Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

Talk:Universal health care/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 7 December 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)


Oy, goddamned human stubs. Well, with Sicko coming out, I guess we gotta get working on this one.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 23:00, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Thank you :) But it's not really a "stub", is it? I defined the terms and started a discussion, hopefully. I wrote many well-crafted paragraphs, even if they were pure bullshit. Just wait til HG weighs in! humanbe in 23:11, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
You're right of's not a stub...damn you and your typing. And I'm sure HG's on his way with his bag of goodies.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 23:14, 3 July 2007 (CDT)


One interesting theory I heard on national radio the other day is that in many cases, the public sector can actually provide a more efficient health care service than the private market, because the public sector only has to deal with one source of payment, the state. The private sector, on the other hand, has to maintain a large administrative branch to deal with payments from the state, individuals, insurance companies, employers and so on. One example the program used was a hospital in Texas which had to employ ten administrative staff for every doctor. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 05:12, 4 July 2007 (CDT)


"None of the slaves have free health care."

I thought India was a democracy, and as such doesn't have "slaves" like China and Cuba? humanbe in 13:07, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, the idea was to expose how dumb those statements about China and Cuba are.

MiddleMan 13:16, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, I got the "progression" - but India also isn't alphabetized. Feel free to write better descriptions to replace my imitation neo-con snarks at China and Cuba. The only "dumbass joke" I made that I'd like to have stay were my beatles quotes under "UK". Of course, they should come after any real writing. humanbe in 13:29, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

You? I'd swear that HG wrote those... MiddleMan 13:47, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Um, thank you, I think... humanbe in 13:53, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
Why did you un-albaphetize India? I know it's funny and all... but still. humanbe in 19:07, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh, I didn't notice they were alphabetized, so I put India after China. MiddleMan 19:12, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Obviously there are no slaves in India, but historically slaves were more likely to get free health care than non-slaves, because their owners would be protecting their investment. However under modern slave conditions, it is often cheaper to regard them as disposable.Streona 13:31, 27 February 2008 (EST)


Well, a few of the high points are the creation of the system by lefty Tommy Douglas, who also led the first socialist government in Canada as well as founding the CCF, the precursor to today's left-leaning NDP. There's some good background here on the history of it. It's interesting to note that although he's credited with founding Medicare and he did do all the work leading up to it, when it was actually implemented he'd already retired from his premier's position. Apparently he's also Keifer Sutherland's grandfather, and was recently voted the Greatest Canadian in a CBC poll.

In practice, healthcare is generally funded by a combination of sales tax and federal transfer payments, although in the western provinces they've had good results in using casino revenues. While long wait times are often pointed at as a weakness of the system, they are more likely caused by the system's underfunding by a series of Liberal (centerist) and Conservative (right, recently hard right) governments, who didn't necessarily have a commitment to the system, and only hesitate due to the massive public supports for socialized medicine. Hard to win an election when you give the source of national pride a kick to the 'nads, eh?

I, personally, have lived with socialized medicine all my life, and I've had good results. Most surgery, family doctors and specialists (if referred by a family doctor or hospital) are covered, and only a few items are generally excluded (dental and eye care usually, although this varies by province).

That should be enough for a good start, I think. --Kels 15:23, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm copying the middle paragraph to the article, except for the nad kicking part. Obviously, feel free to add more. If there a lot, we can have subarticles (like for the history), right? humanbe in 15:52, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
Largely that's a good overview, I think. Although blackflies tend to be more plentiful than leeches. Oh, and the current Conservative (minority) government really wants to emulate the US system. --Kels 16:06, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
Yes, it looked like you were rambling, then you hit your stride. It is good. The US has a "health care system"? That might be stretching the meaning of "system" a bit! I left the lulzy comment in for no good reason. I almost changed it to "moose" once. Maybe I still will. humanbe in 16:15, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, a bit of a personal anecdone on changes in employment situation. I was on welfare some years ago, and they covered some things that weren't handled by the normal provincial plan, which is to say prescription medication, optical and dental. When I got off the rolls, I lost those benefits, only to finally regain them under the private health plans of two of my later employers (one of which was a Union, interestingly enough). So some aspects are privately handled up here (in Nova Scotia in any case), although the most bedrock stuff like family doctors and so forth are covered governmentally. --Kels 16:09, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

maybe we should add some of that to the definition - that UHC does not necessarily cover everything (and really, never can), but provides some level of care to everyone. humanbe in 16:17, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, that's the basic concept. Everyone, regardless of their situation, deserves a basic level of health care. This, to me and to many other Canadians, is the mark of a moral, properly functioning society. "Every man for himself" is a poor way to run a country. --Kels 16:23, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Every picture tells a story[edit]

The picture caption says that the good ol' capitalist US of A provides universal health care in Iraq and Afghanistan... but not in the US? Strange. Totnesmartin 12:15, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I didn't get that either... MiddleMan 12:22, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

I think that is more of a public relations gesture. "We're Good guys, see? You can get drugs here that will make you better or make it so you don't get sick at all! And if you or your kids (children) get hit by some shrapnel, well we can (probably) fix them right up too."
This can also be used as a tactic for identifying "bad guys" who tell the locals NOT to get the free health care from the "infidels". MOO CЯacke® 12:58, 23 July 2007 (CDT)


I seem to have made a format error with Spain. It looks the same as all the others but it's out of line. Wot did I dun?--Bob_M (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

I fixed it. The countries are triple equals sign headers. humanbe in 16:56, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
Ah.--Bob_M (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2007 (CDT)


"What constitutes a need is a question worth exploring, as control of this is how healthcare is rationed."

