• 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
I understand the valid point the OP was making, but this is a hardy perennial argument which surfaces regularly. As only one other poster appears to have mentioned, we are talking about two different things.

Health care, per se, (as in the quality of procedures and research,) is probably second to none in the USA (as one would reasonably expect in the wealthiest society on earth).

To what the WHO, and a number of other organisations, are referring is the health care system extant in the USA - primarily concerning distribution and availability (related to the ability to pay). For different reasons, (but still related to distribution) Australia fared badly (only a few places above the USA) in the WHO rankings. This may sem unfair to Australians (Australia offers first class medical treatment, combined with an effective UHC system,) but its overall effectiveness is reduced by the tyranny of distance. This means that a relatively few people living on a land mass slightly larger than the continental United States, experience difficulties in gaining access to prompt services due to having to travel literally thousands of kilometres (in some instances) from extremely remote communities. Thus, the distribution of health care services is unequal depending upon where you live. (People elsewhere have little concept of how large Australia is - Texas would fit about six times into one Australian state - Western Australia.) All these things are valid arbiters of a health care system, but not necessarily of the quality of health care offered.

I am not nit-picking, but trying to assist in the understanding of what was meant by the OP, and the reaction of most Americans to the apparent allegation that US health care is sub-standard. It most decidedly is not, but perhaps the system could be improved.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
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.

This Business Insider article mentions the 36 countries that have better healthcare than the US, from France in #1 to Costa Rica in #36.

My poll today is: What needs to change to bring the US closer to other developed nations in terms of healthcare quality, service and costs?

The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider
Click to expand...

I know that New Zealand has fallen off a bit lately but they have a decidedly better system than the USA and they are not on that list at all... something fishy.
 
SBu said:
..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.
Click to expand...

In some states more than a quarter of the population had no coverage, medical problems were the leading cause of foreclosures and bankruptcies, and a large portion of health care for low income people was provided through the least cost efficient method; emergency rooms. Many people are stuck in their jobs because they wouldn't be able to get coverage otherwise. I considered that broken..

We should not adopt another country's system because it is "cool," we should adopt the aspects of other country's systems that are proven to work well.
 
Hard Truth said:
In some states more than a quarter of the population had no coverage
Click to expand...

As of yet, PPACA is net-negative in terms of people with health insurance. And the business mandate has not become law yet.
 
ocean515 said:
Problem. The Business Insider article from 2012 referenced the notorious WHO report so full of errors and disinformation the WHO won't publish another ranking again.

So, your post contains zero facts, and might then be difficult to attract anything meaningful.
Click to expand...

Sure we can extract meaningful information from it. The morale of the story is simple, if the government doesn't pay for it and give to everyone for "free", it sucks and should be considered of low quality no matter what other factors exist.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
This is the first I've heard that the report was anything but based off of careful research. I suspect you don't like the WHO report for the same reason you probably don't like the UN or the WTO -- they're not American, they appear to take power away from America, and they often criticise America when you would prefer not to be criticised.

But if you'd like another report, here you are:

</title> <script src='/rapi/js_config.js' type='text/javascript'></script> <script src="http://cdn.gotraffic.net/v/20140102_130124/javascripts/visual-data/jquery-1.8.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script> $.fn.localizeDateStamp = function

Bloomberg ranks the US as 46th. Maybe the WHO wasn't so bad after all?
Click to expand...

Actually.....

The U.N. is America. All these glorious western European utopias couldn't fund it if they had to. Useless, economically dependent countries. If Germany pulled out, the bread lines would look like highways in the rest of Europe.

I think we should pull out personally. This one government agenda is ridiculous, continually failing, accomplishing nothing aside from draining pockets of American tax payers so European leaders can feel like they still have an impact. Feel good B.S. U.N. is useless, as is NATO.
 
Nobody wants to truly pay for it. I have associates in Canada that pay 50+% of every pay check because of the health system there. One of them makes 10k more than I do but I still get to take more of mine home.

I never want to work for 50 cents on the dollar, we might as well bring back slavery if liberals are alright making slaves out the working class that always gets stuck with the bill.
 
Rocketman said:
Nobody wants to truly pay for it. I have associates in Canada that pay 50+% of every pay check because of the health system there. One of them makes 10k more than I do but I still get to take more of mine home.

