Universal healthcare

Is universal healthcare worth the expense?
How does it work where you live?
Universal Healthcare- State provided healthcare system covering all citizens of a particular country.

Where I live doesn't have it, but it turns out to be quite the norm like public schools are in the countries that do have it.

Bi0Hazard: In general, yes, it's worth it.

Bi0Hazard: Is universal healthcare worth the expense?

Yes.

How does it work where you live?

Well I live in the UK so, as I'm sure you are aware of, we have the NHS (National Health Service) - which is the largest and most efficient Universal healthcare system in the world.

Famousdebater: the largest and most efficient Universal healthcare system in the world.
What makes it the most efficient?

Bi0Hazard: What makes it the most efficient?

It has the more resources, workers and facilities out of any other universal healthcare system and is therefore able to run well and provide more than sufficient healthcare for the UK and is able to do it properly (unlike some universal healthcare systems where there isn't enough money to pay for facilities of a good standard [or better]).

According to a Forbes article published in February 2014, annual U.S. expenditure on healthcare is 3.8 trillion. Assuming that a single unified system would be able to cut costs down to 3 trillion, this would still require that the USFG's budget to nearly double in size, assuming that state governments don't absorb a good sum of the costs.

Dassault Papillon: The USFG poorly manages its money (the US National debt bring proof of this). If it significantly reduced its military spending and the trillions of wasted dollars on the War on Terror (and some other minor things) then Universal healthcare may be more feasible in the US.

Famousdebater: Well, I suppose we could still have National Healthcare under Chinese rule.

Dassault Papillon: The U.S. already spends more on healthcare per person than any other country yet it has a higher obesity rate and lower life expectancy than other countries with universal healthcare.

Bi0Hazard: The reason for that is simple: Americans eat more, drink more, smoke more, and exercise less than their counterparts in, say, Europe, Canada, or Australia.

If we pay for everyone's healthcare, that'll just incentivise people to live even less healthy lifestyles, since somebody else will be paying the bill.

Dassault Papillon: That doesn't follow. The incentive is health, not money. It's not much use holding on to money if you're dead.

This is the problem with much American culture today - here is a prime example of putting coin before life.

admin: I'll put it this way: knowing that you'll have to pay the costs for whatever medical treatment you receive is an incentive, if only a slight one, to stay in good health.

"Screw money; anyone who raises the issue of cost is nothing more than a greedy fascist who puts money before people! The livelihood of the poor matters above all expenses!"
The people who talk like this do so boldly because they won't be footing the bill.

Dassault Papillon: If we pay for everyone's healthcare, that'll just incentivise people to live even less healthy lifestyles, since somebody else will be paying the bill.
Universal Healthcare doesn't equal less a healthy lifestyle, because people in society aren't healthy primarily because of money. Some countries are more healthy on average than others and I think it is important to figure out why. Of course, there are many different factors and disagreements on it, but it is possible to point out reasons why.
The reason for that is simple: Americans eat more, drink more, smoke more, and exercise less than their counterparts in, say, Europe, Canada, or Australia.
Ok, here is something interesting I found: http://www.alternet.org/surprising-reason-americans-are-far-less-healthy-others-developed-nations
It is a possible explanation to health in society.
If Americans exercised more and ate and smoked less, this conventional wisdom holds, the United States would surely start moving up in the global health rankings.

But many epidemiologists — scientists who study health outcomes — have their doubts. They point out that the United States ranked as one of the world’s healthiest nations back in the 1950s, a time when Americans smoked heavily, ate a diet that would horrify any 21st-century nutritionist, and hardly ever exercised.
What actually may explain it is this:
And none of these determinants matter more, these researchers contend, than economic inequality, the divide between the affluent and everyone else. Over 170 studies worldwide have so far linked income inequality to health outcomes. The more unequal a modern society, the studies show, the more unhealthy most everyone in it — and not the poor alone.
Why?
Just how does inequality translate into unhealthy outcomes? Growing numbers of researchers see stress as the culprit. The more inequality in a society, the more stress. Chronic stress, over time, wears down our immune systems and leaves us more vulnerable to disease.

This same stress drives people to seek relief in unhealthy habits. They may do drugs or smoke — or eat more “comfort foods” packed with sugar and fat.
This is a possible explanation that is worth exploring.
I will say that I am not a huge fan of economic(wealth) equality, since I favor a more capitalist society, however, increasing wealth inequality has been a problem in the U.S. and should(at least eventually) be addressed.

Dassault Papillon: I'll put it this way: knowing that you'll have to pay the costs for whatever medical treatment you receive is an incentive, if only a slight one, to stay in good health.
Doesn't sound like much of an incentive to me based on what you said earlier:
The reason for that is simple: Americans eat more, drink more, smoke more, and exercise less than their counterparts in, say, Europe, Canada, or Australia.
Yet, the U.S. doesn't have universal healthcare and these other countries do.

Dassault Papillon: The irony is that unhealthy people USUALLY have lower healthcare expenses over the course of their life. Keeping people alive for longer is really, really expensive. From a strictly economic standpoint, the best way to lower your future healthcare expenses is to die.

I'm totally convinced the incentive you're talking about doesn't exist. People value human life much more than human currency.

Universal healthcare is a stupid and logically backwards idea. Basically, you mess up your own body, then force everybody in your country to pay for it. Most healthcare costs are self-induced. In other words, they could be fixed if people simply took care of themselves. If you want to live a sedentary lifestyle, smoke, get STDs, and eat junk food as a staple, fine. But then forcing other people to pay for your health costs in the future? That's when you start crossing the line.

Krazy: Nice to see you around again.

admin: Hi!