Said Hog after the first sentence.

I agree, he's right. Health care in the US is now heavily rationed, by pencil pushers at HMOs who argue "need", and simple lack of access to care at all, both of which "ration" health care. Now, how can we write this better? I know my right shoulder probably "needs" an MRI (my right arm tingles and goes numb as I type...), but who am I to proclaim a "need" when there are giant non-healthcare-providing companies to tell me? For $500 a month? humanUser talk:Human 01:08, 13 December 2007 (EST)

"need" in countries with Universal Health Care usually indicates "medically necessary". If a person has a serious concern about their health, it should be checked on, even if the result is simply a cold. Treating a cold with antibiotics is not medically necessary, because most people aren't at risk to develop a secondary bacterial infection from a cold. If someone is very prone to infection, or older, etc, then it may be a good idea to augment their immune system by giving them antibiotics.
"need" doesn't need discussion unless you're a damn capitalist bastard trying to squeeze money out of people, by either denying a claim saying that you didn't "need" it, or by refusing surgery, or other treatments that would drastically increase the person's life, because it's either, "not serious enough", or not "medically necessary". There are a lot of disfigurations of humans that can happen, and in the USA, only the ones that are caused by external injuries are treated through insurance. If you're born with a malformed arm, American insurance will not cover it, but if you had it burned in a fire, they would. If a boy while growing up gets gynecomastia (they develop female breasts) then even though this even is entirely damaging to their social abilities, american insurance won't cover it because it's not "needed", and women with severe hirutism (masculine hair growth on face, chest, and/or back) may be socially stigmatized by their condition, and shunned, but american insurance says it's not "needed".
My OB/GYN is from Norway, (or Sweden, either of those) and he's absolutely amazed at what american insurance won't cover... where he comes, if a doctor says it's "medically necessary", then it's covered. None of this stupid dealing with people in suits and lawyers to get your treatment. The system trusts their doctors to make the right decisions, and if one of their doctors say that a person needs a treatment, (like mastectomy for a boy with gynecomastia, or hair-removal for a woman with hirutism) then they get that treatment. *NOTE: quality of health care provided by the government varies between countries with UHC, however, in countries where the UHC is not very good, there are private industries providing private insurance that you can get if you want it/can afford it. And if your company hails from the USA, you might find that you're going to have to pay for things out of pocket, that would be covered by your nations healthcare program.
I just read today, that the USA spends about 17% of our GDP on Medicare, which fails to cover a lot of people. Funny thing is, countries with UHC tend to only spend 8-10% of their GDP to provide that service to EVERYONE. Seriously, why do we americans put up with this? --Eira yay! 03:20, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Could you please stop insulting EVERY American each time you want to insult a group of Americans? I can deal with a little anti-capitalist snark, but this is really getting on my nerves. (I'm referring mostly to your edit comment). Lurker 14:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)
I have to agree, particularly because, to some extent, rationing will occur. Whether rationed by who has money (as in the current US system), or by most medically necessary (as in other countries), a certain amount of rationing will occur. Now, more procedures can be accomplished by putting more money into a system/cutting prices, but it's a matter of economic reality that *SOME* amount of rationiing is inevitable. (Even if it's just waiting two weeks for a nosejob.) Researcher 15:03, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Um... no? My edit summary didn't refer to each individual American believing that policy, but rather is a statement regarding the collective position of the USA as a single abstract object (most likely government). If CP wants to collect America as a single object and call people anti-American, then I can do the same. Nationalism is the cause of a lot of stupid issues in this world. Bill Richardson is running for President and is elligible to be so. Do you know how? His pregnant mother gave birth to him on US territory. So, even though she was Mexican, and his husband were Mexican, and neither of them were in any way residents at the time, he is American, by simply jus soli, even though everything that could qualify him jus sanguinis sad that he was Mexican, and in no way American.
It's acutally fairly common thing, pregnant Mexican women, come across the border, OOPS! They have their baby, now the baby is a citizen of the USA, well, you can't deprive a citizen of access to their mother, so she gets to stay. In Bill Richardson's case, he didn't even move to the USA until late in his life. He grew up in Mexico City.
The point of this? Who the hell cares if you're Mexican or American, it's all just legal drivel anyways. If you're so proud of America that you would proclaim that you are an American, and proud to be so, then my justification for insulting you is entirely validated. Me? What am I? Well, I'm not American, I'm too damn ashamed of what we do (ask any foreign national not living or aspiring to live in the USA. Oh, that's right, American's only speak English.) I don't care which side of the border a baby was born, that baby is a human being and deserves respect no matter what their legal status is. --Eira yay! 20:46, 14 December 2007 (EST)
What the hell? Didn't your mother ever tell you to play nice? There are Americans who edit at this site and when you keep making these broad and hugely derogatory generalizations it's fucking offensive. Tone it down, ok? Lurker 22:24, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Ok, first off, *I* live in America, and I have an American Passport. Free Speech gives the Right to be offensive. I don't have to tone anything down, just because it upsets you. I'm not making personal attacks, and if you're taking them that way, then sucks to be you! You know what is derogatory generalizations and "fucking" offensive to me? The way Conservapedia treats any topic that they disagree with. If it disgusts them, or makes them feel bad, or offended, they'd rather just delete the material, and hide their head in the sand, than deal with issues in any form of debate. You want your fucking offensive anti-American speech, well fuck America, and fuck Jesus, and fuck the American Flag *pulls out an ami flag and burns it* --Eira yay! 00:06, 15 December 2007 (EST)
So what you are saying is, because the Constitution of a country you hate states that said country (which, I remind you, you hate) can not create a law restricting your speech, that you must insult me for no reason whatsoever? And why do you keep bringing up Conservapedia? Who the hell cares about Conservapedia? (And BTW holding an American passport doesn't give you any more right or privilege to be a total asshole than holding a passport from any other country. It's strange that you would use that as some sort of "Get Out Of Jail Free" card, considering you hate the country so much anyway.) Lurker 00:37, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Did I say anything was wrong with the US Constitution? No, I said that America sucks, not its Constitution. Its Constitution is a framework, upon which our country has built things up. That America has grown some horns, a spiked tail, and a forked tongue is all soft-tissue matters, not core matters. And I will again remind you, that I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting America. That you're taking it as a personal insult is just a pretty silly notion. "America" is a concept, you are not "America", you're just of "America". I keep mentioning CP, because they are the easiest to point to in order to demonstrate the use the term "anti-American". They use "America" as a concept, to which one can either agree with, or go to hell. The "America" that they present is a hideous perversion of what a free, peaceful and rational nation should be, and if that be America, then hell yes, I'm anti-American. As the final point I did not bring up that I hold an American Passport as if it were to justify my comments. In fact, I don't need to justify my comments, they are opinion, and thus need no justification. However, holding an American Passport proves that legally my nationality is American. Mentioning this was intended to counterpoint your statement that "There are American who edit at this site". I'd say "I'm an American, too", but remember, I don't believe in Nationalism. So, that you feel a need to comment that there are Americans here, is totally unnecessary. I'm legally American myself, and so I know for a fact that Americans contribute here. --Eira yay! 02:35, 15 December 2007 (EST)
For the record, I've met plenty of foreign nationals (mostly Chinese, but also some Russians) who, despite having no wish to EVER move to the US, still hold it in high regard. The Chinese among them do not care for the current administration, but still love what the US has stood for. (And, yes, I spoke to them in Chinese, since many of them didn't speak English.) Researcher 20:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Those people typically are happy with the idea that the US stands for, however are not directly impacted by the US's contradictory imperial behavior. Simply look to any part of the Americas south of the USA, various places in Africa, pretty much every Muslim state, and the disappointment of European states. --Eira yay! 23:59, 14 December 2007 (EST)

