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

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should health care be private or public?

 

Which medical system do you prefer!

Public - all citizens hav... 51 55.43%
 
Private - citizens with c... 5 5.43%
 
Both, better treatment fo... 30 32.61%
 
Other (please explain in thread) 6 6.52%
 
Total:92
Icyedge on 14 August 2011
Joelcool7 said:
kowenicki said:
Joelcool7 said:
kowenicki said:
Rath said:
There you go again with the loaded poll.

Is it that hard to make the options simply

Public
Private
Mixed
Other (please explain)

Without putting your opinion in with the answers?



As for me I'm a fan of a mixed system with a strong public healthcare system but private for those who want to skip the waiting list.

Exactly.

In the UK we have both...  I still have to pay my contributions to the public system, but I also choose to have a private plan. 

Your mixed option has an opinion in it that stops me from clicking it.


Man I guess I did load the poll abit. Maybe I do over think things when I create the polls. However that is exactly how the system works does it not? If not that would be a great topic for discussion here in this thread.

Not really.

In the UK if I go private I will almost always see the same consultant as I would if I went the public "free" route....  I just see the consultant slightly quicker (except in emergency cases where you cant "queue jump") and I will get to recover in a more comfortable and luxurious hospital.

The actual treatment is unlikley to be much different, and the person performing the op will usually be the same person.


Huh interesting. The biggest fear in Canada is that wealthy people will get better treatment then the average citizen. Now you sorta confirm that a bit with the luxurious Hospital the question is how bad would the normal hospital be in comparison? I know my doctor wants private system because he says he'd make a crap load more money and that he'd leave the public system. If all the doctors left the public system for private due to higher pay and such the only ones who would be left wouldn't really give patients the same level of care.

I know here in my province the Liberal Government wants a private system running alongside the public. Their are already private clinics that will do non-life threatening proceedures for money. If you want to get a non-life threatening surgery done faster you can go to a private clinic. But that still seems wrong to me why should someone with more money be allowed to get his surgery faster then someone without?

I think it just goes against how I was raised and the fundementals of Canada's medical system. Though if I was sick and on a waiting list I would be tempted to skip the line if I had the cash. But I do think that it is wrong to treat me or anyone else differently because they have money.

Whatever is the basic threatment, jumping queue and staying with better condition is better treatment. In my opinion, an ideal society should be able to treat everyone equally, whether they are plumber or director. People that earn more should give more to the healthcare system, so there isnt a line for anyone. Between, this system isnt advantaging me, im being honest.



Around the Network
VetteDude on 14 August 2011

Talk about a loaded poll question.



Icyedge on 14 August 2011
Tony_Stark said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Public and make it a % of the income?


In what fantasy world is that a good idea? Who pays for it? You think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until the government gets control of it, they will KILL it. If not by making it next to impossible to comply with regulations, then they will do so by overpaying a bunch of people to sit around and do nothing. Doctors will be in short supply because they will not get paid enough to make their time spent in college worth the pay out. Let's not forget about R&D, the government will not pay enough for research, as a result we will get fewer life saving drugs. The rich will go to countries where they can get real healthcare, while the poor get shafted. Socialized medical programs do not work. The UK has already made steps to move away from their socialized program because it does not work. Why would anybody in their right mind want something that has been a proven failure?

I do know its the fantasy world of Canada :P, probably other country too. You do have good points, but you may be exagerating the effect of those points. Even if your not exagerating, the problem is with the fact some arent happy with 300K a year, not with a public healthcare. I think its wrong to always based our actions on financial gain. Honestly, I dont care what it cost me if everyone in my society can live with the same medical threatment. It worth more then money.



