AZ may require hospitals to check status of immigrants.......

[Iosif]

The NHS is the greatest social invention in the history of mankind. It's a beautiful organisation.

Nobody sane argues that a basic education shouldn't be free and accessible to all. Why is health care any different?

Well for one thing, schools aren't operated as centralized as something like the NHS is. If someone is unhappy with schools in the City of Chicago, he's perfectly free to move to a suburb or wherever else he believes his kids will be properly educated. (Or pay for a private school or homeschool in some counties.)

A national single payer system such as the NHS eliminates competition entirely, makes its citizens dependent on government policy for their healthcare, and objectively produces worse results than a lot of other healthcare systems that are just as universal.

There's no contradiction in supporting universal access to healthcare and opposing a massive government institution like the NHS.

1. I realise a national health service is not the only method of universal health care.
2. Localising health care would lead to the same issues as localised public education. Better services for those who can afford to live is affluent areas, inferior underfunded services for people in underprivileged areas. Not everybody is free to move to where they wish.
2. Having a government run national health service gives the citizens the ultimate power in how it's run in that they directly elect the people who run it.
3. British residents are free to purchase private health insurance and get treated in privately run hospitals if they wish.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If someone is unhappy with schools in the City of Chicago, he's perfectly free to move to a suburb or wherever else he believes his kids will be properly educated. (Or pay for a private school or homeschool in some counties.)

And you can chose your GP, your consultant (if you need one) and so on. I live in Gwynedd but am an outpatient at a hospital in Birmingham. This is not particularly unusual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ignoring the issue of whether competition is actually to be desired in a healthcare system or whether it is an absolute good in its own right, this isn't actually true. Private health provision has always existed alongside the NHS (same doctors for the most part) and various attempts to introduce elements of 'competition' within elements the service have been tried since the 1980s (a particularly deluded and dangerous attempt is going on with the NHS in England at the moment, but discussing that would be a digression too far), though they've not had much impact on the quality of care (increased funding, however, has).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No more so than under any other health system, including ones entirely in the private sector.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm afraid that that's just not true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously you can support universal access from all sorts of political positions.

But 'massive government institution' is an interesting way of putting things. The thing about the NHS is that people believe it to be ours and not theirs, something that the people ultimately own and which is managed on behalf of the people, rather than some bureaucratic entity imposed via legislation.

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily with adequate funding from a central source, such as a federal government. Doesn't mean the federal institution has to actually run the healthcare.

Regardless though, there are many products on the market that not everyone is able to afford that only exist because there are some (many) people that can afford them. The added competition can only increase quality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In theory. But the chance to vote politicians out of office doesn't do you a lot of good in most circumstances if necessary treatment isn't provided for some reason or another.

And even assuming that the citizens have "ultimate power", I don't see why a majority decision should affect my basic personal freedom. There are lots of things that shouldn't be put up to a public vote (or even a legislative vote) because they're basic rights. I don't think gay marriage, for example, should be denied anywhere, whether it's banned by a legislature or by public vote, because basic constitutional rights are being denied.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sufficiently informed to comment on the state of private health insurance in the UK, but I would imagine that this is also more of a theoretic thing.

Real choice on the private market, I would strongly assume, is rather restricted because of the near government monopoly.

Trains in Germany (on long distance travel) is also theoretically open to any operator that wants to provide it, but Deutsche Bahn still has a near monopoly. No other competitor is really able to enter the market.


At any rate, I fully support universal access to healthcare. It isn't only moral but it is also good, practical public policy.

But every indicator I have seen seems to suggest that non-single payer healthcare systems produce better results at similar costs. Systems like in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Austria, IMO, provide the highest level of access and freedom for everyone.

[Insula Dei]

The NHS arguably is the single best health care system in the world.

[Platypus]

Not even close.

Anglosphere highlighted for easier comparison.

