@Jinmane the problem is that the minimum quality of healthcare is also the maximum quality of healthcare you can get under the government. anything else is out of pocket and expensive because it is not covered.
@fds9931 Thanks for the response. I think many of the arguements about the sustainability of a Universal Healthcare system ignore some key elements. These include the impact of health care (or lack thereof) on crime, education, entrepreneurialism, prevention, etc.
I respectfully disagree because my belief is that developed countries cannot afford to NOT have universal healthcare. It will be even more costly to deny it. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, I just feel its unavoidable.
@deziistheone It would be nice to have a similar system in the us but it just couldn't last forever. Social security is about to die here in the us. These are nice and humane systems to have but they seem to be the biggest contributors to debt that will lead to a bigger problem later on. I don't think it's any different for the rest of the world.
+ if you pay 30k £ in tax you have same crap 9it is a shit service) as the person who get 30k in tax credits(30k from us). you want better or something else?!!! you have to go and pay (with the shit money that you have after income tax , sale tax aka vat , alcohol tax ,tobacco tax, fuel tax,council tax,car tax etc.)
ps:and they love to print toilet paper aka fiat currency to ,,finance" the deficit (this is a hidden tax)
@iowayoungs Completely wrong. I have lived in Canada all my life, and there is absolutely no one I know who would want our healthcare system changed to a private care system. It's not even a consideration for us. The funny thing is, we talk about how crazy the system is in the US and how it's not only expensive, but is less efficient and more costly to the individual tax payer. It is also ranked much lower than the Canadian system by any number of international organizations.
From what I am understanding from a college Economics class, the government would be very inefficient, like Dr. Sowell says, at running Healthcare. All of our Canadian friends say it's a big mistake. It can take 2 years in Canada to get in to see the doctor you are waiting for. If government were efficient, I could agree with the interviewer. Realistically, it is not.
This is surely irrelevant. No one is claiming that government can reduce the cost of healthcare overall. The purpose of a nationalised health service is to ensure that everyone has access to a minimum quality of healthcare. In Britain, we still have private healthcare for those who want it.
@TheSteelGeneraI Wow, fringeelements proved you wrong, but you ignored it. Watch the video. Like always, private companies set it up and the government decided it was better than everyone else. Most 'geeks' I know are libertarians, anarchists, or conservatives (Or some combination of the three). Al gore did nothing to help 'create the internet'. The government doesn't need to invest in anything, just look at Solyndra. 535,000,000 down the toilet, along with over 1000 jobs.
@TheSteelGeneraI HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Progressives secured our rights! What a laugh! Like what, the 18th amendment, which banned alcohol? The 16th, which forced an income tax? The 17th, which removed any restraint the states had on the government? Which rights did progressives win for me? Not the Civil rights (republicans and non-progressive JFK got that), Which economic rights did the progressives win for me? The Founding fathers secured my rights in the constitution.
@Jinmane the problem is that the minimum quality of healthcare is also the maximum quality of healthcare you can get under the government. anything else is out of pocket and expensive because it is not covered.
duddywama 1 day ago
Simply said, Thomas Sowell is dead on right. He's talking about facts here. The truth is a wonderful thing. Thank You, Dr. Sowell.
kay3333ify 1 month ago
@fds9931 Thanks for the response. I think many of the arguements about the sustainability of a Universal Healthcare system ignore some key elements. These include the impact of health care (or lack thereof) on crime, education, entrepreneurialism, prevention, etc.
I respectfully disagree because my belief is that developed countries cannot afford to NOT have universal healthcare. It will be even more costly to deny it. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, I just feel its unavoidable.
deziistheone 1 month ago
@deziistheone It would be nice to have a similar system in the us but it just couldn't last forever. Social security is about to die here in the us. These are nice and humane systems to have but they seem to be the biggest contributors to debt that will lead to a bigger problem later on. I don't think it's any different for the rest of the world.
fds9931 1 month ago
health care in uk is crap(lot to say about this)
+ if you pay 30k £ in tax you have same crap 9it is a shit service) as the person who get 30k in tax credits(30k from us). you want better or something else?!!! you have to go and pay (with the shit money that you have after income tax , sale tax aka vat , alcohol tax ,tobacco tax, fuel tax,council tax,car tax etc.)
ps:and they love to print toilet paper aka fiat currency to ,,finance" the deficit (this is a hidden tax)
STAN25S 2 months ago
@iowayoungs Completely wrong. I have lived in Canada all my life, and there is absolutely no one I know who would want our healthcare system changed to a private care system. It's not even a consideration for us. The funny thing is, we talk about how crazy the system is in the US and how it's not only expensive, but is less efficient and more costly to the individual tax payer. It is also ranked much lower than the Canadian system by any number of international organizations.
deziistheone 2 months ago
From what I am understanding from a college Economics class, the government would be very inefficient, like Dr. Sowell says, at running Healthcare. All of our Canadian friends say it's a big mistake. It can take 2 years in Canada to get in to see the doctor you are waiting for. If government were efficient, I could agree with the interviewer. Realistically, it is not.
iowayoungs 3 months ago
This is surely irrelevant. No one is claiming that government can reduce the cost of healthcare overall. The purpose of a nationalised health service is to ensure that everyone has access to a minimum quality of healthcare. In Britain, we still have private healthcare for those who want it.
Jinmane 3 months ago
@TheSteelGeneraI Wow, fringeelements proved you wrong, but you ignored it. Watch the video. Like always, private companies set it up and the government decided it was better than everyone else. Most 'geeks' I know are libertarians, anarchists, or conservatives (Or some combination of the three). Al gore did nothing to help 'create the internet'. The government doesn't need to invest in anything, just look at Solyndra. 535,000,000 down the toilet, along with over 1000 jobs.
bdg323 4 months ago
@TheSteelGeneraI HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Progressives secured our rights! What a laugh! Like what, the 18th amendment, which banned alcohol? The 16th, which forced an income tax? The 17th, which removed any restraint the states had on the government? Which rights did progressives win for me? Not the Civil rights (republicans and non-progressive JFK got that), Which economic rights did the progressives win for me? The Founding fathers secured my rights in the constitution.
bdg323 4 months ago