Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[Muskan]

Letter to The New York Times

To the Editor:

Advocating universal health care, Steven Safyer, M.D., hopes that "the next administration will see the wisdom of acting — not just talking — so Americans get the care they deserve." (Letters, Nov. 6)

What evidence is there that Americans do not now "get the care they deserve"? Material deserts are earned, not given by nature. In the case of health care, the fact that even POOR Americans consume other things so abundantly casts doubt on the supposition that this land is crowded with people who are denied health care that they deserve. Consider, for example, that today 80 percent of POOR households have air-conditioning (compared to only 36 percent of ALL households who had it in 1970); 75 percent of poor households today own a car, and 31 percent own two cars; the typical POOR American has more household living space than does the typical Parisian and Londoner; and nearly 80 percent of POOR American households have a VCR or DVD player.*

Someone who voluntarily purchases X instead of Y - where X is widely regarded as less vital than Y - cannot legitimately be said to deserve Y.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

* Robert E. Rector, "How Poor Are America's Poor?" Heritage Foundation, August 2007

Don Boudreaux is the Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University and a Business & Media Institute adviser.

Don Boudreaux sent this letter to NY Times, Obviously it was rejected.
But the letter raises serious issues.

Do American's really 'deserve' Universal Care, as was promised by President Obama during his campaign?

[fetishdj]

The difference between Europe and America in terms of 'living space' is purely a land thing. You quite simply have more space build on so you spread out your cities as much as possible. Unlike, for example, Amsterdam where you have buildings that are three stories or more tall but only have one room per floor (because you pay tax based on the building footprint not the number of floors).

From a purely humanitarian viewpoint: yes, all humans deserve free health care. I say this speaking as someone who has benefitted from it for all his life.

FRom a practical viewpoint... I think it is a more difficult proposition to achieve in real life. Our NHS is beleagured and underfunded at the moment and I cannot think how bad the American equivilent would be... probably too impractical to start off now....

[Muskan]

From a purely humanitarian viewpoint: yes, all humans deserve free health care.

Is it really a Humanitarian point of view?

What is wrong if it is stated that Everyone is free and responsible for his actions. Nobody is obligated for any other body and every person has to earn his own living and securities By his own Hard-work Honestly?
It is true that there can surely be some very unfortunate cases who just cannot earn a good living for some reason or other. For that, voluntary charity is the answer.
But how Humanitarian is it to force a compulsory tax on all citizen to bear the Universal Healthcare security for others incuding his ownself?
I mean, the government won't be creating money, it will be created by the citizens, the Individual citizen.
It should be his freedom to chose whether to give a voluntary tax (or charity) to some Non-Governmental-organization, or a Governmental one, to provide health securities to the needies who need it genuinely. It should be his freedom if he Do not want to pay his earned money for such project.
Why should he be taxed under Compulsory taxation for such project which basically is not worthy to be supported.

[gagged_Louise]

From a purely humanitarian viewpoint: yes, all humans deserve free health care.

Is it really a Humanitarian point of view?

What is wrong if it is stated that Everyone is free and responsible for his actions. Nobody is obligated for any other body and every person has to earn his own living and securities By his own Hard-work Honestly?
It is true that there can surely be some very unfortunate cases who just cannot earn a good living for some reason or other. For that, voluntary charity is the answer.
But how Humanitarian is it to force a compulsory tax on all citizen to bear the Universal Healthcare security for others incuding his ownself?
I mean, the government won't be creating money, it will be created by the citizens, the Individual citizen.
It should be his freedom to chose whether to give a voluntary tax (or charity) to some Non-Governmental-organization, or a Governmental one, to provide health securities to the needies who need it genuinely. It should be his freedom if he Do not want to pay his earned money for such project.
Why should he be taxed under Compulsory taxation for such project which basically is not worthy to be supported.

None of us can foresee all the results of our actions, not even within our own family or our own neighbourhood or business (I'm writing "family" rather than "one's own life" because I guess most of us do not really want a liberty that has a substantial risk of putting our kids on the street, lead to our partner being killed or maimed for life, acted upon them in the nick of time, without them or us (personally) having done anything much to get there or "deserve it"). No child, except the kid of a millionaire or a king, is born with the resources to take it safely up to adult life. We all depend on parents, schools, employment and on the community around us!

