By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - US Universal Healthcare: How are we going to pay for it?

Kasz216 said:
 

 

Overall though... the US has pretty decent healthcare... probably because the US, because it uses private medicine overmedicates instead of undermedicates.  Which means stuff like cancer is more likely to be discovered in the early stages.

In the US yearly or even bi-yearly checkups when you feel perfectly healthy is the norm a lot of the time.  Even people on government insurance.

You get painkillers and antibiotics for the littlest things, MRI's and all kinds of X-rays for every little acident etc.

regular physicals are standard in Canada as well, though I would assume that an insurance company would force you to partake in them rather than them being optional. You get painkillers, and antibiotics when needed. It is unprofessional for antibiotics to be given when reward doesn't exceed risk. For non serious issues MRI's can take some time (rough knee). It is unprofessional for x rays to be used when reward doesn't exceed risk thus they are not used in situations when proper treatment gan be given without.



Around the Network
skip said:
Kasz216 said:
 

 

Overall though... the US has pretty decent healthcare... probably because the US, because it uses private medicine overmedicates instead of undermedicates.  Which means stuff like cancer is more likely to be discovered in the early stages.

In the US yearly or even bi-yearly checkups when you feel perfectly healthy is the norm a lot of the time.  Even people on government insurance.

You get painkillers and antibiotics for the littlest things, MRI's and all kinds of X-rays for every little acident etc.

regular physicals are standard in Canada as well, though I would assume that an insurance company would force you to partake in them rather than them being optional. You get painkillers, and antibiotics when needed. It is unprofessional for antibiotics to be given when reward doesn't exceed risk. For non serious issues MRI's can take some time (rough knee). It is unprofessional for x rays to be used when reward doesn't exceed risk thus they are not used in situations when proper treatment gan be given without.

See that's the thing.  In the US reward ALWAYS exceeeds the risk.  Because the reward is, you won't feel pain and you won't miss anything serious just in case it's there.

This is something that would be missed in a government system... a putting the patient.  Your customer, first.



Dismantle the US governments hundreds of overseas bases and stop policing the world. Withdraw from all non UN warzones etc.

This would save a load of money.



I think it come down too....  Why should the have's pay for the have not's ?

I live in the UK and I must say the NHS is a joke... you can wait months/years for treatments, the hospitals here are dirty.  As a hard worker who works all the time and pays a lot in taxes, im tired of paying fror them that don't want to work and get everything for free.

If americans go down the road of free health care, it will bankruapt the nation me thinks.



PC gaming rules.....

CommunistHater said:
It would cost over 3 trillion a year. You have to double every tax.

Lemme guess, did FOX news tell you that bullshit? The NHS only costs £94 Billion in 2008/9 (source) and that served the entire of England. So how is a country that has 7 times the population going to cost 30 times more to run?!?!?

Do yourself a favour and stop listening to the right wing on this subject for just a second and think for yourself.

 

OT:

I could say the obvious answer and suggest raising taxes, but in the OP you asked me to expand on that. In Britain we have come up with a few creative ways to fund the NHS and cut some costs. For example prescriptions in the UK cost a flat rate, the medicine can cost more but the price is £7.20. However if you are ill, out of work, over 65 or a child you are exempt from having to pay. I understand that this generates/saves a lot of money for the NHS with the cost of producing medicines.

Also (even though it's never been properly confirmed by the government) some of the NHS is funded by taxes raised from products where the user will eventually require medical attention. In the UK we have high taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and essentially this high tax works in two ways.

1. It causes people to give up smoking and drinking which relieves the pressure on the NHS for having to treat subsequent conditions like lung cancer.

2. The people that choose to smoke and drink will eventually pay for their own treatment should they ever destroy their own body to the extent they require treatment.

This means that those that don't destroy their own body with smoke and drink wont pay much for the treatment of someone that has.

 

But most is funded by national insurance I believe.

 

However I do have one problem with NHS funding, it seems to spend a fair bit of money on needless red tape and administration, which is inefficient. I only really learnt that after living with three nurses for a year and being with my girlfriend who is a doctor... The doctors and nurses very skilled though.



Around the Network
FaRmLaNd said:
Dismantle the US governments hundreds of overseas bases and stop policing the world. Withdraw from all non UN warzones etc.

This would save a load of money.

While I agree with this 100%, we need to do this without healthcare. If we did this, we would still be running a deficit with today's spending.



Actually Highwaystar products like Tobbaco and Cigarretes LOWER the overall burden of Healthcare... because while people may get cancer or liver disease. They die earlier and aren't a giant cost during old age.

Also healthcare in the US would cost more then 7 times the UK system for a variety of reasons.

1) Old people wouldn't except being treated as second class citizens when it comes to healthcare.

2) The US just does everything more expensive because it's a REALLY inefficent government since it's only a 2 party system.   The republicans and democrats never have to worry about falling to 2.5 party status.

3) The US is a much bigger country land wise.

4) The US provides 84% of the worlds medical funding.  Either the government would have to fund that or medical discoveries that increase peoples health would DRASTICALLY fall off... in which case... medical care in the US and in general the entire world would drastically fall.



Kasz216 said:

Actually Highwaystar products like Tobbaco and Cigarretes LOWER the overall burden of Healthcare... because while people may get cancer or liver disease. They die earlier and aren't a giant cost during old age.

Also healthcare in the US would cost more then 7 times the UK system for a variety of reasons.

1) Old people wouldn't except being treated as second class citizens when it comes to healthcare.

2) The US just does everything more expensive because it's a REALLY inefficent government since it's only a 2 party system.   The republicans and democrats never have to worry about falling to 2.5 party status.

3) The US is a much bigger country land wise.

4) The US provides 84% of the worlds medical funding.  Either the government would have to fund that or medical discoveries that increase peoples health would DRASTICALLY fall off... in which case... medical care in the US and in general the entire world would drastically fall.

The point was that the financial burden doesn't rely directly on the general tax payer. Those that choose to damage their bodies will pay for treatment through the tax on products they have harmed themselves with onntop of general taxes.

Smokers cost the NHS >£5billion in 2005, however tax raised from the sales of cigarettes in the same year accumulated £9.9billion. And it's more or less been the same year on year, that's just one example. So therefore tax on tobacco product creates a net gain from each smoker, so it would generate income. And if the US were to introduce a policy like that in it's tax system then it too would generate income for the health service without the burden of supporting them being on the tax payer.

The bottom line is that smokers fund their own treatment on top of healthcare and pay partially for the healthcare of the aged with the left over revenue from cigarette taxes.

Also,

It will cost more than 7 times, but I can't imagine it costing more than 15 times the UK healthcare budget. The $3trillion pricetag seems very inflated to me. 



It IS inflated.

Communisthater likes to say scary stuff.



We'll miss you George.

PSN:Puzzleface

XBL:XpuzzlefaceX

My friends call me Hadoken because I'm down-right fierce

MontanaHatchet said:
Trim down on the massive military budget?

This.

The US spent $636billion on the military in 2009. However that's...

A. One third of the entire world expenditure on military.

B. Double what the EU (the next largest competitor) spent. And seeing as they are all your allies I don't think they pose a threat.

C. 7 times that of China, the next largest individual countries military. Yet again no threat from China as they depend on the US industry.

 

I mean you could cut the militarys vast budget drastically and still be the worlds foremost military power. You would save enough left to make real changes in fields such as science, education, technology and medicine, the benefits of which will ensure future financial security anyway.

 

Off topic - I recently heard that the UK only spends 0.5% on science, considering we want science and technology to be one of our main industries that's a bit odd.