Which country has the best Health Care System?

[Jens]

Not to mention that the Communist Mainfesto, being from 1848, is not exactly Marxist in the later sense of the word. It was written long before Marx begun developing his economic theory, when he was just a young revolutionary journalist. (It's also the most readable and sensible of his better-known works, which is not a coincidence.)

Oh yea, Das Kapital is bloody boring! And no modern socialist believes in the Marxist Dialectics

[David S]

Yeah Karl Marx is not a socialist, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't socialist and the pope is not a catholic. Give me a break!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah Karl Marx is not a socialist, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't socialist and the pope is not a catholic. Give me a break!

1. Yes, Marx was a Socialist. But not all Socialists agree with Marx.
2. Correct. The U.S.S.R wasn't even close to being Socialist (in some ways the U.S is actually more Socialist than it was)
3. I don't think I ever questioned that.
4. Since when did you know more about what Socialism is than Socialists?

[patrick1]

Yeah Karl Marx is not a socialist, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't socialist and the pope is not a catholic. Give me a break!

1. Yes, Marx was a Socialist. But not all Socialists agree with Marx.
2. Correct. The U.S.S.R wasn't even close to being Socialist (in some ways the U.S is actually more Socialist than it was)
3. I don't think I ever questioned that.
4. Since when did you know more about what Socialism is than Socialists?

Fabian society's birthday today.  Al , I assume that you are that brand of socialist....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Fabian society's birthday today.  Al , I assume that you are that brand of socialist....

Up to a point... but I'm more a Trade Union/Christian Socialist really.

[patrick1]

Fabian society's birthday today.  Al , I assume that you are that brand of socialist....

Up to a point... but I'm more a Trade Union/Christian Socialist really.

I see. Fabians were a little too toff-y

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I see. Fabians were a little too toff-y

That's it :-)

[David S]

Yeah Karl Marx is not a socialist, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't socialist and the pope is not a catholic. Give me a break!

1. Yes, Marx was a Socialist. But not all Socialists agree with Marx.
2. Correct. The U.S.S.R wasn't even close to being Socialist (in some ways the U.S is actually more Socialist than it was)
3. I don't think I ever questioned that.
4. Since when did you know more about what Socialism is than Socialists?

With regard to the 10 planks and the U.S.S.R.
1) Abolition of private property- They had that covered in spades! The people could not own land except possibly small garden plots for personal use.
2) Progressive income tax- They out-Marxed Marx on that one. Since everyone worked for the state, taxes were irrelevent. Government collected all proceeds and paid everyone whatever they felt like paying. But the underlying principle of leveling incomes was present. Doctors were not paid much more than others.
3) Abolish inheritance- I don't know how their laws were written on this but since almost everyone was dirt poor inheritance would not amount to much.
4) Confiscation of private property- They did plenty of that.
5) Central bank- They did and so do we.
6) Centralize transportation and communication in the hands of the state- They did that with everything, not just transportation and communication
7)  Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. -Don't know what they mean by the first part but they did have 5 year plans for cultivation among other things.
Equal obligation to work. -When you destroy the profit motive as an incentive for working you must find another means of encouraging people to work. The Soviets had a simple method; work or we'll kill you.
9)  Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
      abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a
      more equable distribution of the populace over the country. - They did not achieve this, although they did try to increase the popluation of Siberia, by sending dissidents there.
10) Free education for all children in public schools.  Abolition of
      children's factory labor in its present form.  Combination of
      education with industrial production, etc. " - They did this and so do we.

With regard to my comment on the pope; perhaps my sense of sarcasm is overly subtle.

[Richard]

What makes you think only the rich benefit? You seem to think that we have a few rich people here and that everyone else is a dirt-poor serf. That's not the case. I am not aware of anyone starving to death in America. And I think it would be very rare to find people dying because they were denied medical treatment. Although, perhaps in some of the countries with socialized medicine people die while on the waiting list for treatment.

Americans have a high standard of living. Most families have at least one car and many have mulitple cars. Most people live in nice housing.
Most people have plenty of food to eat. In fact the do-gooders are now very concerned about a "crisis of obesity" and they never even mention starvation as a problem here. That means most people suffer from too much food rather than not enough".
Most families have at least one TV and probably several.
Most people have at least some type of health care coverage.
There are many middle class families who own a home in the city and a cottage by a lake or in the mountains. These aren't rich people. They are just average people.
Many Americans have a swimmimg pool in the back yard, and probably most Americans could afford one if they wanted it.
We have every imaginable type of household appliance, Washing machines, Dryers, Dishwashers, Refrigerators ( frequently more than one) air conditioners, PCs, lawn mowers, snowblowers. You name it.