If we think all people must take "every consequence of what they do", then we shouldn't have any trouble with seeing unarmed men and women being raped, killed and tortured - or who see their children killed or forced into slavery - because they happened to live in a city that's taken by enemy forces (this was the regular thing in many places for most of written history, and still happens today in some parts of Africa). They could have moved out in time, or they could have declared they didn't want to have any part in the conflict, couldn't they?

Of course sometimes people make bad choices, they invest money in a poor way, your kids may start using drugs or people go into insane projects. But it would be nutty to presume that all kinds of misfortune are generated from willful choices, or that the one who makes the choice is most often the one who has to suffer. The banking crisis gives you sacks full of proof: the banks that are pulled down are not the ones who have made the most lousy transactions to begin with, but the ones where the crap ended up, because many kinds of business lead to secondary transactions, futures or insuring that can be very hard to break off.

So banks like Merrill Lynch end up with bad (and hastily written?) papers and obligations that represent business that was generated some place else. In theory, we should let all those fall, and Fannie and Freddie first of all, but in reality, that's not a path that you can take without breaking down society and worsening it all.

I do think there is a kidn of universal human right not to live in detitute onditions, not to have to die early or suffer unneeded, wasteful diseases. That's not to say that everyone has a right to free care at the most expensive clinics or that the presence of diseases is a negation of humanity. It's an expression of where we want to go.

Taxes? yes, you could make it voluntary to be joining or standing outside, but countries where basic health care insurances are fully voluntary (like the USA) invariably have a large chunk of people who are not able to get on the ladder (same with houses). The costs of actually getting an insurance may not always seem prohibitive, but the difficult part is getting the free money to ease past the bump in an existence where you're always scrounging, always pulling and squeezing to make ends meet somehow - with low wages or being on the dole, or no means at all.

It's no accident that poor people are the ones who get the really grave diseases; they don't have the money to go to regular health controls, to eat in a nourishing way or to see a doctor when something seems suspicious. Taxes are really the only way to get all on board - the state funds don't always have to carry the full costs but using taxes as a grounding for public health is the superior way to create an overall health care system.

[MMI]

Why is it, in USA, that if a person is poor, he mustn't have worked hard enough? Why is it that people in USA only "deserve" what they can pay for?

Why is it that the worth of a US citizen can be measured in dollars, but not in generosity or humanity?

No-one chooses to be poor or a burden on society (ok - a few exceptions, but the general assertion holds good), and it is callous in the extreme, to my way of thinking, to allow an unfortunate person to suffer more when is is within my power to help him.

[DuncanONeil]

Why is it, in USA, that if a person is poor, he mustn't have worked hard enough? Why is it that people in USA only "deserve" what they can pay for?

Why is it that the worth of a US citizen can be measured in dollars, but not in generosity or humanity?

No-one chooses to be poor or a burden on society (ok - a few exceptions, but the general assertion holds good), and it is callous in the extreme, to my way of thinking, to allow an unfortunate person to suffer more when is is within my power to help him.

Poor in the US are not a burden on society. 46% of US poor own their own home!

As for worth being measured in $. I suspect that you focused to much on one aspect. I must admit that I am not sure just what made you take this tack.

[Saheli]

Why is it, in USA, that if a person is poor, he mustn't have worked hard enough? Why is it that people in USA only "deserve" what they can pay for?

Why is it that the worth of a US citizen can be measured in dollars, but not in generosity or humanity?

No-one chooses to be poor or a burden on society (ok - a few exceptions, but the general assertion holds good), and it is callous in the extreme, to my way of thinking, to allow an unfortunate person to suffer more when is is within my power to help him.

My husband works two jobs; I have one job and go to college full-time...we have two children. We can't afford health insurance and can barely afford the basics: food, electricity, gas, etc. Forget going out to eat (unless it's a birthday or something when sometimes we get money from relatives) or buying something we would like...or going out on a date where *gasp* we might need an extra twenty bucks.