My wife felt a bit ill in Florida because the air conditioning was too hot. However since we had travel insurance she was offered treatment she did not need and the hospitla wanted to keep her in for four days totally unnecessarily. Back in England we were bombarded with separate bills for ambulance, nurses, doctors, physios etc. etc. for the next year or so. Totally ridiculous. You would not organise a piss up ion abrewery like it.Streona 13:37, 27 February 2008 (EST)

The Truth about "Universal health care"[edit]

Its just a government plot to turn the USA into a communist state. Why wound you support such a thing?! --That Guy you saw down the street 13:55, 27 February 2008 (EST)

We support what we must, because we can. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
B O R E D (err.. with you TGYSDTS) SusanThe Earth Moved 13:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
You need a life, you know that, TGYSDTS? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:09, 27 February 2008 (EST)

A point about that recent addition of an AAPS link -- even if we didn't consider the AAPS a crank organization around here, it's very bad faith to use a position paper from 1971 as an argument about national health care without realizing that there has been close to four decades of further experience in the matter. It's somewhat akin to citing pre-1916 case law against the US income tax despite the fact that the 16th amendment rendered them moot. EVDebs 04:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it was added by a libertarian "visitor". Didn't last long. But, yeah, your point is more important. Citing old news to make new points is poor style. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
That sure didn't stop the creationists from using a 150+ year old book for the argument against evolution, and subsequently using a 2000+ year book to defend creationism. Why stop now? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Couple of things. While the current government are pushing us toward an American-style healthcare model; the general populace are somewhat horrified by this idea and actively resisting it. Annual budget for the NHS is just over £60 billion (around £1000 per citizen) and admin expenses are about 6.8% (including pensions and benefits). --Ebon 06:09, 12 February 2009 (EST)

The US system[edit]

Could somebody explain a bit more about how the system works in the good ol' USA? Let's imagine that you don't have insurance, you're unemployed and you don't have any savings; and then you're involved in a car accident - what happens? Are you left to die in the street? Are you expected to pay off several hundred thousand dollars from your unemployment benefit? Are you waterboarded until you pay up? And what happens if you are struck down by a serious illness cancer or whatever? Are you left to your own devices at home?--BobNot Jim 15:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Car accident is a poor hypothetical, since most drivers are required to carry insurance for bodily injury. Say your hypothetical person falls off a ladder, or has a heart attack, or appendicitis... they get rushed to the emergency room and treated, then they are mailed a bill for tens of thousands of dollars, followed by aggressive collection processes, often resulting in them having to file bankruptcy. Even if they have a job (but no insurance) they may be forced into bankruptcy. The short answer to your first question is that "it doesn't". ħumanUser talk:Human 17:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Good points Bob. Yes most Americans are left to die if a long illness or crash etc occurs. Klop789 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


I wonder if the embargo have anything to do with it health care. Ghy213 (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Elderly health insurance[edit]

There about 354,000 uninsured people 65 years and older in the United States had no health insurance in 2000.(That include medicare)[1]Ghy213 (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that all? I guess that means that all the other seniors were either killed in car crashes (50,000 a year)(both before & after becoming seniors), crimes, or thousands died because they couldn't get any kind of health care whatsoever. Stupid USA never wakes up! Klop789 (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Great link[edit]

A BON left this as a reference in the Germany section [2], very good article from US perspective. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There are perspectives other than the US perspective?!!??!?!?!?!?!? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 20:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting graph[edit]

Came across this via this blog.