Those of us who aren't rich appreciate your concern for us, but we aren't doing all that bad. However, if you would like to make a donation, I'm sure we'll be happy to accept it. 

Okay, but it is a fact that a great part of American live under poverty rate, more than in Europe certainly. In Europe, we help these people has to leave poverty, in the United States not. it's what is unjust I think.

That is because the statistical curve is different.  A greater portion of Americans may live below the poverty rate, defined as the bottom x% of the income distribution.  However, the entire curve shifts when comparing European and American poverty rates.  This basically means:  The United States has more "poor" people, but what they define as poor is still richer than European "poor" and is borderlining European middle class.  "Poor" people in the United States can afford to own a house, own two cars, and have cable TV.  You do not see this in Europe.

Don't abuse and rape statistics to suit your purpose.  I'm a statistics major and hate to see people twist it for their agenda without actually knowing what they're talking about.

[J-Mann]

I think the US has some good health care options, provided you have  a good job with a decent employer who offers you adequate benefits.  That said, work does need to be done to offer affordable insurance and medical care to those who currently can't afford it.  And yes, conservatives, there are those who can't afford it - telling them to "quit being lazy and get a job" doesn't help.  Take me, for instance:

Right now, I'm on my father's health insurance plan (go ahead, tell me I'm a drain on society for using someone elses money!), but if my parents weren't here, this is what my situation would be.

  --  I am a full-time college student because I want to get an education and have a chance for better employment.  My tuition is covered by a scholarship, so thankfully, that is out of the way.  There isn't any left over for books, which can easily run $600 per academic year.  I've got lots of bills on top of that: rent, water, electricity, phone, car (and unlike in cities, you really can't do much without a car in Kansas - so yes, I have to have it).  I have to buy groceries, and with my parents out of the picture, I'd have to pay for my car insurance (around $700 a year). 

In order to make ends meet (as is), I have three jobs.  The state-owned research dairy that I work at pays me KS minimum wage: $6.00 an hour.  I write and do artwork for the school newspaper, which is a little under $20.00 for each submission.  I'm a substitute teacher on top of that, which pays $60 per day, but is hardly consistent and guaranteed work.

So there it is.  I can't afford health insurance.  Without my parents helping out, I'd be screwed.  That's when it would be nice for a basic public health system to be available - if I needed my appendix removed, I would be horrified to have to pay a $15,000 bill for them to slice me up and bed me down for two days.  This is how people get stuck in a rut; they quit school to work more and never are able to climb the class ladder and escape from poverty/lower-middle class status.  --

No, it isn't society's job to support those who can't support themselves - if you want to be insincere, cold, calculating, and strictly capitalist about it, it probably doesn't bother you to see a poor elderly person die alone.  It was their fault, right?  They should have worked.  They were a drain on society.

Other democracies, like the UK, have collectively voted to be more generous with their taxes, and I think that's fine.  They don't mind giving a certain part of their paychecks up to make certain that everyone receives basic medical care.  The US hasn't made that decision because we're still full of a lot of people who say, "that isn't my job."

They're right - it isn't their job.  I would hope, though, that at some point we could agree that some basic public health services might be necessary in the US, funded by a flat tax, perhaps.  Some call the public health system socialism.  That's fine - call me a socialist, too, if you want; I'm not big into labels, though, so it won't hurt my feelings any.  While some call it socialism, I call it charity - a society enlightened enough to give up a fraction of their earnings to make sure that everyone is given basic care.  It doesn't have to mean the demise of private practices; if you could afford the better care, then by all means, use it.  It would mean lending everyone a hand, and somewhere that logic has been lost on a lot of people in the US. 

[Richard]

I object to other people deciding how to spend my money.  It you have to have a social health care system, make it so that people can VOLUNTEER to donate.  Mandatory donations to it = stealing.

[J-Mann]

I object to other people deciding how to spend my money.  It you have to have a social health care system, make it so that people can VOLUNTEER to donate.  Mandatory donations to it = stealing.

Maybe...but if it is voted on and a majority of [whoever votes - ie: Congress, the public] approves, then I think it's a go.  Congress approves things all the time that a certain segment of society may not want but has to accept anyway.

I say we should deal with this issue openly and honestly, though - too many politicians are scared to discuss it.  Let them take a stand, let the public vote to re-elect their congressmen (or exchange them for ones with different ideas), and then have Congress make a decision.  There's been too much pushing this issue to the back burner.

[J-Mann]

And damnit...I'm posting this again.  I hate it when my posts are at the bottom of a page; no one sees them, then    Sorry to everyone who has seen it already.

I think the US has some good health care options, provided you have  a good job with a decent employer who offers you adequate benefits.  That said, work does need to be done to offer affordable insurance and medical care to those who currently can't afford it.  And yes, conservatives, there are those who can't afford it - telling them to "quit being lazy and get a job" doesn't help.  Take me, for instance:

Right now, I'm on my father's health insurance plan (go ahead, tell me I'm a drain on society for using someone elses money!), but if my parents weren't here, this is what my situation would be.

  --  I am a full-time college student because I want to get an education and have a chance for better employment.  My tuition is covered by a scholarship, so thankfully, that is out of the way.  There isn't any left over for books, which can easily run $600 per academic year.  I've got lots of bills on top of that: rent, water, electricity, phone, car (and unlike in cities, you really can't do much without a car in Kansas - so yes, I have to have it).  I have to buy groceries, and with my parents out of the picture, I'd have to pay for my car insurance (around $700 a year).

In order to make ends meet (as is), I have three jobs.  The state-owned research dairy that I work at pays me KS minimum wage: $6.00 an hour.  I write and do artwork for the school newspaper, which is a little under $20.00 for each submission.  I'm a substitute teacher on top of that, which pays $60 per day, but is hardly consistent and guaranteed work.

So there it is.  I can't afford health insurance.  Without my parents helping out, I'd be screwed.  That's when it would be nice for a basic public health system to be available - if I needed my appendix removed, I would be horrified to have to pay a $15,000 bill for them to slice me up and bed me down for two days.  This is how people get stuck in a rut; they quit school to work more and never are able to climb the class ladder and escape from poverty/lower-middle class status.  --

No, it isn't society's job to support those who can't support themselves - if you want to be insincere, cold, calculating, and strictly capitalist about it, it probably doesn't bother you to see a poor elderly person die alone.  It was their fault, right?  They should have worked.  They were a drain on society.

Other democracies, like the UK, have collectively voted to be more generous with their taxes, and I think that's fine.  They don't mind giving a certain part of their paychecks up to make certain that everyone receives basic medical care.  The US hasn't made that decision because we're still full of a lot of people who say, "that isn't my job."

They're right - it isn't their job.  I would hope, though, that at some point we could agree that some basic public health services might be necessary in the US, funded by a flat tax, perhaps.  Some call the public health system socialism.  That's fine - call me a socialist, too, if you want; I'm not big into labels, though, so it won't hurt my feelings any.  While some call it socialism, I call it charity - a society enlightened enough to give up a fraction of their earnings to make sure that everyone is given basic care.  It doesn't have to mean the demise of private practices; if you could afford the better care, then by all means, use it.  It would mean lending everyone a hand, and somewhere that logic has been lost on a lot of people in the US.

[Richard]

I object to other people deciding how to spend my money.  It you have to have a social health care system, make it so that people can VOLUNTEER to donate.  Mandatory donations to it = stealing.

Maybe...but if it is voted on and a majority of [whoever votes - ie: Congress, the public] approves, then I think it's a go.  Congress approves things all the time that a certain segment of society may not want but has to accept anyway.

I say we should deal with this issue openly and honestly, though - too many politicians are scared to discuss it.  Let them take a stand, let the public vote to re-elect their congressmen (or exchange them for ones with different ideas), and then have Congress make a decision.  There's been too much pushing this issue to the back burner.

Bill 1 of 2005:  Congress will hereby pay every citizen $1,000,000 on January 31, 2005.



See a problem here?  You can't vote away other people's rights.  Sorry.

[J-Mann]

Bill 1 of 2005:  Congress will hereby pay every citizen $1,000,000 on January 31, 2005.



See a problem here?  You can't vote away other people's rights.  Sorry.

Yeah...problem is you just made that up.  Providing basic health care is on a scale a little bit different than turning Congress into a massive Publisher's Clearing House, I think.

[Richard]

Bill 1 of 2005:  Congress will hereby pay every citizen $1,000,000 on January 31, 2005.



See a problem here?  You can't vote away other people's rights.  Sorry.