Even so, I am not sure where I stand on this issue. I do not believe anyone is inherently entitled to healthcare. But I know I sure could use it! If my husband paid for health insurance for our family, we would not be able to afford our bills...and we do not have nice things. I mean, we don't have a fancy car or a nice house. We buy the cheapest, best-quality stuff we can and scrape by..it's not like we buy expensive things and then complain about upkeep. For families like mine, it would help tremendously.

We had to put our children on Medicaid, and I'm thinking about applying for food stamps. I would LOVE to get another job. I would LOVE to afford what I need. But I have no extra time to do it! It's either work my job and go to school or quit school and get another job...but if I do that, I have to start paying back all my lovely student loans because obviously, I've had to take those out.

The most frustrating thing is that everyone around us thinks that we are just blowing our money. My mother in law constantly says, "It isn't that you don't make enough money, it's just that you spend too much." Yeah, on bills! There's nothing left after that. Seriously, we have $17 in our bank account right now; it's not like I'm crying poor with a couple hundred in there. Our income is barely more than our expenses.

You may not believe it, but it actually IS possible to be working as hard as you can and still be poor.

I don't know what the answer is: some say health-care reform, others say charity. But you know, those people who think charity is the way to go here's an idea...do some yourself! It has to start somewhere...why wait around for the other guy?

Truly, what I want more than help is a little validation. You know, someone to say every now and then, "Damn you guys are doing the best you can," rather than just assuming that if you live in America you automatically will make a decent living. It's offensive...much moreso than not having insurance.

[Pearlgem]

Thank you, MMI. I was groping for the words but you've hit the nail on the head.

[Muskan]

Why is it, in USA, that if a person is poor, he mustn't have worked hard enough? Why is it that people in USA only "deserve" what they can pay for?


So you want it to be like canada? where people prays that USA may not start Universal health care programe?
There is a report on Canadian health care system
Canadians urging Americans to not to Apply Universal Health Care System
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=H4u5x9XAsAs&

[Ragoczy]

Health care isn't a natural resource floating around accessible to everyone -- it's not air, water, whatever. In order for someone to be provided health care, someone else has to do something -- there's a cost involved in that, either the time of the health care provider or money to compensate for that time.

The problem with "universal" health care is that people don't make that connection or understand the implication. It means the police-power of government, the government's unique power of acceptable lethal force, must be used to take from one citizen and give to another -- either by forcing the health-care provider to use his/her time or to take money from someone else to compensate.

I think I'm a generous person. My family gives quite a bit to charity -- more than Joe Biden does, despite the fact that he makes tens of times more than I do. I might donate to someone who needed an operation they couldn't afford or to an organization that provides health care to those who don't have insurance and can't afford it -- but I have a significant objection to the government using its power of lethal force to threaten me with imprisonment or death so they can take money I earned and plan to spend on my family for the benefit of others. That should be my decision.

[icey]

double post!

[icey]

it's always amazed me that the richest most powerful country in the world charges everyone for medical help even those that cant afford it!

I have a significant objection to the government using its power of lethal force to threaten me with imprisonment or death so they can take money I earned and plan to spend on my family for the benefit of others. That should be my decision.

ok, i can appreciate what you're saying but and here's hoping it will never happen, you hit on hard times you have zilch and one of your loved ones or yourself needs treatment? perhaps serious and costly treatment, would you still have the same opinion?
and rather than argue that that would be different because you've previously always worked payed taxes etc therefore you've earned it...imagine you've been brought up in a life/world that never gave you any chance, born disabled or a million other things and you never had chance to earn a living pay taxes etc...then what? would you be less deserving simply because of circumstances? or would you be glad of that ''lethal government''
hell our nhs system may be under funded and might f**k up sometimes but if we didnt have it then my sister would have died when she was 11 and a few other people i know would either be dead or extremely ill (myself included lol) oh and yep my family have always worked and paid their taxes and ni!
im sorry but thats something i think the US does need to seriously think about and update.
at the risk of causing an uproar, im curious and this is a serious questionas i really dont know how the system works, do those who choose to join forces and fight in wars and get injured have to pay for their own medical care?? and please note i say those who CHOSE ...because i will be totally honest in my book it s sooo wrong and unjust if people CHOOSE to physically or mentally endanger themselves for a living and get paid pretty well for doing so get free healthcare in a system that doesnt normally work that way.