By healthy years:

# 1      Japan:    73.6 years     
# 2      Switzerland:    72.8 years     
# 3      Sweden:    71.8 years     
# 4      Australia:    71.6 years    
# 5      France:    71.3 years     
# 6      Iceland:    71.1 years     
= 7      Austria:    71 years     
= 7      Italy:    71 years     
# 9      Spain:    70.9 years     
# 10      Norway:    70.8 years     
# 11      Luxembourg:    70.6 years     
# 12      Greece:    70.4 years     
# 13      New Zealand:    70.3 years
# 14      Germany:    70.2 years     
= 15      Finland:    70.1 years     
= 15      Denmark:    70.1 years     
= 17      Canada:    69.9 years
= 17      Netherlands:    69.9 years     
# 19      Belgium:    69.7 years     
# 20      United Kingdom:    69.6 years
# 21      Ireland:    69 years     
# 22      United States:    67.6 years

By overall life expectancy:

# 1      Macau:    84.33 years     
# 2      Andorra:    82.67 years     
# 3      Japan:    82.07 years     
# 4      Singapore:    81.89 years        
# 5      San Marino:    81.88 years     
# 6      Hong Kong:    81.77 years     
# 7      Australia:    81.53 years     
# 8      Canada:    81.16 years   
# 9      France:    80.87 years     
= 10      Switzerland:    80.74 years 
= 10      Sweden:    80.74 years 
# 12      Guernsey:    80.65 years     
# 13      Israel:    80.61 years 
# 14      Iceland:    80.55 years     
# 15      Anguilla:    80.53 years     
# 16      Cayman Islands:    80.32 years 
# 17      New Zealand:    80.24 years
# 18      Italy:    80.07 years     
# 19      Gibraltar:    80.06 years 
# 20      Monaco:    79.96 years 
# 21      Liechtenstein:    79.95 years     
# 22      Spain:    79.92 years     
# 23      Norway:    79.81 years     
# 24      Jersey:    79.65 years     
# 25      Greece:    79.52 years     
# 26      Austria:    79.36 years     
# 27      Malta:    79.3 years     
# 28      Faroe Islands:    79.29 years     
# 29      Netherlands:    79.25 years     
= 30      Luxembourg:    79.18 years    
= 30      Martinique:    79.18 years
# 32      Germany:    79.1 years    
# 33      Belgium:    79.07 years
# 34      Guam:    78.93 years
# 35      Virgin Islands:    78.92 years
# 36      Saint Pierre and Miquelon:    78.91 years   
# 37      United Kingdom:    78.85 years
# 38      Finland:    78.82 years     
# 39      Man, Isle of:    78.8 years        
# 40      Jordan:    78.71 years     
# 41      Korea, South:    78.64 years     
# 42      Puerto Rico:    78.58 years     
# 43      Bosnia and Herzegovina:    78.33 years 
# 44      Bermuda:    78.3 years        
# 45      Saint Helena:    78.27 years 
# 46      Cyprus:    78.15 years
# 47      United States:    78.14 years
# 48      Denmark:    78.13 years
# 49      Ireland:    78.07 years

FWIW, Victoria by itself has a life expectancy of 83.8 years. ACT is about the same.

[Alcon]

Not even close.

I don't think that's necessarily the obvious metric to use, and at minimum it would need to be adjusted for the obvious variables...which it isn't.

[Lief 🗽]

The best healthcare system in the world is probably those of Germany or France, though obviously none of them are perfect (though obviously nearly all of the systems in developed countries are better than the one in the United States).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's a fallacy to assume that such statistics are directly related to the structure of the healthcare system in the place in question. In Britain there are certain... issues... with class and former occupations that play merry hell with statistics of that type; nearly a third of people in the Rhondda have a 'limiting long term illness', to chose a particularly extreme example.

Of course I would also dispute that you can really rank healthcare systems like that anyway; at some point such a ranking comes down to political preference, which is appropriate as the same is actually true of the structure of all social policy.

[Platypus]

The first is a better measure. Basically, it measures how successful the total healthcare realm (not just emergency hospitals, but also preventative healthcare, elective surgery, aged care, OHS, vaccinations, dietary and fitness issues, risk of pandemic, famine and disease etc etc) is at maintaining healthy citizens. UK's systems, of which the NHS is the core, are very good but not the best.

[angus]

Not even close.

Anglosphere highlighted for easier comparison.

By healthy years:

# 1      Japan:    73.6 years     
# 2      Switzerland:    72.8 years     
# 3      Sweden:    71.8 years     
# 4      Australia:    71.6 years    
# 5      France:    71.3 years     
# 6      Iceland:    71.1 years     
= 7      Austria:    71 years     
= 7      Italy:    71 years     
# 9      Spain:    70.9 years     
# 10      Norway:    70.8 years     
# 11      Luxembourg:    70.6 years     
# 12      Greece:    70.4 years     
# 13      New Zealand:    70.3 years
# 14      Germany:    70.2 years     
= 15      Finland:    70.1 years     
= 15      Denmark:    70.1 years     
= 17      Canada:    69.9 years
= 17      Netherlands:    69.9 years     
# 19      Belgium:    69.7 years     
# 20      United Kingdom:    69.6 years
# 21      Ireland:    69 years     
# 22      United States:    67.6 years

By overall life expectancy:

# 1      Macau:    84.33 years     
# 2      Andorra:    82.67 years     
# 3      Japan:    82.07 years     
# 4      Singapore:    81.89 years        
# 5      San Marino:    81.88 years     
# 6      Hong Kong:    81.77 years     
# 7      Australia:    81.53 years     
# 8      Canada:    81.16 years   
# 9      France:    80.87 years     
= 10      Switzerland:    80.74 years 
= 10      Sweden:    80.74 years 
# 12      Guernsey:    80.65 years     
# 13      Israel:    80.61 years 
# 14      Iceland:    80.55 years     
# 15      Anguilla:    80.53 years     
# 16      Cayman Islands:    80.32 years 
# 17      New Zealand:    80.24 years
# 18      Italy:    80.07 years     
# 19      Gibraltar:    80.06 years 
# 20      Monaco:    79.96 years 
# 21      Liechtenstein:    79.95 years     
# 22      Spain:    79.92 years     
# 23      Norway:    79.81 years     
# 24      Jersey:    79.65 years     
# 25      Greece:    79.52 years     
# 26      Austria:    79.36 years     
# 27      Malta:    79.3 years     
# 28      Faroe Islands:    79.29 years     
# 29      Netherlands:    79.25 years     
= 30      Luxembourg:    79.18 years    
= 30      Martinique:    79.18 years
# 32      Germany:    79.1 years    
# 33      Belgium:    79.07 years
# 34      Guam:    78.93 years
# 35      Virgin Islands:    78.92 years
# 36      Saint Pierre and Miquelon:    78.91 years   
# 37      United Kingdom:    78.85 years
# 38      Finland:    78.82 years     
# 39      Man, Isle of:    78.8 years        
# 40      Jordan:    78.71 years     
# 41      Korea, South:    78.64 years     
# 42      Puerto Rico:    78.58 years     
# 43      Bosnia and Herzegovina:    78.33 years 
# 44      Bermuda:    78.3 years        
# 45      Saint Helena:    78.27 years 
# 46      Cyprus:    78.15 years
# 47      United States:    78.14 years
# 48      Denmark:    78.13 years
# 49      Ireland:    78.07 years

FWIW, Victoria by itself has a life expectancy of 83.8 years. ACT is about the same.

Good god man.  It's as though someone claimed to have the longest dick, and you said, "No, I shall offer a compendium of ball diameters and as you can see, I clearly have the largest ones."

Surely, you can't be serious.

Not that I know of any objective measure for the claim that you, and others, are trying to make.  But it certainly isn't supported by the list you have provided.

If only we were comparing dick lengths.  That is fairly straightforward, wouldn't you agree?

[angus]

you'll understand that I was speaking metaphorically, of course.  

My apologies if that wasn't clear.  But you're about the seventeenth person that has tried to pass off longevity statistics on this forum as a measure of anything other than longevity.  Some will use it to prove some races are "superior" to others.  Some will use it to prove that some climates are "superior" to others.  Some even use it to demonstrate that some medical service arrangements are "superior" to others.  It really is shocking that our public schools aren't doing a better job at encouraging critical thinking.

And to think, someone in this thread actually tried to compare the importance of health care to the importance of a good educational system!

(not that we have achieved either of those.)

[Iosif]

And to think, someone in this thread actually tried to compare the importance of health care to the importance of a good educational system!

(not that we have achieved either of those.)

Why don't you, with your fine rhetoric, quirky charm and amusing anecdotes, regale us as to why you think that comparison is worthy of your disdain?

[Torie]

Angus I infer believes that a goal of improving education, particularly for those who are so poorly served by it now, generally the least among us, effectively truncating and circumscribing at once both equal opportunity and our nation's future vitality, might well be viewed as a considerably higher priority than extending some longevity statistic by a year or two (assuming that the dubious claim that changing our health care system, as opposed to health habits of our citizenry, has really much relevance at all).  You know what? I agree!

[Frodo]

Catholics aren't Christians. Is that Oklahoma logic there?

You'd be surprised how many people consider the two completely different.

Are those the same people that are likely to identify themselves as "American" in the Census?

No, those tend to be folks from Sam Spade's clan - the Scotch-Irish - concentrated in the South and Appalachia but elsewhere as well - the folks who were encouraged to come to America with their guns to head out to the frontier and "pacify" the place from the Native Americans.  And today, I would bet you dollars to donuts that a disproportionate percentage of our military are Scotch Irish. They tend to still like guns.

How do you know he's of Scotch-Irish descent?  Did he tell you?

[Torie]

Sam posted it. Otherwise, I would not have revealed it.

[angus]

And to think, someone in this thread actually tried to compare the importance of health care to the importance of a good educational system!

(not that we have achieved either of those.)

Why don't you, with your fine rhetoric, quirky charm and amusing anecdotes, regale us as to why you think that comparison is worthy of your disdain?

I guess I'm not a big fan of collectivism, but I have often been amazed at what the Chinese have done.  Not just in the past 40 years, but in the past 40 millenia.  We visited the Kong family mausoleum in Qufu City a couple of years ago, and on the memorial of Kong Fuzi (Confucius) I picked up a pamphlet that gives a wonderful quote from him.  It says, "If your plan is for one year plant rice. If your plan is for ten years plant trees. If your plan is for one hundred years educate children."  I suppose I buy into that.

We have had, on this forum, a number of discussions about education and a number of discussions about medical service priorities.  It strikes me as morally fashionable that the burden of one's health is a legitimate priority of the state.  This particular moral fashion is more evident in some societies than in my own, but it is well enough established here that it cannot be ignored.  And I'll admit that the collective health will affect my own economic situation, but the choices one makes are the result of one's socialization, and if you are truly a democrat--and at least on some level all those who post here subscribe to the philosophy that we should make our decisions together--then you have to recognize that your odds of survival are best when everyone is made to understand that we are all in basically the same situation.  This understanding can only be realized after rejecting all other philosophies--thus the allowance that we reach majority only after a certain age--and only after we have been instructed in formal interpretation--thus the requirement that those between certain ages attend classes.  

Yes, we fail to give our society the best that we can.  No Child Left Behind, for example, funnels money away from geography, science, and art for the sake of reading and math, and I have posted often of my opposition to that bill and the "new and improved" version that followed it.  We're making mistakes.  (I have never claimed that we do a very good job, given our vast natural resources; only that it should be of the utmost importance.)   But to claim that a people as ethnically diverse, as populous, and as impatient as we can be subjected to a one-size-fits-all health care system, and then have our successes compared to, say, Japan, by way of longevity tables, is asinine.  The very act of comparing suggests either a willingness to mislead or an ignorance about interpreting data.  As I perceive hughento to be an ethical and sensitive poster, I can only conclude that it is ignorance that begged the comparison in the first place.  These misinterpretations can be ameliorated via education.

Most of our arguments, and most of our wars, are largely caused by failures to communicate (and by unequal sharing of wealth).  Not by diabetes.  Not by cancer.  Not by AIDS.

[patrick1]

And to think, someone in this thread actually tried to compare the importance of health care to the importance of a good educational system!

(not that we have achieved either of those.)

Why don't you, with your fine rhetoric, quirky charm and amusing anecdotes, regale us as to why you think that comparison is worthy of your disdain?

I guess I'm not a big fan of collectivism, but I have often been amazed at what the Chinese have done.  Not just in the past 40 years, but in the past 40 millenia.  We visited the Kong family mausoleum in Qufu City a couple of years ago, and on the memorial of Kong Fuzi (Confucius) I picked up a pamphlet that gives a wonderful quote from him.  It says, "If your plan is for one year plant rice. If your plan is for ten years plant trees. If your plan is for one hundred years educate children."  I suppose I buy into that.

We have had, on this forum, a number of discussions about education and a number of discussions about medical service priorities.  It strikes me as morally fashionable that the burden of one's health is a legitimate priority of the state.  This particular moral fashion is more evident in some societies than in my own, but it is well enough established here that it cannot be ignored.  And I'll admit that the collective health will affect my own economic situation, but the choices one makes are the result of one's socialization, and if you are truly a democrat--and at least on some level all those who post here subscribe to the philosophy that we should make our decisions together--then you have to recognize that your odds of survival are best when everyone is made to understand that we are all in basically the same situation.  This understanding can only be realized after rejecting all other philosophies--thus the allowance that we reach majority only after a certain age--and only after we have been instructed in formal interpretation--thus the requirement that those between certain ages attend classes.  

Yes, we fail to give our society the best that we can.  No Child Left Behind, for example, funnels money away from geography, science, and art for the sake of reading and math, and I have posted often of my opposition to that bill and the "new and improved" version that followed it.  We're making mistakes.  (I have never claimed that we do a very good job, given our vast natural resources; only that it should be of the utmost importance.)   But to claim that a people as ethnically diverse, as populous, and as impatient as we can be subjected to a one-size-fits-all health care system, and then have our successes compared to, say, Japan, by way of longevity tables, is asinine.  The very act of comparing suggests either a willingness to mislead or an ignorance about interpreting data.  As I perceive hughento to be an ethical and sensitive poster, I can only conclude that it is ignorance that begged the comparison in the first place.  These misinterpretations can be ameliorated via education.

Most of our arguments, and most of our wars, are largely caused by failures to communicate (and by unequal sharing of wealth).  Not by diabetes.  Not by cancer.  Not by AIDS.

And most of our dying is done by cancer, diabetes, AIDS etc, etc,.  Diseases and improper medical care have killed a ridiculous amount more than any war we have ever fought. However, this doesnt get reported because wars are glorious endeavor and death is painful and shameful.

[CARLHAYDEN]

If illegal, do you just roll the gurney out of the hospital, and dump the patient on skid row, or what? That actually happened per a news story in LA once - sort of. A hospital found out that a patient had no insurance and was broke, so they "released" the patient too early, and drove the patient to skid row, and shoved him out the door - in a wheel chair. That action was not well received - at all. Lawsuits of course ensued.  Who knew?

Or do you care for patient, and when it is appropriate to release, release the patient in the ICE, who puts the guy on a bus down to TJ?  What is going on in the minds of the AZ legislature one wonders.

Why don't you pay for the illegal aliens?

You love illegal aliens, as long as some-one else pays for their costs.

I pay taxes buddy.

My state is owed billions for costs of illegal aliens.

Do you pay taxes here?

Why do you want to drive up our costs?

One of the major trauma centers here had to close because of the costs (unreimbursed) of treating illegal aliens.

[Platypus]

Good god man.  It's as though someone claimed to have the longest dick, and you said, "No, I shall offer a compendium of ball diameters and as you can see, I clearly have the largest ones."

Surely, you can't be serious.

Not that I know of any objective measure for the claim that you, and others, are trying to make.  But it certainly isn't supported by the list you have provided.

If only we were comparing dick lengths.  That is fairly straightforward, wouldn't you agree?

Well, ball diameter is certainly very important.

As I outlined in my second post, when discussing the healthcare systems of various countries, comparing their effectiveness at maintaining healthy citizens, and overall longevity, are directly relevant and quite usable. Without a good healthcare system, you are highly likely to have a higher rate of infant mortality, death from disease, low healthiness over the course of your life, blah blah blah.

The lists aren't perfect, and they don't recognise the difference between the best and worst in level of care, or recognise factors such as high rural populations or more dangerous weather etc, but they work well. And as with dick lengths, being at the top isn't always so good.

Plus length is nothing without circumference.

[angus]

Well, ball diameter is certainly very important.

Plus length is nothing without circumference.

all true. 

But seriously, longevity is determined by many factors.  There's some debate, but it seems that genetics, lifestyle, and diet being the main ones.  Medical attention and access to technology do make some difference to individuals as well, and large groups of individuals determine averages, no doubt.  But you and others have tried to base arguments about medical care on longevity, and it just isn't a good metric.  In fact, I know of no good, objective metric for determining health care.  If it's cost, the the US has the best system, hands down.  And generally speaking you get what you pay for so that's not a bad metric.  But, like longevity, it fails as a good criterion.  If it's survey data, then there are some contenders.  But in a thread a few years ago we sort of agreed that those aren't good metrics either.  Al pointed out that the English are notorious for whining generally.  I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it, so you can't trust them to objectively talk about their own system.  Similarly, Americans are braggarts so you can't really trust them either.  Fair enough. 

But this is all tangential to the thread.  As is a comparison of the relative importance of a society's medical industry to its education institutions, so there's no need to keep up that debate.

The thread deals with a piece of legislation proposed in a subcommittee of one state's senate.  So it's far removed from actual legislation, and we don't really know what the effects of it would be.  My hunch is that it will deter illegal aliens from seeking medical attention, which is probably not good for the people of Arizona since neglecting small problems will lead to bigger problems, and therefore greater expenses, for the Arizona taxpayers.  It also places greater burdens on the hospital support staff.  This will increase waiting time for patients and may increase costs.  It may also create the need for more immigration personnel.  But all of it is just speculation at this point.

[Torie]

Carl, rumor has it that CA has its own share of illegals. By the way, I favor making E verify mandatory. Have a nice day.