  • US: $7920 public & private spending on health care per person v $2992 for UK and $1688 for South Korea.
  • US life expectancy: about 78 v UK about 79 and slightly higher for SK. Every picture tells a story.

The only possible reason to be against Universal Health Coverage is profit for the providers/insurers. If I were in America I'd be fucking furious. This is supposed to be the world's most advanced country? Don't make me LAFF! I am eating Toast& honeychat 11:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Pedantic Grammar Correction[edit]

"Some? Who? Uncle Ho? why not, you know, give an example of an ACTUAL PERSOn, and not some vague, passive-voice "some" actually making the argument so the article doesn't look weak and shoddy?" --P.Foster

I'm not arguing your point, or your justification. But I want to point out that the sentence being added/removed: "Some would argue that this is all the result of right wing governments pushing for further privatization, and therefore profit." does not actually contain any passive-voice. It is all active-voice; simply non-specific active-voice.

As for "passive-voice" making the article "weak and shoddy" this is an opinion asserted by English grammarians. In German, the passive-voice is highly regarded in prose literature. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 08:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's fucking lame writing in English. This wiki is not written in German, so who cares? ħumanUser talk:Human 08:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"Some would argue" isn't passive voice, but it is classic weasel word framing. In fact the subjunctive mood ("some would argue") makes it a double weasel - not just "some argue" this, but "some would", some could, some might, it could be argued that, a possible criticism is, etc. etc. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected on calling Ho out for using the passive voice--it's clearly not passive voice; guess that's what happens when someone educated in French tries to critique somebody's English grammar. That being said, the Rodent is right--and he would know--it IS a total case of Weasel words...P-Foster (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Also noted, what Weaseloid says is right. I was trying to think of the term "weasel words" when I was posting. The overall tone of the statement is piss poor, I was just pointing out that it's not "passive-voice". --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 23:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is fucking lame writing, but it's only viewed that way because we're told to view it as such. There is also nothing wrong with the Double Negative either, except that our culture turns our nose up at it. If we want to be more than just another ameripedia, and truly and properly respect rational thought, we should take criticism that we're doing arbitrary shit just because it's been arbitrarily decided with more respect. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 23:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"but it's only that way because we're told to view it as such"? No, weasel words are actually crappy writing in any language - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the passive voice, not to weasel words. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 23:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Make the U.S. Green (on the map)?[edit]

I think on that map we can make the U.S. green now. -- (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If by "trying" you could include "I was trying to run a marathon, but I didn't even make it one mile." The US system still falls significantly short even attempting to establish Universal Healthcare. Even if the Affordable Healthcare Act were implemented today fully and completely, we still wouldn't have anything close to the definition of "Universal Healthcare". When it starts being the case, that a homeless person can walk into a hospital and get full treatment, and not just treatment for life-threatening issues, and not be expected to provide anything but a small co-pay... THEN when that legislation is on the floor, we'll start talking about making the US green on the map. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Separate articles[edit]

Is the fact that we have no separate articles on different nations' healthcare systems a product of a previous debate, or has it just never happened? I'd like to work on a NHS article about the UK's healthcare system. I think it's certainly on-mission, as NHS spending on homeopathy is worth discussion, and because Britain's NHS got so much flack from the American Right in their healthcare debates rants. Having a more comprehensive and in-depth look at a functional, respected healthcare system would also be of general interest to people on the other side of the pond. Just wanted to check if anybody particularly minds me going ahead with it? Also, should the article be ABOUT the NHS, or be more of a "Healthcare in the United Kingdom," article which also discusses private options and the like? DalekEXTERMINATE 18:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I say go for it. It should probably be largely about the NHS, but touch on the alternatives since you can't really talk about one without the other. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that British NHS funded homeopathy! Such information is certainly on mission. Scanning this talk page, I don't think there's been a debate about forking this article. Go for it. --Onion <talk> 00:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thankfully it isn't hugely funded as actual medicine, but doctors can (it seems) refer people for Homeopathic treatment. This is likely used for people who they think would really benefit from the placebo effect. In scotland, however, it DOES seem to be a big thing. The British Medical Association has come out and said, "This is bullshit..." so hopefully we'll se things change. DalekEXTERMINATE 01:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, write if you will "HC in the UK", crosslink, "see main article on" to it, etc. No problem with that at all, as long as it's halfway decent. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't understand it...[edit]