[bellelapine]

One of the massive problems that come from programs such as this is that people who are in true need are often the first ones denied such. It goes to those who never attempt to make out a living, who never try to scratch a way out of the gutter simply because they don't make any money nor ever have.
Case in point. My mother had a stroke last year. She has busted her ass for years (as has my father), paid her taxes and I had thought maybe paid her dues. She is disabled on her right side and has numerous other health issues now that prevent her from working. It took A YEAR for them to achieve any help whatsoever. And even then she had to take a psychiatric evaluation, a physical, a second opinion, a physical therapist's opinion, a 'work-ability' evaluation, ect. Now tell me why is it that programs that are put into place to help those in these dire situations get told things like "Oh I'm sorry your husband makes 1200 a month, your income is too high." Yet those who have never contributed a dime to society get handed money and a place to live (my parents were evicted the month after my Mother's stroke) because they opened their legs or because they were born in a bad area?
Why should my taxes go to people who depend on the altruistic beliefs of the populace when I can better put that money to those who get shafted? Or a savings account to prepare for my own illness or disability in the future?
If you're going to have programs to 'save the poor' why not have the programs be spread equally across the people who need it? Not tell them that I'm sorry Divorice your husband of 24 years and we'll talk. Not tell them, I'm sorry you're the wrong colour for assistance (My mom heard that one too).
This is very obviously a touchy subject to me.

[DuncanONeil]

Y'all do realize that the current plan of "Universal Health Care" is not really "Universal Health Care". It is more like "Universal Triage". An analysis will be made of the cost of the treatment versus the value of the patients remaining life expectancy.
One could claim that this is "Universal Kevorkian Care"

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Y'all do realize that the current plan of "Universal Health Care" is not really "Universal Health Care". It is more like "Universal Triage". An analysis will be made of the cost of the treatment versus the value of the patients remaining life expectancy.
One could claim that this is "Universal Kevorkian Care"

I'd like to research this some. Can you tell me where you found the information on triage-type analysis? I would appreciate it.

[Losalt]

Health care isn't a natural resource floating around accessible to everyone -- it's not air, water, whatever. In order for someone to be provided health care, someone else has to do something -- there's a cost involved in that, either the time of the health care provider or money to compensate for that time.

The problem with "universal" health care is that people don't make that connection or understand the implication. It means the police-power of government, the government's unique power of acceptable lethal force, must be used to take from one citizen and give to another -- either by forcing the health-care provider to use his/her time or to take money from someone else to compensate.

I think I'm a generous person. My family gives quite a bit to charity -- more than Joe Biden does, despite the fact that he makes tens of times more than I do. I might donate to someone who needed an operation they couldn't afford or to an organization that provides health care to those who don't have insurance and can't afford it -- but I have a significant objection to the government using its power of lethal force to threaten me with imprisonment or death so they can take money I earned and plan to spend on my family for the benefit of others. That should be my decision.

No.
The need of that force is only required if people don't agree about the government providing for people, that is everyone agreeing on helping each other in a more vide sweeping way then the charities that can only handle fashion problems anyway..
If people don't agree to the governmental way of doing it it's unlikely that universal healthcare would get enough public support to be accepted as law in the first place.
What could be seen as strange from an european point of view is that the US choose to use more then half it's tax money on an army, instead of on it's own citizens in the form of a welfare state..
But again, that is your choice..
But I know one thing, I'd never want to actually live in your country for long enough to allow my own nations healthcare to stop apply to me, despite enjoying visiting the US..
(our national insurance only apply to a few american hospitals)

[steelish]

If people don't agree to the governmental way of doing it it's unlikely that universal healthcare would get enough public support to be accepted as law in the first place.

Therein lies the problem. Over 65% (a majority) of the American citizens are AGAINST the health care bill, yet our government is still moving forward with trying to pass it. They are not listening to their citizens. Even though, in America, the politicians WORK FOR US, they act as if we are not part of the equation.

What could be seen as strange from an european point of view is that the US choose to use more then half it's tax money on an army, instead of on it's own citizens in the form of a welfare state..
But again, that is your choice.