Baalzamon on 15 August 2011
Joelcool7 said:

A private health care system - Similiar to the old US one where if you can't afford medical insurance and such you don't get treatment. Basically if your poor your left for dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

You should read that.  Hospitals and ambulences cannot deny somebody service based on citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay if it is an emergency situation.  So yes, you do actually get treatment if you can't afford medical insurance.  How you will pay for this afterwards is an issue, but you were still allowed to use the services.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

SamuelRSmith on 15 August 2011

Private, free-market. Any problems with healthcare come from Government involvement, not the other way around.



Around the Network
Ail on 15 August 2011

Public is the only way to go.

It's the only way to offset the high costs associated with treating older people with the lower costs associated with younger more healthy people....

If you go full private there will always be some companies that will try to compete on price by offering cheaper premiums for healthier people and this will deny the offsetting of costs for the people that really need that insurance...

The same way it currently works for most other types of insurances ( try to get house insurance in some parts of Florida, sorry you're area has too many risks...).

The issue right now in the US is the government takes cares of insuring the people most at risks and the private insurance take cares of the younger rests which are usually more profitable to insure....

 

And I might live in the US but I am french and the french system is 90% public and it works ( a lot better than the english system).

There's a reason all the african tyrants come to France to get treatment when they are sick ;)



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Kasz216 on 15 August 2011
Ail said:

Public is the only way to go.

It's the only way to offset the high costs associated with treating older people with the lower costs associated with younger more healthy people....

If you go full private there will always be some companies that will try to compete on price by offering cheaper premiums for healthier people and this will deny the offsetting of costs for the people that really need that insurance...

The same way it currently works for most other types of insurances ( try to get house insurance in some parts of Florida, sorry you're area has too many risks...).

The issue right now in the US is the government takes cares of insuring the people most at risks and the private insurance take cares of the younger rests which are usually more profitable to insure....

 

And I might live in the US but I am french and the french system is 90% public and it works ( a lot better than the english system).

There's a reason all the african tyrants come to France to get treatment when they are sick ;)


But all the middle eastern ones come to the US.

Well except the ones the US hates.

Usually to Cleveland Clinic of all places.



makingmusic476 on 15 August 2011

Healthcare is not, and cannot be, a right. A right is not something that is given to you. It is something that you are allowed given you have the means. IE, in America, I have the right to own a gun if I so choose. A gun is not given to me.

As for the benefits of public vs private healthcare, I dislike aspects of both. Privatized healthcare obviously has issues with inflated prices due to a for-profit mentality, but I believe that's more an issue with our current patent law, which enables a sole company to sell a drug for years, preventing competition.

Honestly, I think a public system could work better than a private system in a variety of ways, but I fear the inefficiency that may come with a public system (ever been to the DMV? >_>), and thus I worry about the costs associated with such a system. I don't want another Social Security-esque albatross hanging around the federal government's neck.

Ultimately, I want what's best for the most people, and I haven't seen clear evidence that one system is really better than the other. All I know is that our current system here in the US is incredibly broken, but that's not necessarily because it's privatized.



Icyedge on 15 August 2011
SamuelRSmith said:
Private, free-market. Any problems with healthcare come from Government involvement, not the other way around.

Not saying we shouldnt profit of our chance; to live in a rich society, have education and most importantly the capability to succeed in this society. But please, lets not leave our neighbors suffer while we live in over the top luxury. The only way to do that is to have public services financed in proportion to income. We should be intelligent enough to not monopolise ressources too much. Particularly considering that we get those ressources by poluting the earth everyone live on.



SamuelRSmith on 16 August 2011
Icyedge said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Private, free-market. Any problems with healthcare come from Government involvement, not the other way around.

Not saying we shouldnt profit of our chance; to live in a rich society, have education and most importantly the capability to succeed in this society. But please, lets not leave our neighbors suffer while we live in over the top luxury. The only way to do that is to have public services financed in proportion to income. We should be intelligent enough to not monopolise ressources too much. Particularly considering that we get those ressources by poluting the earth everyone live on.


Sorry? Either you're talking in riddles, or I've lost the ability to read... but, I don't get what you're trying to say.