I'm an atheist. I hate all anti-reason movements like creationists, fundamentalists christians, or conspiracy theroretists. And I just don't get it WHY most of people, who think much similiar, who are rational, reasonable in many things - supporsts another anti-reason movement, not better than creationism in any possible way. I talk about leftism, socialism, liberalism or whatever you call it. And universal healthcare is part of it. A system, where you have to pay (in taxes) for something (healthcare), even if you don't wanna use it. Seemingly reasonable people have to belive im some sort of bullshit anyway. From my own experience, I can say that belief in public healthcare is the same sort of fairy tales as belief in walking on water and Kent Hovind Ph.D. I just find that sad. This was supposed to be RATIONAL Wiki. (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"It's supposed to be Rational Wiki!" - Everyone take a drink. Scarlet A.pngbomination 01:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Tell you what, BON. Ask this guy about what a bad deal universal health care is. He'll tell you some real horrror stories. P-Foster (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It's kind of a selection bias in some way because people who are drawn to an anti-Conservapedia site probably checked out Conservapedia out of horror of the conservative politics in the first place (especially back in 2007 or so when Conservapedia wasn't quite as far out on the wacko fringe as it is now.) DanH (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait wait wait... so you don't want to participate in healthcare? So, when you get an infection, you're going to deny antibiotics? You know, I think saying, "I want to live a shorter life because healthcare is an irrational fantasy" is incredibly retarded. Modern medicine is doing a lot to extend people's lives.
OHHHHHh... you were talking about health INSURANCE, not healthcare. Oh. So, you think altruism is irrational? Does there exist an argument that would ever change your mind? If so, then you're being irrational. Like take Creationsim, I understand that to believe in it right now it is irrational, but if there were actually evidence to support it, then I would believe in it.
You also talk about how forcing people to participate in something that they don't want to is irrational, ok, I don't want to participate in national defense, so I shouldn't have to pay the taxes necessary to pay my part of national defense. In fact, everyone should be able to decline to participate in national defense, and save their money if they want to. Right? That's an analogous argument, so if your line of argument were valid, then my argument is valid. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 03:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
"probably checked out Conservapedia out of horror of the conservative politics in the first place." No, Dan. It was about base stupidity and sheer insanity. "Conservative politics" has, and never had, anything to do with it. P-Foster (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking back to when I first joined, when the blog buzz mostly thought it was semi-mainstream; as in January 2007, a few months before RationalWiki started up. I know that such a stance is hardly tenable now. DanH (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I was there at the same time. Batshit crazy and stupid. YECs, vaccine hysteria, prayer in public schools, retarded arguments about gun control, breast cancer and abortion, Gay bowel syndrome. The base was laid from day one. P-Foster (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for taking this far off base of universal health care, but, yes, the base was no doubt there to begin with, although not to the extent it is now (Ken didn't have all his millions of Gays/Atheists essays at first), but you could see the signs of it. At the time, I know Andy was pushing hard his prayer in public schools and vaccine stuff, and I hardly paid attention to much of it because, frankly, none of those issues interested me much at the time. I didn't start reading more into it until around the time when Andy turned his attention to YEC stuff and accused me of promoting atheism because I wasn't YEC, and, in retrospect, I was fairly complicit for what I didn't fully pay attention to. I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I think that Philip was more or less the same way; in the essay on his site, he said that he hardly cared about the give and take of American politics, being non-American, and hadn't read much of the site.
Anyway, I have no interest in defending myself for participating in the monstrosity that is Conservapedia. I just want to shed light upon my thoughts. DanH (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The "but it's myyyyyyyy money" argument holds no water once we take a look at the actual costs of health care. Take a look at the health care costs calculator. If we had a health care system comparable to just about any other first world country, the budget deficit would be close to gone. Affordable health care saves lives and money. It helps everyone by getting rid of the completely ridiculous problems in a totally private system, like denials of service, screwing with premiums, all the other fraudulent activity that cause over half the bankruptcies in our country. So save money and lives, or do squat? Easy choice.

Further, the government does not spend my money or your money. Hilarious that you accuse those who want UHC of blind ideology when you still subscribe to a way of thinking that went obsolete with the end of the gold standard. The government does not spend anyone's money, taxes do not fund spending. When the government spends, that creates currency -- when it taxes, that destroys currency. Although the Fed and Treasury issue bonds to fund spending, they can and do buy and hold their own debt when they want or need to. So no, it's not your money. Ask anyone who knows how the modern monetary and banking system works and they'll tell you what I did.

In light of the actual facts, "it's myyyyy money" is not only an utterly brain dead argument and makes clear that one hasn't even bothered to look at the very basic facts of the situation, but the height of "I'm all right Jack"-isms. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised when it's coming from someone who cries SOSHULIZMZ at the thought of UHC. But hey, I thought this was RationalWiki, right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

While the arguments in favour of universal healthcare are quite convincing, I'm afraid you lost me a bit in your second paragraph Nebuchadnezzar. If what you say is true then surely we could abolish taxes altogether and simply rely on government financial instruments to finance everything. A nice idea, but I can't help feeling that governments also need to get some, shall we say "real" money from somewhere.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I knew this would happen (it always does). I know I sound like some kind nutcase when I say "gummint doesn't spend taxes!" This is an incredibly wonky economic conversation, but the tl;dr answer is that we can't just print buttloads of money, of course. The short of it is, government spending is limited by the threat of excess inflation, not tax revenue. The only money government spends (in a free-floating fiat currency) is either the money it receives from bond auctions or the money it prints up, and it can always print money since the government can buy its own debt. Taxes are necessary to control inflation, but they don't fund gov't spending. The idea that they do is a relic of the gold standard era. This is not some airy-fairy theory, but how the monetary system works in reality. Like I said, there's a really long, wonky explanation behind this. If you want to talk about how it works, feel free to start another thread on it -- I don't want to derail a UHC thread on some long economics lecture.