Because that is one of the roles of our government. Providing for it's citizens in the form of a service is NOT the role of our government. Europeans call it a welfare state, most Americans view is as a NANNY state. America was formed on a "can-do" attitude, not a "what can you do for me" attitude. It is not the role of our government to "take care of us" and be providers. When our government concentrated on it's role and allowed the free market to work, we became the strongest, richest nation on earth. But a nanny...oops, sorry, welfare state type of nation (Europe) is your choice to live in.

Think of it this way, if that healthcare bill passes, and Obama cuts spending to NASA, and cuts spending to our self defense, eventually America will no longer be able to run to the rescue during natural disasters and when other nations call for help.

But I know one thing, I'd never want to actually live in your country for long enough to allow my own nations healthcare to stop apply to me, despite enjoying visiting the US..
(our national insurance only apply to a few american hospitals)

Okey dokey!

[SadisticNature]

Because that is one of the roles of our government. Providing for it's citizens in the form of a service is NOT the role of our government. Europeans call it a welfare state, most Americans view is as a NANNY state. America was formed on a "can-do" attitude, not a "what can you do for me" attitude. It is not the role of our government to "take care of us" and be providers. When our government concentrated on it's role and allowed the free market to work, we became the strongest, richest nation on earth. But a nanny...oops, sorry, welfare state type of nation (Europe) is your choice to live in.

If this were actually the problem, it wouldn't be the 'welfare' state type of nations that are catching up to the US. What actually happened is there were this thing called World War II and during this event there were big planes called bombers, that dropped things called bombs on places called factories where stuff is made. Not only were lots and lots of people killed, but the European and Asian economies were ravaged. In America, the factories were untouched and most of the war casualties were soldiers rather than civilians. The labor force expanded and the economy was strong. As a result America was the dominant market force for the 50's,60's and 70's while the rest of the world rebuilt and recovered. Even in the 70's and 80's the rest of the world was catching up with many countries experiencing much faster GDP growth than the US. In the 90's it was much the same. Now, the economy is seeing the consequences of other countries growing their economies faster for a period of 40 years.

Also, during the heyday of the United States, the top tax bracket paid over 67% taxes, now that number is well under 50%. So if you believe that was the heyday of the free market you shouldn't accuse the government of market interference for trying to raise taxes on the rich.

[steelish]

If this were actually the problem, it wouldn't be the 'welfare' state type of nations that are catching up to the US. What actually happened is there were this thing called World War II and during this event there were big planes called bombers, that dropped things called bombs on places called factories where stuff is made. Not only were lots and lots of people killed, but the European and Asian economies were ravaged. In America, the factories were untouched and most of the war casualties were soldiers rather than civilians. The labor force expanded and the economy was strong. As a result America was the dominant market force for the 50's,60's and 70's while the rest of the world rebuilt and recovered. Even in the 70's and 80's the rest of the world was catching up with many countries experiencing much faster GDP growth than the US. In the 90's it was much the same. Now, the economy is seeing the consequences of other countries growing their economies faster for a period of 40 years.

Also, during the heyday of the United States, the top tax bracket paid over 67% taxes, now that number is well under 50%. So if you believe that was the heyday of the free market you shouldn't accuse the government of market interference for trying to raise taxes on the rich.

America's rise to world power began long before WWII!

As for your information on taxes, I would love to see your sources on those figures. Feel free to provide them.

As to a rebuttal, I will return at a later time for that. Right now I am so offended by the tone you took with me it is taking every bit of will power I possess not to take the same snide condescending tone with you. Good day to you.

[mkemse]

Found this post by a 31 year old female in the United State, afterrding her short but specific rational of Universal Health care it made sense, as she says
She can go 2 ways, as a taxpayer have other pay for her needed surgery, recover and go back to work because her private insurance is to expensive OR l do hnot have the surgery, remain disbaubled and lve off th system the rst of her life

her are her exact words:

I am a 31 year old American female that has been working since I was 14 years old. I have a family and a decent job, but my insurance is astronomical in cost and doesn't' even cover everything. I am facing the possibility of having to have surgery to remove a growth deformity in the heel of my feet. If I don't have it done, I will do more damage to my tendons and ligaments and ultimately end up disabled. I want to have the surgery so that I won't have to face disability and that I will be able to work, but sadly my insurance will not cover the surgery. So here I am at 31, now facing the fact that I might have to apply for disability because insurance is outrageous.


