• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

What needs to change in US healthcare?

  • Complete overhaul, replacing old system with European-style universal healthcare.

    Votes: 25 65.8%
  • Partial overhaul, including expansion of Medicare, reworking of profit-based insurance system.

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Sparse overhaul, based around getting rid of the profit-based private insurance companies.

    Votes: 4 10.5%
  • Nothing needs to change, the US system is good the way it is.

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • Total voters
    38
Note that the defenders of the pre-ACA USA health system have not provided any statistics supporting the claim that it is better than the systems in other countries that are approximately as prosperous as the USA.
 
Note that the defenders of the pre-ACA USA health system have not provided any statistics supporting the claim that it is better than the systems in other countries that are approximately as prosperous as the USA.

When only two of the five factors deciding best healthcare are actually healthcare factors, the rankings are silly.
 
When only two of the five factors deciding best healthcare are actually healthcare factors, the rankings are silly.

Then provide some other type of assessment of relative quality. Cost and equality are definitely relevant factors in assessing health care quality.
 
Then provide some other type of assessment of relative quality. Cost and equality are definitely relevant factors in assessing health care quality.

The first thing would be to have every state define all health related things the same. This is currently not done.
 
You are confusing private with privatized. The state doesn't usually build roads or anything, they pay private companies to build it with taxpayer funds, this is privatization.

Privatization, also spelled privatisation, may have several meanings. Primarily, it is the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service or public property from the public sector (a government) to the private sector, either to a business that operates for a profit or to a nonprofit organization. It may also mean government outsourcing of services or functions to private firms, e.g. revenue collection, law enforcement, and prison management.[1]
Wikipedia

pri·vat·ize
transitive verb \ˈprī-və-ˌtīz\

: to remove (something) from government control and place it in private control or ownership
Full Definition of PRIVATIZE
: to make private; especially : to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership
— pri·vat·i·za·tion noun
Websters
 
Privatization, may have several meanings. Primarily, it is the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service or public property from the public sector (a government) to the private sector, either to a business that operates for a profit or to a nonprofit organization. It may also mean government outsourcing of services or functions to private firms, e.g. revenue collection, law enforcement, and prison management.[1]
Wikipedia

pri·vat·ize
transitive verb \ˈprī-və-ˌtīz\

: to remove (something) from government control and place it in private control or ownership
Full Definition of PRIVATIZE
: to make private; especially : to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership
— pri·vat·i·za·tion noun
Websters

Can you relate this to my post?
 
Note that the defenders of the pre-ACA USA health system have not provided any statistics supporting the claim that it is better than the systems in other countries that are approximately as prosperous as the USA.

The burden of proof is on the proponents of the ACA "Obamacare" system. The jury is still out on that.

It hasn't been implemented coherently even now. It was unilaterally passed (by democrats), on Christmas day (or maybe eve, can't remember), without many people fully (or even partially) understanding what was in it, and written mostly by "industry professionals" that turned out mostly to be lobbyists, corporate representatives, and political technocrats, not to mention takes on a very large complicated issue in one bill. Also, parts of it were "sold" to Americans based on false pretense. Whether knowingly or not is a subject for a different thread.

The previous system was far from perfect, but also far from broken, and to change the status quo so substantially requires a little more time to see if the replacement system is actually better. For the reasons cited above, I'm a little skeptical which I think is understandable. With respect to other countries' systems, I think to blindly replicate something just because the "cool Europeans do it, and they've always been so right ...huh?" is a really bad reason to change an entire system.
 
Why are non-healthcare factors important for finding out who has the best healthcare?

non-healthcare factors can be important for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is access issues. There has been a lot of bloviating on this thread about who is accurate about rating the U.S. system when the truth is a little bit more complicated.

If you have the means, either financial or by happenstance, to have full access to all that the U.S. healthcare system has to offer then there are few countries that can compare. Unfortunately or fortunately depending upon your beliefs not everyone in the U.S. has equal access. Access to U.S. healthcare is generally determined by ability to pay and rationed by ability to pay. In other countries the rationing is generally done by medical necessity. Both systems have their problems but as for me I prefer medical necessity to rationing by bank account.
 