Anyway, I believe that the simple facts surrounding both UHC costs and government spending expose the opponents of UHC as ignorant at best. UHC proponents would gain a lot of ground by arguing that UHC is both moral and practical. It's simply a no-brainer. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you didn't want to start a conversation on it here you shouldn't have raised it here. But the notion that the government doesn't need taxes (if that is the implication of what you're saying) sounds downright weird. --BobSpring is sprung! 10:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The government needs taxes so that it can throw that money into the trash can. Then it prints more money. -- (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that's one explanation. But the idea that governments can finance themselves in perpetuity by selling debt to themselves sounds a bit too close to perpetual motion for my taste.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
While I see the credit of arguing the moral and practical side of UHC, but from my perspective nothing else matters after the moral side. To me, letting people die when something can easily be done is tantamount to homicide via omission. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 09:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with the replies here, I have to say this is entirely an issue of framing. When it comes to taxes, yes, the gov't does need to collect taxes unless you heart the hyperinflation. I am not in any way saying we need to abolish taxes, I'm simply saying that taxing and spending is a means of controlling the money supply -- this is not some exotic theory, as I said before, simply the operational reality of the monetary system. I bring up these practical arguments because no political issue exists in a vacuum. Failing to understand the economic realities of our political system plays right into the bullshit spewed by the righties, which is unfortunately a common occurrence. The issue is framed as if it's "the right thing to do" vs. "I just want to make sure our money is well spent." This is utter nonsense. Conservatives constantly invoke the greedy hand of the government reaching into your wallet to hand money to some bum (as the OP did here). If UHC supporters let them get away with this sort of garbage, we will lose the debate to the "I'm all right, Jack" types. Because UHC is both morally sound and fiscally prudent, when we argue for it as such, we expose the anti-UHC crowd for espousing what amounts to naked Social Darwinism. There is no trade-off between morals and practicality here. UHC has both. We have the facts on our side, let's use them. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you comments on the health system - it is morally correct and financially prudent. The problem is that making statements which seem to relegate the issue of taxation to a mere financial (and possibly unnecessary) detail makes us look equally daft. If you don't want people to ask you what you are going on about then might I suggest you reserve such esoteric pronouncements financial pages?--BobSpring is sprung! 11:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow I didn't know I provoke such discussion. "You don't wanna have medicine" - that's ridiculous, you people don't know what you're talking about. I live in country where we have universal healtcare. We also have hospitals and clinics which are not part of it - they're private enterprises. They usually have much better quality of services. But the problem is, even if I don't want to use public clinics and hospitals, and I prefer to pay for my medical services in those which are not part of universal system... I still have to PAY for universal healthcare. I actually have to PAY for something I don't use and don't want to use. And that's the problem of any public system of healthcare - it's paid from taxes. So everyone have to pay for it, even if they don't use it. And besides, medical services are goods like any others, I don't really see any reson for it should be "free" for anybody (is FOOD free for anybody? Have we "universal feeding system"? And it's much more important to live than healthcare). Especially when it's not actually free, if anyone have to pay for it, no matter if they even use it. This IS socialism, no matter what you say. And you know what - like most of socialism inventions, which are supposed to help the poor, it's actually hits the poor. Because one who is rich, can pay for his medication second time if he wants, after he pay in taxes for public healtcare. The poor can't afford that. The have no choice, they have to take any crap state give them, because before, the state took their money away. And this is sick. And I dont't really care for all of these moaning "But there are so many people who have no insurance", yeah, well, if they're need help, just help them, but how dare you MAKE others to helping them? That's nor charity, that's stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Which is still stealing in the first place. And maybe some people just don't wanna have insurance. Why to fobrid them that? It's their life, the money, and their freedom. (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Have we "universal feeding system"? Yes, there are welfare systems in place in most developed countries for those who are unable to earn money to buy food & other basic commodities. Or are you opposed to that too? What about state-funded education? I guess that's also stealing from the rich to MAKE them to help the poor & if they want privately funded education they'll have to pay for that again. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Private clinics have better service because they have less patients per doctor (that's not very good for the economy is it). There is no "universal food system" or any other "universal x systems" because they are covered under the thing called "social security". The people have to always take "any crap the state gives them" but there's democracy to remedy that. Under progressive taxing the poor are decisively not worse off with UHC. -- (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