Now tell me, and don't forget I am a taxpayer too, would you rather help pay for my insurance so that I can have surgery and go back to work, or would you rather me end up on disability, then on public assistance and food stamps for the rest of my life?
Which makes more sense?

[Tufty]

My personal view is that health care should be available to everybody - irrespective of whether they can afford to pay for it or not. Our Natioanl Health Service in the UK caters for that although, as fetishdj says, "Our NHS is beleagured and underfunded at the moment"

From another personal perspective, if I'd had to pay for the treatment and medications I've received over the last 2 year, I'd have gone up in smoke out of the crematorium chimney a year ago!!

[Losalt]

My personal view is that health care should be available to everybody - irrespective of whether they can afford to pay for it or not. Our Natioanl Health Service in the UK caters for that although, as fetishdj says, "Our NHS is beleagured and underfunded at the moment"

From another personal perspective, if I'd had to pay for the treatment and medications I've received over the last 2 year, I'd have gone up in smoke out of the crematorium chimney a year ago!!

The problem with the national healthcare is that it's funding don't tend to increase at the same rate as both the new possible forms of healthcare (new drugs and treatment methods and so one) arrive and the increase in population size at the same time.. (in the case of nations with diminishing populations it's a labour problem, the workforce increasing in value causing healthcare to cost rate becoming horrible..
Something I think would be sensible in the US is something along the line of the school system in my own country..
Here public schools dominate most of the education but it is legal with private schools, in the sense that they're not allowed to earn money and that they're provided about the same amount of founding as a public school would pr student, they can however cover some additional costs with money from the students (generally payed for by cheap student loans granted by the government).
This system allows some variety in education as people with a different life stance get the chance to run their own schools and so can people that don't believe in the way the public schools try to teach away things and think other ways of teaching away things would be better..
Something like that would probably work as well for the hospitals as for the schools..
Off course all of this require people to actually trust the government, something that the people of the US don't seam to do at the moment.. or am I wrong?

[gagged_Louise]

Just adding that some people go from disease to disease, and the illness keeps them from really getting a job or realizing their gifts. I don't see how that could count as "a just outcome of what they deliberately chose to do" at some junctures in their life. The costs of actually getting them free of it, rstoring a decent health for them and their kids, may be minute compared to what it will cost if they are forced to live off crime or simply the working life they are not able to bring to society.

[his_girl_l]

I live in a country with free universal healthcare, for which i am incredibly grateful, especially since becoming a mother.

The problem with government funded healthcare is that it easily becomes a bottomless pit. You can always spend more. Science is constantly discovering new treatments and drugs, and every one of them is of vital importance to the people they can help. Hospitals can always be improved, more staff will always help.... the list goes on. What was considered a complete health system a generation ago is very basic compared to the system we have now. The costs grow yearly, and once committed to the principal of universally accessible healthcare they will always continue to grow.

I think the question that needs to be asked is "Is healthcare delivered to most of the population more effectively through taxation and government provision or through a privately operated user pays system?"

And i think that the answer varies from society to society. While government provided health care works relatively well in a small country like Australia (21 million people) it seems to become less efficient in larger countries such as Britain, with it's notoriously troubled NHS.

I guess what i am trying to say is that being committed to accessible health care for all doesn't necessarily mean a commitment to any particular ideology, be it free marketism, socialism, or anything in between.

[gagged_Louise]

Yes I agree L_27 that the "bottomless pit" of rising possibilities is often a threat to a general public health care system. Sixty years ago old people (in particular) were snuffed out in a week by pneumonia and rarely spent many months in a hospital ward or lived till 90 with a frail health (on the other hand we don't have to keep up TB sanatories in the way they did back then - I hear TB is making return inroads though). Prolonged cancer therapy barely existed a few generations back, nor did core organ transplantations and heart surgery. The more that medicine learns to do, and the longer people will live, in general, the more hospitals and elderly care risk being weighed down.

