It always amuses me to see all the
political ads the proclaim the extreme positions of “Liberals” when they are
the ones that really promote the more extreme positions.
In particular in our state Tammy Baldwin is
attacked as nearly demonic in her extreme, radical support of national health
care. The question is extreme by whose criteria?
Here is a list of countries with forms of
universal health care:
Country
|
Start
Date of Universal Health Care
|
|
Click links for
more source material on each country’s health care system.
|
||
Norway
|
Single Payer
|
|
New Zealand
|
Two Tier
|
|
Japan
|
Single Payer
|
|
Germany
|
Insurance
Mandate
|
|
Belgium
|
Insurance
Mandate
|
|
United Kingdom
|
Single Payer
|
|
Kuwait
|
Single Payer
|
|
Sweden
|
Single Payer
|
|
Bahrain
|
Single Payer
|
|
Brunei
|
Single Payer
|
|
Canada
|
Single Payer
|
|
Netherlands
|
Two-Tier
|
|
Austria
|
Insurance
Mandate
|
|
United Arab
Emirates
|
Single Payer
|
|
Finland
|
Single Payer
|
|
Slovenia
|
Single Payer
|
|
Denmark
|
Two-Tier
|
|
Luxembourg
|
Insurance
Mandate
|
|
France
|
Two-Tier
|
|
Australia
|
Two Tier
|
|
Ireland
|
Two-Tier
|
|
Italy
|
Single Payer
|
|
Portugal
|
Single Payer
|
|
Cyprus
|
Single Payer
|
|
Greece
|
Insurance
Mandate
|
|
Spain
|
Single Payer
|
|
South Korea
|
Insurance
Mandate
|
|
Iceland
|
Single Payer
|
|
Hong Kong
|
Two-Tier
|
|
Singapore
|
Two-Tier
|
|
Switzerland
|
Insurance
Mandate
|
|
Israel
|
Two-Tier
|
|
United States
|
Insurance
Mandate
|
|
Will the United
States join this list in 2014?
[1] Roughly 15% of Americans lack
insurance coverage, so the US clearly has not yet achieved universal
health care. There is no universal definition of developed or
industrialized nations. For this list, those countries with UN Human
Development Index scores above 0.9 on a 0 to 1 scale are considered developed.
[2] The dates given are estimates, since
universal health care arrived gradually in many countries. In Germany for
instance, government insurance programs began in 1883, but did not reach
universality until 1941. Typically the date provided is the date of passage or
enactment for a national health care Act mandating insurance or establishing
universal health insurance.
Are these countries all extreme? 32 of 33
developed nations. Not to have universal health care seems extreme in my humble
opinion.
A couple of charts for those who like
those.
Social health protection:[9] Proportion of the population covered by law, latest available year (percentages)[10]
Less than 10%
10-40%
40-70%
70-95%
More than 95%
No data
Or perhaps this from Wikipedia is more helpful.
The U.S. stands almost entirely alone among developed nations that lack universal health care.
The U.S. stands almost entirely alone among developed nations that lack universal health care.
The GOP view on healthcare, like much of the conservative agenda, is to return to the halcyon days of the founders...
ReplyDelete...Rush's Pills and regular bleedings.
(If you can pay cash)
No, it is of the idea that as much as possible should be controlled by the people, not the rulers.
DeleteSingle-payer, in which the ruling elites completely control healthcare, is the extreme solution. It's what they have in North Korea as well.
ReplyDeleteAn unaccountable monopoly.
N Korea has a ruling elite, for sure. All the other countries which have better healthcare, more cost-effective healthcare, better outcomes,
Deletemore satisfied consumers and successful systems
..are democracies: they choose and like single payer. It works better and costs less. It is the
simple metrics ...
You forget that these other countries DO have death panels, and they cut off treatment for the elderly in order to save costs.
DeleteAlso, all of the countries being discussed have ruling elites. That is the nature of governments and rule.
Delete'ruling elites'? Not sure I understand. Is that
Deletesome sort of Randian objectivism referring to the power structure of a collective? Can we apply that to corporate structure, or for that matter any orgnanization? Or does that just refer to legitimately elected people? Elites,
plutocrats, oligarchs...what is the connection here?
'Ruling elites' is conservative New-speak, a perjorative often used in referring to freely elected representatives to make them sound inherently evil just for being there. It's the opposite of euphemism (see "Job Creators").
DeleteMuch of conservative PR revolves around sowing distrust and fear of freely elected institutions, while pushing for blind trust and more power to unelected institutions and power blocs, such as corporations and superPACs.
It's not new-speak at at all. I refers to the fact of government. While our ruling elites are 'freely elected', that does not change the fact that they are the ruling elites.
DeleteThe founding fathers recognized this, and that is why we have the Bill of Rights in order to place limits on the power of the ruling elites.
"Much of conservative PR revolves around sowing distrust and fear of freely elected institutions while pushing for blind trust and more power to unelected institutions and power blocs, such as corporations and superPACs."
While the former is true, it is a disingenuous way to describe the situation where we don't want the powerful to have too much power. The last isn't true at all, as it is all about trusting the American people. Since when has it become only a conservative virtue to question authority, and somehow bad to question and criticize the government?
BB: I am referring to the elites who actually rule. These are found in government.
The references to superPACS is strange, since they have no power other than that expressly protected in the Bill of Rights: that of the people to speak out on political issues. Again, it is strange that so many on the left, including you, want to censor political speak because they don't like the content or even the idea of free speech.
DeleteIf a couple dozen billionaires can buy an election, the voices of 2 million small donors
Deletewill soon be silenced. I gotta go along with that guy down in Amarillo...
"I will accept Corporations as People when Texas Starts Executing them."
Also, some dubious statements need to be addressed. For example, this one:
ReplyDelete"Roughly 15% of Americans lack insurance coverage, so the US clearly has not yet achieved universal health care"
That is like saying that most Americans are starving because hardly anyone has food insurance. The quoted statement ignores the fact of the huge difference between health care and health insurance.
This is where Mitt comes in and pushes the 'Emergency Room' option for the uninsured.
ReplyDeleteLack of insurance leads to postponement of care, which eventually leads to late, more expensive treatment and/or death.
Technically our current system treats the uninsured, true, but it ends up being emergency (or even too late) care. It is an extremely high cost, low success solution.
The market solution, of course, would simply be to let uninsured people die on the hospital doorstep. But let's face it, that's just plain evil.
But anything else is technically some form of Universal Healthcare, since you're technically treating everyone, paying or no. We've chosen the model of holding them at arm's length until they're at death's door. Not QUITE as evil as letting them die on the doorstep, instead it's probably second-worst.
So if we have universal care, then all we're really talking about is how do we pay for it. Obamacare effectively makes the paying pool larger through the mandate. Without the mandate, we go back to the previous model of running them through the emergency room which means it comes out of the pockets of a smaller pool of premium-payers. Because your health insurance premiums have to cover not only your own care, but that of the uninsured, or the hospitals that treat them would go under.
Vouchers...the GOP answer to everything. So, we
ReplyDeleteget health stamps along with food stamps....