I never want to work for 50 cents on the dollar, we might as well bring back slavery if liberals are alright making slaves out the working class that always gets stuck with the bill.
Click to expand...

Scaremongering.

Countries all over can fund decent and equitable health service without taxing people out of existence. Why isn't it a basic human right in US?

You're underdeveloped...
 
And we pay for it anyway, just in the least efficient way possible right now.
Viv said:
Scaremongering.

Countries all over can fund decent and equitable health service without taxing people out of existence. Why isn't it a basic human right in US?

You're underdeveloped...
Click to expand...
 
Viv said:
Scaremongering.

Countries all over can fund decent and equitable health service without taxing people out of existence. Why isn't it a basic human right in US?

You're underdeveloped...
Click to expand...

Bull****, Europeans are treated like cattle. My company has plants there too and the government has their hands in everything. No thank you.
 
mak2 said:
And we pay for it anyway, just in the least efficient way possible right now.
Click to expand...

Yes it is much worse now than say 5 years ago.
 
Availability is not a measure of quality in general. Further, how many people in the US are actually denied care?

Availability of advanced care could be a measure of quality. Availability of procedures outside of basic care could affect quality measures. Waiting times for non-basic care could be used as a factor in the measure of Quality. So could number of post visit infections. Deaths from infection during/following surgeries. Actually meeting and talking with you surgeon before a procedure, I think, should be in there also. Availability of advanced diagnostics. Many other factors.

Life expectancy could, if you can quantitatively also take into account various other factors, diet, exercise, drug/alcohol use etc.

But just how many don't have coverage in non-socialized systems vs everyone being covered under a socialized system is in no way, shape or form a factor in accessing quality.
 
scatt said:
As of yet, PPACA is net-negative in terms of people with health insurance. And the business mandate has not become law yet.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending ACA, I'm saying doing nothing to address the health care situation was not acceptable and we should use the examples of other nations in consideration of a solution.
 
Rocketman said:
Yes it is much worse now than say 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

And yet, prior to the mid-1970s, there was no significant cost differences. What changed then? Why not reset the system to then and try other things? If something works, you change it and then it gets broken, then the first thing to do is return it to where it was before you made changes not take off on different tangents?
 
Hard Truth said:
I'm not defending ACA, I'm saying doing nothing to address the health care situation was not acceptable and we should use the examples of other nations in consideration of a solution.
Click to expand...

The solution used as of now has made it worse.
 
DVSentinel said:
...But just how many don't have coverage in non-socialized systems vs everyone being covered under a socialized system is in no way, shape or form a factor in accessing quality.
Click to expand...

That summarizes the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals do not consider a system to be successful if it fails to provide adequate service to a significant portion of the population. Conservatives are generally accepting of situations in which poor people suffer.
 
Hard Truth said:
That summarizes the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals do not consider a system to be successful if it fails to provide adequate service to a significant portion of the population. Conservatives are generally accepting of situations in which poor people suffer.
Click to expand...

Democrats (called liberals in the US) support the suffering of people, and strive for it.
 
Hard Truth said:
That summarizes the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals do not consider a system to be successful if it fails to provide adequate service to a significant portion of the population. Conservatives are generally accepting of situations in which poor people suffer.
Click to expand...

Um, if Liberals get their way and degrade or collapse the whole system, then wouldn't more people suffer?
 
DVSentinel said:
Um, if Liberals get their way and degrade or collapse the whole system, then wouldn't more people suffer?
Click to expand...

Liberals are not the ones who want the system to degrade or collapse. If ACA doesn't work it will likely be due to the sabotage* from conservatives/Republicans. I'm not a big fan of ACA, but there is evidence it can do more good than harm, and I hope that happens. Whether it does or not, I would rather have one of the types of systems that are working better than ours in many countries.


*"Here’s a blueprint for the GOP’s sabotage act, which runs the gamut from spreading half-truths to, as John Boehner himself put it, “risk[ing] the full faith and credit of the United States.”

Refuse to expand Medicaid

The Supreme Court’s ruling last year gave states the right to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, which is one of the most significant pieces of the ACA in terms of the impact it will have on the uninsured and its importance to the overall success of the law. More than twenty states—most fully controlled by Republicans in the legislature and the governor’s office—are denying some of the neediest Americans care by refusing to expand the program. Some 9.7 million of the 15 million potentially eligible adults live in states that are refusing to expand or have not indicated whether they will do so.