But I don't think that's a good argument against at least a solid and well-stocked groundwork of public health, free and funded mainly by taxes, to make sure that people donm't have to keep a 30.000 bucks fund as a safety net for common diseases, prescription drugs or surgery (prescription drugs are not free under public health systems either, they just receive a price cut by state subvention). Whatver the textbook tells you, many hard working families can't keep a bin of fifty grand for illnesses and other costs stashed away over time.

[damyanti]

Universal health care is affordable health care coverage which is extended to all eligible residents of a governmental region. These programs vary widely in their structure and funding mechanisms, particularly the degree to which they are publicly funded. Typically, most health care costs are met by the population via compulsory health insurance or taxation, or a combination of both. The US is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and others. Universal health care is provided in most developed countries, in many developing countries, and is the trend worldwide. Its one of those things that marks how civilized a certain society is.

While the US government provides health insurance for veterans, the elderly, poor and disabled, there has yet to be a system that ensures coverage for every citizen. In the U.S., health insurance is typically provided to workers and their families by their employers. The U.S. government offers a tax reduction to employers offering health benefits in what is referred to as a 'tax expenditure'. The exclusion of employer contributions for medical care amount to the nation's top tax expenditure at $102.3 billion in 2004, which is nearly twice as much as the next highest tax expenditure- mortgage interests.

According to the OECD 2003 Health Data report, the United States tops the OECD ranking for overall health care spending at $4900 per capita in 2001, more than twice the OECD average of $2100. Though more than half of the cost is private funding, the U.S. government spends the most out of all OECD countries (except Norway, Luxembourg and Iceland) per capita even though only about 25 percent of the population is insured through public programs compared with 90 per cent in other OECD countries. I suggest to my American friends, especially those who oppose Universal health care, to read this twice....and in case you need translation.....it means, you got screwed.

There are many different ways to organize universal health systems. A single-payer health care system is typically a government-run organization that collects and pays out all health care costs. Germany has a universal multi-payer system with two main types of health insurance: "Compulsory health insurance" and "Private." The French health care system, rated the best in the world by the World Health Organization, has private and public health care providers and universal access funded by taxes and co-fees. The United States is the only developed nation without a universal health care system.

Proponents of a universal health care system point to the global trend of industrialized countries with providing health care. Administrative costs would be drastically decreased. The U.S. government spends more than all other countries per capita without receiving proportional health benefits and more than 47 million people are uninsured.

Opponents cite that income taxes would increase and private insurance companies may be put out of the health care administrative business, a result that would fly in the face of laissez-faire capitalism the US was founded upon. Considering how inane their argument is, my guess is opponents are those who are selfish ie. “it cant happen to me” types, those who form their judgement on hearsay and heads of extortionist insurance companies.

The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world's health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance. The data about the number of U.S. residents without health insurance varies between 44 and 48 million people. Many of those people lost their jobs — and their insurance — because of the struggling economy. For some, insurance was lost when double-digit premium increases caused employers to stop offering coverage. Some of the uninsured opted not to enroll in coverage offered by employers, as the amount taken from their paychecks to cover the cost rose.

The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

Dr Christopher Murray, Director of WHO's Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy. says: "Although significant progress has been achieved in past decades, virtually all countries are under- utilizing the resources that are available to them. This leads to large numbers of preventable deaths and disabilities; unnecessary suffering, injustice, inequality and denial of an individual's basic rights to health."

The impact of failures in health systems is most severe on the poor everywhere, who are driven deeper into poverty by lack of financial protection against ill- health.

"The poor are treated with less respect, given less choice of service providers and offered lower- quality amenities," says Dr Brundtland. "In trying to buy health from their own pockets, they pay and become poorer."

One key recommendation from the report is for countries to extend health insurance to as large a percentage of the population as possible. WHO says that it is better to make "pre-payments" on health care as much as possible, whether in the form of insurance, taxes or social security.

While private health expenses in industrial countries now average only some 25 percent because of universal health coverage (except in the United States, where it is 56%), in India, families typically pay 80 percent of their health care costs as "out-of- pocket" expenses when they receive health care.