Yeah...problem is you just made that up.  Providing basic health care is on a scale a little bit different than turning Congress into a massive Publisher's Clearing House, I think.

It is not.  It is a bunch of people voting to steal money from certain individuals and give it to other individuals.  That is criminal.  This is why I'm opposed to income tax and sales tax.

[J-Mann]

It is not.  It is a bunch of people voting to steal money from certain individuals and give it to other individuals.  That is criminal.  This is why I'm opposed to income tax and sales tax.

And then every other law on the books is practically criminal, too, by that definition - it doesn't just stop at money.

Look, Richius, I'm not going to argue with you about this any more; you're too stuborn and you would degenerate into name-calling and ridiculous arguments; I'm not in the mood for that.  I'm just more charitable-minded, I guess, and I happen to think that majority rules.  Congress and the rest of us should be willing to create a system to help the less fortunate. 

[Richard]

It is not.  It is a bunch of people voting to steal money from certain individuals and give it to other individuals.  That is criminal.  This is why I'm opposed to income tax and sales tax.

And the every other law on the books is practically criminal, too, by that definition - it doesn't just stop at money.

Look, Richius, I'm not going to argue with you about this any more; you're too stuborn and you would degenerate into name-calling and ridiculous arguments; I'm not in the mood for that.  I'm just more charitable-minded, I guess, and I happen to think that majority rules.  Congress and the rest of us should be willing to create a system to help the less fortunate. 

Fine.  Just don't involve me, or anyone that does not want to go along.  Let us donate to private charities, and allow us to work for $1 an hour as a paramedic.  Yeah.  Guess what.  I want to get paid $1 per hour as a volunteer paramedic, but it is illegal here in Ontario due to minimum wage laws.  Screw that.  Due to that stupid law, I can't give people cheap medical attention and care.

[opebo]

It is not.  It is a bunch of people voting to steal money from certain individuals and give it to other individuals.  That is criminal.  This is why I'm opposed to income tax and sales tax.

And the every other law on the books is practically criminal, too, by that definition - it doesn't just stop at money.

Look, Richius, I'm not going to argue with you about this any more; you're too stuborn and you would degenerate into name-calling and ridiculous arguments; I'm not in the mood for that.  I'm just more charitable-minded, I guess, and I happen to think that majority rules.  Congress and the rest of us should be willing to create a system to help the less fortunate. 

Fine.  Just don't involve me, or anyone that does not want to go along.  Let us donate to private charities, and allow us to work for $1 an hour as a paramedic.  Yeah.  Guess what.  I want to get paid $1 per hour as a volunteer paramedic, but it is illegal here in Ontario due to minimum wage laws.  Screw that.  Due to that stupid law, I can't give people cheap medical attention and care.

Why not just pay someone a decent wage to do the same thing?

[Jens]

And damnit...I'm posting this again.  I hate it when my posts are at the bottom of a page; no one sees them, then    Sorry to everyone who has seen it already.

I think the US has some good health care options, provided you have  a good job with a decent employer who offers you adequate benefits.  That said, work does need to be done to offer affordable insurance and medical care to those who currently can't afford it.  And yes, conservatives, there are those who can't afford it - telling them to "quit being lazy and get a job" doesn't help.  Take me, for instance:

Right now, I'm on my father's health insurance plan (go ahead, tell me I'm a drain on society for using someone elses money!), but if my parents weren't here, this is what my situation would be.

  --  I am a full-time college student because I want to get an education and have a chance for better employment.  My tuition is covered by a scholarship, so thankfully, that is out of the way.  There isn't any left over for books, which can easily run $600 per academic year.  I've got lots of bills on top of that: rent, water, electricity, phone, car (and unlike in cities, you really can't do much without a car in Kansas - so yes, I have to have it).  I have to buy groceries, and with my parents out of the picture, I'd have to pay for my car insurance (around $700 a year).

In order to make ends meet (as is), I have three jobs.  The state-owned research dairy that I work at pays me KS minimum wage: $6.00 an hour.  I write and do artwork for the school newspaper, which is a little under $20.00 for each submission.  I'm a substitute teacher on top of that, which pays $60 per day, but is hardly consistent and guaranteed work.

So there it is.  I can't afford health insurance.  Without my parents helping out, I'd be screwed.  That's when it would be nice for a basic public health system to be available - if I needed my appendix removed, I would be horrified to have to pay a $15,000 bill for them to slice me up and bed me down for two days.  This is how people get stuck in a rut; they quit school to work more and never are able to climb the class ladder and escape from poverty/lower-middle class status.  --

No, it isn't society's job to support those who can't support themselves - if you want to be insincere, cold, calculating, and strictly capitalist about it, it probably doesn't bother you to see a poor elderly person die alone.  It was their fault, right?  They should have worked.  They were a drain on society.

