Which country has the best Health Care System?

[David S]

I am sorry but I cannot understand that... A great country it's a country which each one of you have built, rich and poors. Why only the rich person benefit from it ?

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. 

[Bono]

I am sorry but I cannot understand that... A great country it's a country which each one of you have built, rich and poors. Why only the rich person benefit from it ?

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.

I can assert they do.

[opebo]

I am sorry but I cannot understand that... A great country it's a country which each one of you have built, rich and poors. Why only the rich person benefit from it ?

Math, a large percentage of working class Americans are deluded about who they are, and about their position in society.  They are also quite often deluded about the numbers of 'underclass' and working poor in America - in fact these are a very large percentage of the population.

These delusions stem primarily from an egotistical desire to congratulate themselves on 'making it' - they think if, for the moment, they have one of those scarce and dissappearing prizes, a decently paid job with benefits, that they are somehow not a member of the working class.  They conveniently identify with the owning class based upon vanity, and thereby screw themselves.  The other reason they're deluded is patriotism - a desire to believe, in spite of all the facts, that the US is the best place to live in the world.

[Platypus]

Australia.

Free public healthcare for all, but a private system that can be paid for in part by the government if it is the only way to get the best service.

IE, if you have a broken arm and go private, you'll be seen a bit sooner but you'll have to pay the majority. If you have a rare blood disease and the only doctor in the country who knows how to treat it has a private practice, the government will refund much of the cost. When I had a CAT scan a couple of years ago, the government paid for 80% of the cost, for example, because whilst there are public health service CAT scanners, the wait is comparitively long (2 days private, 1-3 weeks private depening on urgency)


Also, the government encouraged people to go private by providing revates to people who signed up in a period of about 2 years a while ago, to take pressure off the public system, which has so far worked.

But the jewel in the crown, in my eyes, is the PBS-Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme-which allows for really ceap presicription medicine. My family spends about $5000 a yearon medication, because of my mother's heart attack prevention drugs and my father's medicines relating to his illness, but without the PBS we'd be paying at least $30000 for the most basic of the medicines, and possibly up to $80000-neither amount affordable.

Dad's blood cleansers (can't remember the proper name) cost $80 for 20 tablets, but we pay $3.50 because they are classified as high importance and because as a family we'd spend more then the $1500 (apx.) a month before the high level kicks in.

There are problems, but it is the best mix of free healthcare, but with options for other providers, of access to essential medicines, and of keeping the government budget in the black. Whilst I don't like some of the changes the government has made to finer details, like bulk billing, in recent times, overall our system is a fantastic one, and I have yet to hear of a more practical but fair, better one.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I dislike the idea of taxpayers money going towards helping people opt out of (and weaken) public services (I oppose vouchers on the same grounds).

[Math]

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.

[Tory]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Tory]

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.

[Math]

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.

if the standards for poverty are lower in the USA than in Europe, and than the average American in poverty is richer than European in poverty... there is a problem not? But are statistics of UNO, leftist institution... :-)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

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

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Food, housing and medicine are human rights IMO.

America has a big problem with poverty. Europe has a big problem with poverty. Know what? Everwhere has a big problem with poverty. Poverty, like income, is all relative.

And if you think the reduction in the U.S's poverty rates over the past 40 odd year's as anything to do with "Capitalism" you are kidding yourself.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

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.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

Strange way of looking at things... no point arguing with you about it though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was actually thinking of urban/industrial/new immigrant areas. Terrible poverty, overcrowding, lack of sanitation... With a special mention to Lower East Side Manhatten.

[David S]

Food, housing and medicine are human rights IMO.

America has a big problem with poverty. Europe has a big problem with poverty. Know what? Everwhere has a big problem with poverty. Poverty, like income, is all relative.

And if you think the reduction in the U.S's poverty rates over the past 40 odd year's as anything to do with "Capitalism" you are kidding yourself.

As far as I know the alternative to capitalism is socialism. How well does socialism do when it comes to reducing poverty? If you want  examples of 100% socialist countries you have to look at the former U.S.S.R. or China or North Korea, or Cuba. So among those, were is the shining success story of socialism? Not a single one of those came close to achieving the level of prosperity for its people that our capitalist system has created for us. Yes they achieved a greater level of economic equality, but they did so by driving everyone to the bottom, except off course for the ruling elite.

Aside from the dismal economic performance of the pure socialist countries there are some other unpleasant effects of socialist philosophy, which are apparent in the countries I mentioned:
1) Abuse of human rights.
2) A nasty tendency toward mass homicide of their own people.

I'll take capitalism any day.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't consider North Korea et al to be Socialist

[David S]

I don't consider North Korea et al to be Socialist

Suit yourself. Which of the others is a shining example of what socialism can achieve?

Or are you suggesting that none of the countries I mentioned are socialist?

[Jens]

I don't consider North Korea et al to be Socialist

Suit yourself. Which of the others is a shining example of what socialism can achieve?

Or are you suggesting that none of the countries I mentioned are socialist?

To steal Al's line: that's it!!

Oh, and speaking in terms of equality and good health care, Denmark has the lowest Gini-Coeffiencient in the world along with a highly advanced health care system

[David S]

Well lets see Karl Marx was the chief socialist as I see it. Following are the 10 planks of the communist manifesto which he co-authored.

http://eserver.org/marx/1848-communist.manifesto/cm2.txt


"Ten planks of the communist manifesto extracted from:
                    Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
 
                               MANIFESTO
                         OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
 
                                 1848

1.  Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of
      land to public purposes.
 
  2.  A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
 
  3.  Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
 
  4.  Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
 
  5.  Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a
      national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
 
  6.  Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he
      hands of the state.
 
  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.
 
  8.  Equal obligation of all to work.  Establishment of industrial
      armies, especially for agriculture.
 
  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.
 
  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. "

Seems to me that the countries I named fit the description.

[minionofmidas]

Except for these...

1.  Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of
      land to public purposes.
  3.  Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
  4.  Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
  8.  Equal obligation of all to work.  Establishment of industrial
      armies, especially for agriculture.
  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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well lets see Karl Marx was the chief socialist as I see it.

Then you sir are wrong. Anglophone Socialism has hardly anything to do with Marxism, and most European Socialist parties dropped it after WW2.
Get you're facts straight.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree with this
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with this
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree with this up to a point
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with this up to a point
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure what's he's talking about
 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with this (as far as such services in 1848 existed)
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with that
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No longer nessessary
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with that up to a point
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How on earth could anyone be opposed to that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No they don't

[minionofmidas]

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.)