Has the WHO ever said anything good about the US? In fact, has any international organization ever said anything good about the US? We are the scapegoat for every international group out there. So much medicine has been developed in the US, I don't even have to check to see that we have dwarfed the world. But just for the Obamacare leftwing nutters...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?_r=0

I also love the poll choices, no choices unless you're a Obamacare buttlicker. :roll:
 
It's no secret that the US healthcare system is a disaster, and of all developed nations, the US has some of the worst healthcare and overall health.

System may be bad. But medicine, the best in the world.
 
Then provide some other type of assessment of relative quality. Cost and equality are definitely relevant factors in assessing health care quality.
They're really the same thing though - Cost determines availability (and to some degree, quality), and availability is what people mean when they say "equality".
 
[/url]

I also love the poll choices, no choices unless you're a Obamacare buttlicker. :roll:


The real reason that Obama decided to change the medical system in the country, this redistribution of the money flow in favor of the state institutions. If Obama really wanted to make changes for the better, the first thing he would have done it increased aid for medical students. Сountry needs a large increase number of doctors and nurses. Country needs a large increase number hospitals and universal care clinics. And only after that, create a database for full coverage of the population.
 
Last edited:
Not accessible to all. However I've never seen someone, who were denied to help in the hospital.
I half wonder if reassigning all the funding for ACA to subsidize non-paying hospital vists would be more effective...but then I don't know much about how health care works or doesn't, apart from what the news blathers about recently.

Bah, some hospital or hospital employee would probably take advantage of that and fake non-paying visits...or no one would pay.
 
The first thing would be to have every state define all health related things the same. This is currently not done.

Privatization, also spelled privatisation, may have several meanings. Primarily, it is the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service or public property from the public sector (a government) to the private sector, either to a business that operates for a profit or to a nonprofit organization. It may also mean government outsourcing of services or functions to private firms, e.g. revenue collection, law enforcement, and prison management.[1]
Wikipedia

pri·vat·ize
transitive verb \ˈprī-və-ˌtīz\

: to remove (something) from government control and place it in private control or ownership
Full Definition of PRIVATIZE
: to make private; especially : to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership
— pri·vat·i·za·tion noun
Websters
I thought I had it right.
 
The first thing would be to have every state define all health related things the same. This is currently not done.

You didn't.
I clearly did by the definition. Taking from public control to private. I can also say in support of private healthcare and insurance. Means the same thing basically. One is taking from the government and making it private, one is just private, meaning the govt didn't have control in the first place. Either way I support both in healthcare and insurance.
 
I clearly did by the definition. Taking from public control to private. I can also say in support of private healthcare and insurance. Means the same thing basically. One is taking from the government and making it private, one is just private, meaning the govt didn't have control in the first place. Either way I support both in healthcare and insurance.

Yes, like taking tax money that paid for state guards in prisons and turning the prison over to a private company and still paying the guard with taxation (like I said).
 
Yes, like taking tax money that paid for state guards in prisons and turning the prison over to a private company and still paying the guard with taxation (like I said).
No that's not what the complete definition says. Its taking something that was public and making it private. Can mean outsourcing, that can lead to tax funds being used. It can be what you said yes, but that's not what I support.
 
The real reason that Obama decided to change the medical system in the country, this redistribution of the money flow in favor of the state institutions. If Obama really wanted to make changes for the better, the first thing he would have done it increased aid for medical students. Сountry needs a large increase number of doctors and nurses. Country needs a large increase number hospitals and universal care clinics. And only after that, create a database for full coverage of the population.

How about buying insurance across state lines?
 
No that's not what the complete definition says. Its taking something that was public and making it private. Can mean outsourcing, that can lead to tax funds being used. It can be what you said yes, but that's not what I support.

Publicly paid for to a private company.
 
How about buying insurance across state lines?

I do not understand what prevents this. But our friends Republicans in Congress, is not very enthusiastic on this idea.
 
How about buying insurance across state lines?
Can't do that. Health insurers and their salesmen across the country would lose their semi-protected status. That could result in competition for business and commissions.
 
Can't do that. Health insurers and their salesmen across the country would lose their semi-protected status. That could result in competition for business and commissions.

Oh noes!!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom