reply to post by milesp
I don't buy this claim at all. That sounds more like the practices of private insurance companies. I'm challenging you to provide evidence of
Just go to Google and type it in. Canada, UK, Cuba, etc. is all cost benefit ratio on whether you get care or not. It isn't that hard.
Ok, in order to take into account higher tax rates per in countries with national health care you would have to analyze the tax codes of literally
every other industrialized nation. I don't have time for this, so I'm going to once again place the burden of proof on you since you're making the
statement. And if the government were to negotiate prices for drugs with big pharma, that would be a good thing because they would be negotiating to
LOWER the cost.
Again Google, the info. You don't have to analyze the tax codes all you have to do is look for the info here is the
Total Tax Rate Per Country
That is just income Tax,
that isn't taking into account VAT's sales tax, etc.
And again, unintended consequences, Once Big Pharma isn't making as much money less research into better more effective drugs. People will quit
donating to cancer research and everything else.
I'm not really sure what to make of this paragraph. Yeah doctors are going to do what they can to make you better, but you're going to be stuck with
the bill if you don't have insurance. NOT ONLY THAT, but even if you do have insurance, insurance companies will do whatever they can to wriggle out
of having to cover the bills. And I don't really see big pharma taking any losses.
Like I said, by the time Universal Health Care gets fully going and tax rates get put into place people could afford their own health insurance just
off the tax burden. And no they aren't going to take a loss because they will be dictating the Universal Health Care(UHC) policy. Do you really want
Big Pharma and the Insurance companies dictating what kind of health care you get.
I understand that as a conservative you hate being taxed. Unfortunately that's part of living in a society that has a government. The question is
what our tax dollars should be spent on. I believe healthcare is a reasonable thing for the government to spend money on.
I don't. There is no way to judge how much money a year will get spent on health care. Countries with UHC are constantly suffering from budget
overruns. Health care is not a set amount of money the fund fluctuate every year, then with more people means higher taxes. I'd rather keep my money
because I know how to spend it better than the government does.
You wanting to give the government more money is just stupid. You disagree with the Military Industrial Complex, but guess what it isn't going
anywhere. Once the government can prove it knows how to be fiscally responsible then we will talk.
Well that's not a bad idea at all. Sounds a lot like how a single-payer plan should work.
No offense but there you go with the "Newspeak". That is the way it was before Nixon. Instead of them going back that way they are trying to change
the whole system.
Look at the stats. Industrialized nations with some form of universal health care spend less per capita and enjoy better services for everyone. If
you're rich in a country with nationalized heath care you can still shell out the extra bucks for whatever treatment you want. If you're poor in
America, you're screwed.
What they aren't telling you is that us paying as much as we do for health care is what allows the medical industry to make huge advancements in
medical technology. Hate to break it to you but UHC or private health insurance the medical technology field is going to put its profits before
And in fact the chart you linked to proves my point about what Nixon did screwed up everything. If you look at exhibit 2 on that page look at 1970 and
the other countries we were not the most expensive.
UHC is a horrible idea.