So your entire batshit stupid argument rests on the fact that if I, as a poor-ish individual, get cancer I don't have to get treatment if I don't want it. As if chemotherapy is a new sports car. You cannot, especially in a supposedly first world developed society or any society that considers itself just, treat medical care as a commodity item. You can go on about the intricacies of taxation and "framing" all you like, but it just boils down to whether you demand people try to support themselves by their own means or whether everyone chips in to help. The thing is, you can't just get sick or injured because you decide to, it's random and often not the fault of anyone - it's not like people think "I'll buy health insurance because I'm planning to shoot a bolt gun into my leg". You cannot predict when or even if you'll need it. So the argument that you have to pay and contribute to it even if you don't want it is utter bull - you cannot say that you'll never need it in the same way I can say I'll never want a private jet. If you can afford private care, good for you. But there are people who cannot afford the extortionate prices that private care demands and who the hell are you to demand that they be forced to pay it on a roll of the dice? Scarlet A.pngbomination 13:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could make similar arguments about many things. "I've got a job and I've got some unemployment insurance - so I don't need to pay for that part of social security." or "I'm rich and I've got a helicopter - so my taxes should not go to fix the roads." One can make similar arguments about education and many other things. The thing is that we do, in fact, live in a society where the responsibility for these things has been given to the government. In mixed economies people who care to pay more have the liberty to pay for better provision - but only once they've paid their debt to the national system. Furthermore even the rich who pay for extra services still depend on the national system to get their educated, healthy employees to their places of employment for instance. So even people who do not benefit directly still benefit.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I think because you can apply those arguments elsewhere it makes little sense as to why people are so hostile against it being applied to healthcare. Think of everything else that is collective; water supply, education, military... now privatise it all. No, really, all the way. Imagine privatised military where you had to pay for the benefits of it - weird, eh? But why should I pay taxes towards a military when I don't want to to invade that country! If you can justify collective military spending you have to justify collective health spending. Scarlet A.pngbomination 15:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Fundamentally it comes down to a cost/benefit matter -- do we or do we not have a vested interest in a healthy populace? By providing a health safety net, a UHC system offers a way to allow people to remain productive members of society, as well as providing facilities for a comprehensive public health system to better manage epidemics and other dangers that affect a large number of people. Honestly, I've never heard an argument against universal health care that wasn't either whiny and solipsistic (the libertarianish denial of the social contract and obliviousness to just how necessary government investment really is) or just plain sadistic (the idea that if you don't have it you must not deserve it). Neither argument is even remotely persuasive in an intellectually honest cost/benefit analysis. EVDebs (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
"Hey guys, I got an idea. We're civilised, compassionate people right? So if somebody has lost their job, likely through no fault of their own, instead of leaving them to die if they get il, lets act like civilised people and help them anyway!"
Rest of World:
"What a great idea, this will save many people and future generations will see this as the foundation of modern civilisation, where those with plenty give a helping hand to those with nothing!"
"Commie pig! Didn't you think that he might not WANT to be saved? Stop stealing our freedom and our money!" --Madattak (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You got that right, Madattak! If anyone says "We need to find a way to help widows & ORPHANS" Americans yell, "Are you a communist?" Klop789 (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Thoughts? Тysic semper 02:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


Where does it say in the Constitution that the government can implement Obamacare? Exactly, nowhere. Talsley (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And where does it say it can't? Um, exactly nowhere. Pink mowse.pngGodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
If it isn't in the constitution the federal government cannot do it. Talsley (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Engaging in headdesk mode. Funny that whenever the government wants to give life instead of death conservatives despise it. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
LOL. "Oh kay". if it's not in the constition, you can't do it. (Us post office, US AirForce academy and football team, US Welfare or social security programs, US Federal Court system (constitution only contemplates the supreme court), payment for any us employee; FDA and the US Surgeon General; Ambasadorships to non-recognized nations; Puerto Rico; Kidnapping laws, protection of copyright from state to state; any recognition of international law........ yeah... don't think it's quite that simple, Talsley.Pink mowse.pngGodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 19:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC) (edit con, but amen, Osaka)
Woohoo! No crimes can happen on the internet! --ʤɱ heretic 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Why not let the states have their own air forces? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The state militias should be combined into the US army in times of war. I don't see why they shouldn't. Welfare is communism, and the FDA is blatant corporate cronyism. And Social security and the USPS should be privatized. International law is a blatant violation of American Sovereignty by the United Nations, which we should withdraw from. Talsley (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Deep cover liberal. That's all I have to say. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Which constitution are you talking about?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The United States Constitution. Talsley (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah. You need to make these things clear to us Europeans. The internet is more than the US--BobSpring is sprung! 20:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
No it's not, damn you. get off my internet. Bob Gore or something invented it or something!Pink mowse.pngGodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 20:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Bob, you should try to leave Europe as soon as possible. WaitingfoGodot, Al Gore did not invent the internet, or perform any useful function ever. Talsley (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The internet was invented by the good European Tim Berners-Lee.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the stifling of innovation in Europe it may sadly never produce such any such contribution to the world again. Talsley (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Talsley put down bob gore and said that Bob M is not american. i'm going to cry now. you broke my widdle heart.Pink mowse.pngGodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 20:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Y'all are freakin' hilarious. Are you topic fetishists? --Sethpeck (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah but Doctors in Europe can cure cancer and diabetes - at least according to somebody.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, due to the lack of influence from Big-Pharma. The treatments did not originate in Europe, but are not common here due to Big Pharma's control over medicine reporting in the media. Talsley (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
By the way, why does everyone insist on calling it universal health care. Are we really arguing that my cat and the guy from Proxima Centuri are covered? I think not! They'd both have a hard time getting to the clinics if nothign else.Pink mowse.pngGodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 20:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Good post! --ʤɱ pirate 21:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
We already give illegal immigrants healthcare. Socialized vets aren't probably far off. Talsley (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
TELL ME ABOUT IT> those damn vets! just cause they fought in a war doesn't mean they should have free health care!!! Pink mowse.pngGodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 21:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Europe not innovative? Al Gore wasn't the vice president of a government that successfully balanced the budget (which Republicans haven't done since the 50s)?
Deep. Cover. Liberal. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
WaitingforGodot, I was referring to veterinary care. Talsley (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Talsley I'm really happy for you and Imma let you finish but Maratrean is the most annoying editor of all time, OF ALL TIME! HollowWorld (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This shows that you shouldn't indent every comment. Just indent every other one. Klop789 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Just mandate insurance and call it a day?[edit]

