, Colon Cancer, Prostate Cancer the list goes on and on and on.

But I guess cancer really is just "synonymous with death". Tell that to Herman Cain and Rudy Guiliani as just 2 high profile public officials that are cancer survivors.

Link you must be a glutton for punishment.

Use the full quote. It was  "Expensive cancer treatment is synonymous with death". For example, pancreatic cancer has a 6% 5 year survival rate(wiki).

Here's a nice chart for you

Edit: Cancer treatment is delaying death 90% of the time. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated under Universal Healthcare. 41% of people will get cancer and 21% will die from it. Very small % of people will get expensive to treat cancer.

Do you have any clue how much a liver transplant is?

That's not relevant to the discussion. I am guessing around 500k. How many people will need liver transplants? You do realize just because a procedure is expensive it's impossible to make it available to all that need it. The whole point of having insurance/single-payer is so that people which "cheaper" diseases subsidize those with more "expensive" ones.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/21/national/main7268517.shtml

[LastVoter]

That's not relevant to the discussion. I am guessing around 500k. How many people will need liver transplants? You do realize just because a procedure is expensive it's impossible to make it available to all that need it. The whole point of having insurance/single-payer is so that people which "cheaper" diseases subsidize those with more "expensive" ones.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/21/national/main7268517.shtml

Yeah, but in National Healthcare systems they don't really. They just constrict the supply to save on the cost.

Is that your best argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States
Scroll down to cancer. 9 page thread for a moot point in relation to welfare.
And practically all cancer treatment is pretty damn expensive. So all, but the cheapest cancers get their treatment slowed down or in some cases cut out all together in National Healthcare systems.

[LastVoter]

That's not relevant to the discussion. I am guessing around 500k. How many people will need liver transplants? You do realize just because a procedure is expensive it's impossible to make it available to all that need it. The whole point of having insurance/single-payer is so that people which "cheaper" diseases subsidize those with more "expensive" ones.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/21/national/main7268517.shtml

Yeah, but in National Healthcare systems they don't really. They just constrict the supply to save on the cost.

Is that your best argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States
Scroll down to cancer. 9 page thread for a moot point in relation to welfare.
And practically all cancer treatment is pretty damn expensive. So all, but the cheapest cancers get their treatment slowed down or in some cases cut out all together in National Healthcare systems.

What's your point? Even Canada is a much better system than British NHS. But look at the wiki entry you just posted. In diagnostic imaging(which is key to diagnosis) depending on the particular type of diagnostic machine(CT, MRI, etc.) Canada has 1/3 to 1/5 of the quantity per capita as the US has. Don't tell me they don't constrict the supply. In some places the waiting lines just to be tested so that you can be diagnosed are outrageously long.

And the UK is much worse at delaying the process of treatment for expensive diseases than even Canada is.

So all of  our supply would magically disappear if we got Universal Healthcare? Just like all of our money supply/market would disappear if we got a welfare state?