"It is especially beneficial to make sure that as large a percentage as possible of the poorest people in each country can get insurance," says Dr Frenk. "Insurance protects people against the catastrophic effects of poor health. What we are seeing is that in many countries, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income on health care than the rich, (and that includes the US, “the greatest nation in the world”, shame on you)."

In many countries without a health insurance safety net, many families have to pay more than 100 percent of their income for health care when hit with sudden emergencies. In other words, illness forces them into debt.


I find the question whether there should be universal health care system available completely redundant. The legitimate question is which system of it works best for each country, but everyone has the right to decent health care. If you think that the worth of a human life is measured by their earning power, I have only two things to say to you 1) You are going to burn in Hell, and 2) Vive le socialisme!

[lucy]

I find the question whether there should be universal health care system available completely redundant. The legitimate question is which system of it works best for each country, but everyone has the right to decent health care. If you think that the worth of a human life is measured by their earning power, I have only two things to say to you 1) You are going to burn in Hell, and 2) Vive le socialisme!

Exactly my feelings. Especially in a country like America, which often displays itself as the spearhead of civilization (at least that's the impression i sometimes get in Europe), that shouldn't be a question. There are different ways to provide all people with health care, so far noone has proven to be the perfect one.

However, spending almost 15% of the gross national product on health care, how America does, and leaving out a substantial part of the population seems to be a very bad deal.
Those 15% are, btw, by far the highest percentage worldwide, second is Switzerland with about 13% of the gnp.

The discussion that needs to be led is not IF everybody should have access to health care, but WHAT should be paid for. Because obviously it won't be possible to pay everything medically possible for everybody. And even less so in the future, with life extectancy in most of the countries which are members of the OECD (not in America, though, where life expectancy is actually sinking. That's some food for thought too...)

[lucy]

One more thing: There are middle ways between free universal and privately funded health care systems.
In Switzerland, every person pays the same amount for his health insurance. Insurance companies are private enterprises. Poor people get a refund which is paid directly to the insurance company (otherwise it would probably be spent on booze, babes and cars). It works pretty well, however, the costs are on the rise, so there needs to be a strong mechanism to keep people from running to the doctor with every cold, expecting to get the best possible treatment for almost no money.

And as various others have said before me: It's bound to get more expensive with people getting older and with treatments getting more expensive.
My Master works in the research division of a Swiss pharmaceutical company, and according to him in the future drugs will become extremely accurate to deal with a specific health problem, but also extremely expensive.
For example, Roche has built a whole factory in Germany to produce one single drug that is very effective in treating breast cancer. Unfortunately, only about a third of breast cancer victims respond to this drug. I don't remember what he said what a treatment costs on average, but it was more than i earn in two years.
But then again, i'm heavily underpaid and work only part time

[his_girl_l]

Just a quick note on prescriptions in response to gagged_Louise - in Australia low income earners (and the thresholds are pretty generous, especially for families with children) get prescriptions for a flat fee of $4.90 each (which isn't very much, it's even less in American dollars). That pays for administering the scheme and the government pays for the drugs.

Not quite free, but anyone can afford it.

And pensioners (not just aged, but disabled, single parents etc) get a fortnightly pharmacutical supplement, i think it is the cost of 2 prescriptions.

I've always found the public health system here fantastic.

[Tufty]

Just a quick note on prescriptions in response to gagged_Louise - in Australia low income earners (and the thresholds are pretty generous, especially for families with children) get prescriptions for a flat fee of $4.90 each (which isn't very much, it's even less in American dollars). That pays for administering the scheme and the government pays for the drugs.

Not quite free, but anyone can afford it.

And pensioners (not just aged, but disabled, single parents etc) get a fortnightly pharmacutical supplement, i think it is the cost of 2 prescriptions.

I've always found the public health system here fantastic.

Here in UK, those on low income or claiming state benefits don't pay for precriptions. People suffering from certain illnesses are also exempt from charges

The thing that makes the prescriptions here expensive is that they make a charge of £7.10 per ITEM (US$11.12) Now, I usually have 12 different drugs prescribed each month...so you can see how it mounts up!

There is the option to pay a yearly fee of £102 / US$159.70 (which is what I do) for a 'pre-payment certificate' to show that I have paid the fee and have to show it when I go to collect my medicines from the pharmacy.