As with most forms of insurance, costs actually drop with more people participating. Wouldn't it be a far easier and still as effective method merely to make health insurance like car insurance (With a few extra reforms involving insurance companies)? I mean, it's less dodgy politically in America and we gain most, if not all the benefits of a universal healthcare system. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Insurance companies are competitive profit-making organisations whereas as a comprehensive system like those in the UK & Australia isn't. With mandated health insurance you would still get 1. consumers spending more on healthcare insurance than is actually spent on healthcare costs, due to the companies' profit margins, and 2. insurers competing for business which will often mean customers choosing the cheapest option & then finding their healthcare coverage is actually very basic & doesn't include everything they may need. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
But a mandated payment is effectively a tax - so why not just put taxes up slightly, get the government to pay for it and call it a day? But... OMG, that would be COMMUNISM!!! Scarlet A.pngpostate 12:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Michael Moore[edit]

Again, while I'm not doubting his facts, merely citing his own website is not a sound way of refuting Hanity's criticisms. Thrive claims boldly "every fact in this movie is verified on the website", but upon closer inspection it's website was extremely misleading in the way it used evidence. It's much better to cite a secondary article specifically refuting Hanity's criticisms, rather than citing Moore himself. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Argentina valid enough?[edit]

I wouldn't call it universal but... Let's just say that the public health systems are free for absolutely anyone. We have a large influx of immigrants (both legal and ilegal) comming here for the medical system, the qualty of doctors and other medical staff is quite high and the medical universities have some knowledge.

In the means of how they are funded there are 3 methods: 1) The usual profit-making insurance company (It's expensive, but I have to admit they are pretty good at what they do). 2) "Tax-funded" insurance. You pay your taxes, and your work makes sure you have a vaild insurance. Pretty much anyone with this stays with this, and it's completely effective. 3) Public medicine. There is a large amount of hospitals that take care of ANYONE. You might not get a heart transplant surgery on a whim, but the most basic (And a little more) health care is open to anyone willing to get it.

So, is it notable enough? (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"hospitals that take care of ANYONE". It counts. As long as it takes care of everyone, it doesn't matter if private options exist.Colossal Squid (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second....[edit]

....why does the section on the NHS fail to mention the Liverpool Care Pathway, exactly? Shouldn't it examine the negatives (in a non-sarcastic way) of the NHS, such as that doctors of certain faiths don't have to wash their hands?

Personally, I think that the NHS should be abolished completely and replaced by the Swedish system of being partially private and partially public, but I know that's not the stance this website this website has. But I think there's a big difference between "showing a conservative stance" and "pointing out both the positives and the negatives of something". -- (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Because this article is about the funding, not the practices. LCP was not an aspect of how the NHS is funded, it's about a radical and controversial approach to end of life scenarios. I'm also not at all sure why you plump for the Swedish model. The French model, which admittedly has problems, has the best outcome/cost ratio. Innocent Bystander (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Private, as in 97% financed by the state? Osaka Sun (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Silver and Gold?[edit]

Considering the US shutdown over a reform that barely even resembles single-payer, I'd suggest we'd improve this page to cover status. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Loaded(?) language in UK section[edit]

The sentence "People have the option of taking out private health insurance if they don't want to wait for their non-urgent operations or share a ward with the hoi polloi." seems to me to be loaded against people who take out private health insurance in the UK. Specifically, it appears to me to frame PHI customers as being wasteful/snobbish/entitled. Does anyone else agree, and if so how should we proceed? A note on my background: I'm a UK citizen, have private health insurance and only use the NHS for emergency care and GP appointments. I agree with the thrust of the article, which is that universal health care is a positive thing, but I also think that if I can afford private health insurance then as a responsible member of society I should take out insurance and use it where possible, in order to free up NHS services for people who don't have the option. However, I haven't been able to find any sources supporting that view so I'm hesitant to introduce that argument. (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing with your right to not use the services your taxes paid for if you don't want to. Unless you get priority treatment over NHS patients who need it more than you do. (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's just snark, really. The option for private insurance for the wealthy to help ensure that the NHS covers the most needy first (and not the other way around) has always been a issue surrounding the future sustainability of single payer. I'm, too, surprised about the lack of research on the subject. (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Only covers tax-payers?[edit]

From a series of edits recently rolled back:

"Contrary to popular belief, this does not include everyone, only those who have profitable income which a tax can be levied upon."

Please tell me more about this interesting idea... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment moved from article...[edit]

tberes slaves in india???? since WHEN - unsigned....

Dalit caste don't have a rung that different to slavery. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
What? Nerd (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Re-distribute wealth worldwide[edit]

So no one has ever demanded a re-distribution of money EQUALLY worldwide (which is shocking) to quickly end world poverty, & get all people perfect health care, including USA & UK where millions can't AFFORD anything medical, or food, shelter & clothing, oh yes and education. Klop789 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You want equality of opportunities, not outcomes. Nerd (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)