Refuse to create state insurance exchanges

More than half the states have declined to establish their own insurance marketplaces. All but six are run by Republican governors and a Republican-majority legislature. Residents will still be able to buy insurance through the federal exchange, but without cooperation and promotion from state officials, it will be more difficult to reach the uninsured.....

Block improvements to the law

While implementation has brought certain weaknesses in the ACA to light, there’s about zero chance that the GOP will support operational or funding fixes. Some of the concerns raised—for example, that employers will cut full-time workers in order to avoid providing insurance for their employees—could be met with simple changes. If the GOP’s full-out attack on the Obama administration after its decision to delay the employer mandate for a year in order to smooth out some of these issues is any indication, the GOP will do no more than exploit efforts to improve the law.

Publicize misinformation

Republicans squawking about rate shocks are presenting misleading numbers, particularly in Indiana and Ohio. One of the simplest ways the GOP fudges calculations to make anticipated premium prices look higher than they will be is by not factoring in the federal subsidies that will cut the cost of the premiums for most people buying coverage. Expect the volume of lying to rise when legislators return to their home districts during the August recess.

Discourage private partnerships

When Massachusetts was promoting Romneycare in 2007, the state partnered with the Red Sox to educate residents about the new law and encourage enrollment. Public education is key to the ACA rollout, too, and the White House has enlisted celebrities and sports franchises to raise awareness, particularly in target groups like healthy young men. The GOP is trying to scare off potential partners, and it has already succeeded with the NFL.

Refuse to assist constituents

Not only are Republicans spreading misinformation and ruining education campaigns, they have also indicated that they won’t help confused constituents navigate the law or access benefits. Congressional offices expect a wave of calls once enrollment begins in the fall, but several Republicans told The Hill they weren’t preparing to answer questions. “All we can do is pass them back to the Obama administration,” Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz said. “They’re responsible for it.”...........

..........Why work to undermine the Affordable Care Act so aggressively if, as Republicans claim, the law is fundamentally flawed? One reason is that the party hopes to leverage the chaos into political benefit. More significantly, the risks of an effective ACA are just too high. Once the full range of benefits begins to reach people with pre-existing conditions, low-income adults, employees and millions of other citizens, it’s going to be a lot harder to make the argument that the ACA is ruining the country or that such benefits should be denied."

A Blueprint for the GOP's Attempt to Sabotage Obamacare | The Nation
 
Hard Truth said:
Liberals are not the ones who want the system to degrade or collapse. If ACA doesn't work it will likely be due to the sabotage* from conservatives/Republicans. I'm not a big fan of ACA, but there is evidence it can do more good than harm, and I hope that happens. Whether it does or not, I would rather have one of the types of systems that are working better than ours in many countries.


*"Here’s a blueprint for the GOP’s sabotage act, which runs the gamut from spreading half-truths to, as John Boehner himself put it, “risk[ing] the full faith and credit of the United States.”

Refuse to expand Medicaid

The Supreme Court’s ruling last year gave states the right to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, which is one of the most significant pieces of the ACA in terms of the impact it will have on the uninsured and its importance to the overall success of the law. More than twenty states—most fully controlled by Republicans in the legislature and the governor’s office—are denying some of the neediest Americans care by refusing to expand the program. Some 9.7 million of the 15 million potentially eligible adults live in states that are refusing to expand or have not indicated whether they will do so.

Refuse to create state insurance exchanges

More than half the states have declined to establish their own insurance marketplaces. All but six are run by Republican governors and a Republican-majority legislature. Residents will still be able to buy insurance through the federal exchange, but without cooperation and promotion from state officials, it will be more difficult to reach the uninsured.....

Block improvements to the law

While implementation has brought certain weaknesses in the ACA to light, there’s about zero chance that the GOP will support operational or funding fixes. Some of the concerns raised—for example, that employers will cut full-time workers in order to avoid providing insurance for their employees—could be met with simple changes. If the GOP’s full-out attack on the Obama administration after its decision to delay the employer mandate for a year in order to smooth out some of these issues is any indication, the GOP will do no more than exploit efforts to improve the law.