Other democracies, like the UK, have collectively voted to be more generous with their taxes, and I think that's fine.  They don't mind giving a certain part of their paychecks up to make certain that everyone receives basic medical care.  The US hasn't made that decision because we're still full of a lot of people who say, "that isn't my job."

They're right - it isn't their job.  I would hope, though, that at some point we could agree that some basic public health services might be necessary in the US, funded by a flat tax, perhaps.  Some call the public health system socialism.  That's fine - call me a socialist, too, if you want; I'm not big into labels, though, so it won't hurt my feelings any.  While some call it socialism, I call it charity - a society enlightened enough to give up a fraction of their earnings to make sure that everyone is given basic care.  It doesn't have to mean the demise of private practices; if you could afford the better care, then by all means, use it.  It would mean lending everyone a hand, and somewhere that logic has been lost on a lot of people in the US.

Well said, J-Mann. I was thinking the same about that apendix. I had mine removed 7 years ago while I was living on educational support (SU), 500 $ per month! such an operation would have cost me my brutto income for a whole year! And that at a time where It would take at least 5 years before I would start to earn any real income. It didn't cost me a dime because of the Danish healthcare system.
True, we pay a lot of money in taxes and the system isn't perfect, but we support the poor and the weak (to sound a wee bit sentimental ;-) )

[Platypus]

It is not. It is a bunch of people voting to steal money from certain individuals and give it to other individuals. That is criminal. This is why I'm opposed to income tax and sales tax.

And the every other law on the books is practically criminal, too, by that definition - it doesn't just stop at money.

Look, Richius, I'm not going to argue with you about this any more; you're too stuborn and you would degenerate into name-calling and ridiculous arguments; I'm not in the mood for that. I'm just more charitable-minded, I guess, and I happen to think that majority rules. Congress and the rest of us should be willing to create a system to help the less fortunate.

Fine. Just don't involve me, or anyone that does not want to go along. Let us donate to private charities, and allow us to work for $1 an hour as a paramedic. Yeah. Guess what. I want to get paid $1 per hour as a volunteer paramedic, but it is illegal here in Ontario due to minimum wage laws. Screw that. Due to that stupid law, I can't give people cheap medical attention and care.

Might as well do it for free, I hope that isn't illegal.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

"Poor" people in the United States can afford to own a house, own two cars, and have cable TV.  You do not see this in Europe.

You do actually, but that's not really the point... consumer goods are not a good indicator of economic status... apparently in China more people have DVD players than Hot/Cold running water because electricity is easier to install than piping.

[minionofmidas]

"Poor" people in the United States can afford to own a house, own two cars, and have cable TV.  You do not see this in Europe.

You do actually, but that's not really the point... consumer goods are not a good indicator of economic status... apparently in China more people have DVD players than Hot/Cold running water because electricity is easier to install than piping.

Piped hot water is highly uncommon in most parts of the world.
And you won't find many households in Germany that do NOT have cable, btw. Now, two cars...depends on what kind of cars. And a house - owning a house is not really more expensive then renting a house the same size.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Piped hot water is highly uncommon in most parts of the world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but methinks that DVD players are a lot rarer (they're rare enough over here)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same in the U.K

You must be logged in to read this quote.

House prices are insanely high here (but as most people in poorer areas either: a) rent (mosted council houses are actually quite nice. Nicer than those ghastly exurban monstrosities that started to spring up in the '80's) or b) have lived in the same house for a long time/bought their old council house in the selloffs in the '80's.

[minionofmidas]

Piped hot water is highly uncommon in most parts of the world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but methinks that DVD players are a lot rarer (they're rare enough over here)

Not really. They don't really cost more than CD players anymore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same in the U.K[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

House prices are insanely high here (but as most people in poorer areas either: a) rent (mosted council houses are actually quite nice. Nicer than those ghastly exurban monstrosities that started to spring up in the '80's) or b) have lived in the same house for a long time/bought their old council house in the selloffs in the '80's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

it's a matter of subsidies and interest rates, I suppose.
But in the long run, ie if you're pretty sure you want to stay in that house/flat forever, then it works out a lot cheaper than renting (providing you do get financing.)