Publicize misinformation

Republicans squawking about rate shocks are presenting misleading numbers, particularly in Indiana and Ohio. One of the simplest ways the GOP fudges calculations to make anticipated premium prices look higher than they will be is by not factoring in the federal subsidies that will cut the cost of the premiums for most people buying coverage. Expect the volume of lying to rise when legislators return to their home districts during the August recess.

Discourage private partnerships

When Massachusetts was promoting Romneycare in 2007, the state partnered with the Red Sox to educate residents about the new law and encourage enrollment. Public education is key to the ACA rollout, too, and the White House has enlisted celebrities and sports franchises to raise awareness, particularly in target groups like healthy young men. The GOP is trying to scare off potential partners, and it has already succeeded with the NFL.

Refuse to assist constituents

Not only are Republicans spreading misinformation and ruining education campaigns, they have also indicated that they won’t help confused constituents navigate the law or access benefits. Congressional offices expect a wave of calls once enrollment begins in the fall, but several Republicans told The Hill they weren’t preparing to answer questions. “All we can do is pass them back to the Obama administration,” Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz said. “They’re responsible for it.”...........

..........Why work to undermine the Affordable Care Act so aggressively if, as Republicans claim, the law is fundamentally flawed? One reason is that the party hopes to leverage the chaos into political benefit. More significantly, the risks of an effective ACA are just too high. Once the full range of benefits begins to reach people with pre-existing conditions, low-income adults, employees and millions of other citizens, it’s going to be a lot harder to make the argument that the ACA is ruining the country or that such benefits should be denied."

A Blueprint for the GOP's Attempt to Sabotage Obamacare | The Nation
Click to expand...

Ok, I didn't read all your hype. First of all, Obama care was never designed to work. It was supposed to have an option for the government to seize control and initiate a socialized system. Failure to include that only has an impact in that the failure will only help push for socialized medicine as the system fails.

Further, it is rather unrealistic and frankly, rather naive and ignorant of people to not realize that the problems and failures of the government concerning healthcare are the result of liberals. The Republicans have had 6 years out of about the last 100, 2 in the 1950s and 4 Under G. W. Bush, where they had majority in both houses and the white house. That means that every law passed other than in those 6 years did so at the approval of the democrats/liberals.

For a very longtime now, the world and all socialized systems have been dependent upon the US and a few other private healthcare facilities for almost the total sum of medical advancements. If you remove the largest player/contributor, then you kill that. Further, there is not a single socialized system, medical or otherwise, that has ever proved to be superior or even worked without additional input from non-socialized systems. Without a strong non-socialized system to contribute, all socialized systems have and will continue to fail, miserably.

If the GOP is intentionally doing anything, good for them because Obama care is a piece of crap. It and all other systems like it are based solely upon taking from one person/group and giving to another. You cannot take from people without creating conflict and animosity. Those who get something for free out of it are going to love it, probably, those who actually have to work and sacrifice to pay for it are going to hate it.
 
DVSentinel said:
..Further, it is rather unrealistic and frankly, rather naive and ignorant of people to not realize that the problems and failures of the government concerning healthcare are the result of liberals...
Click to expand...

There have never been more than a few real liberals in Congress and the Senate at one time, people like Tom Hayden, Barbara Lee, Bernie Sanders, Barny Frank and Ted Kennedy. The ACA was compromised to gain support from all the centrist Democrats and with the hope of getting some Republican support. ACA was supported by liberals as an improvement over doing nothing, but they have never been enthusiastic about. It was hoped it will lead to something better.

I have no problem with the continued existence of private health care systems as long as they don't threaten a public system. The two coexist in many European countries.
 
According to a liberal government produced report to fuel more government suggesting the only answer is government.


Ad_Captandum said:
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.

This Business Insider article mentions the 36 countries that have better healthcare than the US, from France in #1 to Costa Rica in #36.

My poll today is: What needs to change to bring the US closer to other developed nations in terms of healthcare quality, service and costs?

The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider
Click to expand...
 
Gipper said:
Who the hell is talking about exile? Exile is force.

If you don't like the policies of where you are, be somewhere else. Otherwise, the least of what you are is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Or, even better... try to instigate change. Jeepers, what a concept, eh? :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom