• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So..... About UHC


The problem I see with that system is that you may not think you need that service till you actually need that service. For the "bill" I would say send it out with tax forms.
 

Ah, so the majority of the people in Canada are essentially not paying for the services provided and riding the backs of the rich. That seems vaguely familiar like I have seen it before, but where? Oh right, in the US. Have you ever wondered why you have decided to support a government that takes in 30% of your income? When did it become acceptable to the people that their fruits of their labor was the property of the state? When did it become acceptable that the only thing the people can do is insist the government not take it all? Did you ever wonder why you accept the notion that the government has access to any amount of your money they see fit? Why is it, that the only argument you seem to have is that your money goes to services? Is it not true to say that you could spend your income on services yourself? Is it not true to say that when you spend your own money towards services you need everyone involves agrees to the transaction? Can you say the same for your idea?
 

Where did you get that the rich pay for everyone else, it is simply not the case. It's is what we accept as being Canadian; we pay much more than Americans as we believe everyone should have fair and equal access to services they need. I pay for your healthcare someone else pays for mine. We decided it was better for society to have equal access to services which is why we are Canadian not American.
 
Where did you get that the rich pay for everyone else, it is simply not the case. It's is what we accept as being Canadian. We pay much more than Americans as we believe everyone should have fair and equal access to services they need.

Why should they have equal access to services they need? Is it not your duty in this life to meet your own needs? Why is it that individual needs of the people are the task of the state to meet? Why is it not yours?

I also do not see how your argument follows. If the rich are paying the majority of the cost, as your argument suggests, then it makes little sense to say you are covering your share. If however you were covering your share then why not just pay for it on the open market? Why even look to the government at all?
 

It's called society we have an obligation to take care of the others in our society as it ultimately benefits us if everyone succeeds. The rich (which in Canada is anyone who makes around 130,000$/year apparently) are not paying the majority of the cost though unlike America.
 

Your knowledge of Canada and Canadian taxes is pretty thin.

In Canada, about 34% pay no federal income taxes - that compares to about 47% in the United States who don't pay any federal income taxes - If you want to finger slackers, I'd say Americans are the ones not invested in the maintenance of their country - Canadians, about 66% are invested and proudly so.
 

Oh here we go again, with the absurd notion that healthcare can't work in the free market because of evil people, but the government is made up of people of a finer cloth and their oversight(read control) will make everything all better. For some reason I doubt it.

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” - Frédéric Bastiat
 

Any declarations towards the existence of a such thing called society is and will forever be fallacious. There is only individual men and women with their own individual rights. Nothing else.

I have little reason to believe that the amount you pay in covers your care as it is very clear the largest sum comes from the rich.
 

The company I worked for offered healthcare savings plans, where a person could opt to have money taken out of their paychecks, tax free on a yearly basis, to be spent however they wished on "extras" that weren't covered under the company paid insurance plan. Dental work and new glasses seemed to be the most popular choices at that time. I wonder what effect Obamacare will have on that great "perk" we used to enjoy.
 

Rights cannot exist and are irrelevant without society. Society creates rights.
 
Rights cannot exist and are irrelevant without society. Society creates rights.

No, it is not because men has established governance, made law, or dreamed up concepts such society, that life, liberty, and property exist. It is fact, because life, liberty and property existed beforehand that man established governance, made law, or dreamed up the concept of society. Without life, liberty and property no one would have thought to establish (or frankly have the ability) a collective organization to protect their individual right to lawful defense.
 
Last edited:

Exactly you have to have a society for rights to work and you must function as a part of that society. It is the job of government to create laws to benefit society.
 
Exactly you have to have a society for rights to work and you must function as a part of that society. It is the job of government to create laws to benefit society.

Lets see if I can explain this. The reason the people have a right to lawful defense is from the very fact that very man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property. The very reason the people have in defending the government existence and where it gets its lawfulness is from this individual right. This means very clearly that just as individuals can not act on the person, liberty, property of each other neither than can the government thats it's reason for existence is to protect it. This also means that the government can have no other duty sworn upon it as it would conflict with it's already established mission. The very fact that the government has awarded itself and we have sworn upon it other duties means that the government is failing it's mission and have no reason to support it's existence.

In short, government does not exist for this thing you call society, but for individuals with the duty of protecting their rights and it can not serve no other purpose without coming into conflict with the peoples rights. Like I said, there is nothing except people and their rights. Everything else is merely an abstraction.
 

There is no such thing as right to property. Rights do not exist without society and must be created by the people; government exists to benefit society.
 
There is no such thing as right to property. Rights do not exist without society and must be created by the people; government exists to benefit society.

So your argument basically amounts to that people do not have sovereignty over their own own body and by extension everything in which that body acts upon. That for some strange and unusual reason they only gain rights by the permission of their peers. You realize that defeats the entire purpose, right?
 
Last edited:
Becuase every other western nation proves it.


And to answer your question. the web site was not set up by Gov people. It was done by corrupt contractors............

Which AGIAN proves we need to eliminate CEO's from everything.
 
Have you ever wondered why you have decided to support a government that takes in 30% of your income?
FYI, the actual effective tax rate in the US is a bit lower than that, and has been dropping since the Reagan years -- especially for high earners.


When did it become acceptable to the people that their fruits of their labor was the property of the state?
American citizens have been taxed since Day 1. Income taxes were discussed as early as 1814, imposed in 1861, and passed SCOTUS review in 1895.

Oh wait, I forgot -- this isn't about facts, it's about rhetoric.


When did it become acceptable that the only thing the people can do is insist the government not take it all?
1) Tax rates have been falling since the 80s.
2) Plenty of people do advocate for lower tax rates.
3) Tax breaks, such as reducing capital gains taxes, have also been introduced or expanded since the 80s.

There are plenty of options other than what is suggested by your false dilemma.


 
This also means that the government can have no other duty sworn upon it as it would conflict with it's already established mission.
Sure, if we accept such a ridiculously narrow interpretation of the role of government, that might make sense.

Of course, the idea of "defending the nation" can be broadly interpreted in all sorts of ways, including a need to establish a social safety net to protect the society as a whole from unacceptable social unrest, or requirements to regulate commerce, to ensure citizens do not receive unsafe goods.

Plus, even within this extremely narrow definition, compulsory taxation and regulations would be required. You cannot possibly run a military sufficient to protect 300 million citizens based on the revenues you'd generate via voluntary taxation. At the sign of the first economic downturn, citizens would undoubtedly act in their own self-interest and out of their own needs, and keep all their assets rather than contribute. You'd have huge swaths of individuals who refuse to pay any taxes in any year, but still receive the same protections as other citizens -- thus increasing the burdens on others to make up revenue shortfalls.


The very fact that the government has awarded itself and we have sworn upon it other duties means that the government is failing it's mission and have no reason to support it's existence.
Yes, except for that pesky thing where it is the citizens who are telling the government what to do.

The citizens also retain the right to modify the government as they see fit -- or to pack up and leave, if they so choose.


In short, government does not exist for this thing you call society
"This thing you call society?" Wow, you really are planning to live on your own island, aren't you?


there is nothing except people and their rights. Everything else is merely an abstraction.
Yeah, except that "rights" are also an abstraction. In fact, they are social constructs, like language or marital roles.
 

People exist in societies and it is society which determines rights, that is how France and Canada work.
 

He didn't say **** about people being evil. Why would you so blatantly lie about what he said?

No, health care can't be an effective free market because fundamental market forces are not present. As he mentioned, you don't have a real choice in health care purchases. There is no alternative product, and not getting it can mean a lifetime of pain and disability, or even your death. You can't substitute insulin for a liver transplant, there aren't alternative products. Medicine is a highly technical and constantly-evolving field, you are not sufficiently informed to make a good decision or to assess what your doctor is saying.

How can you have a well-functioning free market without choice?
 
Last edited:

You still haven't discredited the R&D gap between US and Europe as a whole. Unless you can do so, your argument that about R&D is completely irrelevant. BTW, you're right, the HIV virus was discovered in France. But one discovery doesn't automatically usurp the foundation research that came before it, much of which came from the US. Its not like the US has all the discoveries, just most of the important ones. Here is the list of nobel prize winners since that article was written for medicine and physiology.

2013:
James E Rothman - Yale
Randy W Schekman- University of California
Thomas C. Sudhof- Stanford

2012:
Sir John B Gurdon: Cambridge
Shinya Yamanaka: Kyoto U. + Gladstone Institutes San Fransisco

2011:
Bruce A Beutler: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Jules A Hofffmann: University of Strasbourg
Ralph M. Steinman: Rockefeller U

2010:
Robert G. Edwards- Cambridge

2009:
Elizabeth H. Blackburn- University of California
Carol W. Greider- John Hopkins
Jack W Szostak- Harvard, General Hospital-Boston, Howard Hughes Medical Institute

2008:
Harald zur Hausen- Germany Cancer Centre
Francoise Barre-Sinoussi- Regulation of Retroviral Infections Unit, Virology Department, France
Luc Montagnier- World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention, Paris
2007:
Mario R Capecchi- University of Utah
Martin J. Evans- Cardiff University
Oliver Smithies- University of North Carolina

So lets see.... Out of a total of 18 winners in 7 years, 10 1/2 came from the US. We are the world leaders in DNA research, stem cell research, cancer research, and pharmaceutical research. Oh, and Merck was the first company to develop a HPV vaccine, and Gilead is releasing a groundbreaking drug for Hepatitis C quite soon.


From your article on factcheck.

For breast cancer, for instance, the U.S. survival rate was 83.9 percent, the U.K. rate was 69.7, and the average European rate was 73.1.
I'm not sure if you know what the difference between rhetoric and fact is, but "factchecker.org" is engaging in the former not the latter in the article. Their basic argument, is two fold; One: the US has better cancer survival rates, but the uninsured fare worse then the insured (what does this have to do with anything? the metric is for overall cancer survival rates, so its pretty sad that we do better with part of our population uninsured then they with their entire population insured) and two: that we just detect cancer earlier but that doesn't mean anything. What!?!?!?!?! Early detection doesn't mean anything? They must not be checking the facts over at fact checker because, how early it gets caught is the NUMBER ONE PREDICTOR OF SURVIVAL FOR EVERY SINGLE ****ING TYPE OF CANCER. Second, that's pretty damning to say that countries with UHC detect cancer at later stages then we do. I thought they had world class healthcare? :lamo

You may not be able to haggle over your doctor over price, but most people are smart enough to know that a hospital is going to cost more then a clinic, whether they are sick or not. Everything is regulated in the world, but what those regulations are matters here. And our regulations prevent us from importing drugs from other countries (like they import from us)
 

Its no better here in the US.

But like I said, I don't think they are "responsible" for their illness. But at the same time, services received should be services paid for, and the amount of investment that is made into a particular "unavoidable" (that term will be made obsolete eventually, you heard it here first ) disease.

There is a much more efficient method than what you propose, and it involves high deductible plans that serve as insurance for absurdly high medical bills, but still puts a large amount of the costs on the patient. That is what maximizes efficiency.
 
You still haven't discredited the R&D gap between US and Europe as a whole....
I'm not saying "there is no gap." I'm saying that big chunks of that gap are dedicated not to improving care, but to improving pharma company profits.

Besides, the US spent around $2.7 trillion on healthcare in 2012; somewhere between $200 and $300 billion of that was R&D. Higher R&D does not account for the US spending twice the OECD average on healthcare, as a percentage of GDP.

Sorry I didn't mention that earlier. My bad.

Here's the NY Times' take on why we spend so much more on health care than other systems. Spoiler alert! Higher spending on R&D isn't mentioned. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/h...ds-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?_r=0


I'm not sure if you know what the difference between rhetoric and fact is, but "factchecker.org" is engaging in the former not the latter in the article....
Not really. They are discussing the nuances involved when comparing cancer survival rates -- much in the same way you tried to introduce the nuances of comparing infant mortality rates.


Their basic argument, is two fold; One: the US has better cancer survival rates, but the uninsured fare worse then the insured (what does this have to do with anything?)
Roughly 15% of the US is currently uninsured. (Also, the ACA is trying to reduce the number of uninsured; the article is partly written to respond to critics of the ACA.) I'd say that group matters.

Plus, the article points out how several nations with UHC match US survival rates: Canada, Japan, Cuba, and Australia.


that we just detect cancer earlier but that doesn't mean anything. What!?!?!?!?! Early detection doesn't mean anything?
It's not that it doesn't mean anything. It's that it influences the "five year survival" statistic, in a way that does not necessarily describe outcomes properly. And yes, there have been quite a few doubts raised recently about the value of early detection, especially with breast cancer.


They must not be checking the facts over at fact checker because, how early it gets caught is the NUMBER ONE PREDICTOR OF SURVIVAL FOR EVERY SINGLE ****ING TYPE OF CANCER.
No, it really isn't. Frequent screenings can also result in false positives; prostate cancer outcomes don't necessarily improve because you caught it early; ovarian and pancreatic cancers have high mortality rates, no matter when you catch it.

New guidelines encourage reducing the rates of certain types of cancer screenings, including for breast, cervical and prostate cancers. Routine screening is not recommended for many types of cancers, including bladder, ovarian, pancreatic or testicular cancer.


You may not be able to haggle over your doctor over price, but most people are smart enough to know that a hospital is going to cost more then a clinic, whether they are sick or not.
So if I have a heart attack, I should tell the EMT's to take me to see a doctor in the morning because it's cheaper? Yeah, that's the ticket.


Everything is regulated in the world, but what those regulations are matters here. And our regulations prevent us from importing drugs from other countries (like they import from us)
And for the third time: Those drugs are cheaper in other countries because THEIR GOVERNMENTS, AS THE PRIMARY PURCHASER OF MEDICATIONS FOR THEIR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, NEGOTIATE LOWER PRICES WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES.

If we buy drugs from Canada and Germany, we're benefitting from lower costs BECAUSE THEY GOT THOSE LOWER COSTS BY ADOPTING UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS.

Sorry to "shout," but this critical aspect of lowering the prices is apparently not getting through to you.

The US cannot simply contract with drugstores in Germany and magically get better prices. The pharma companies will not offer favorable pricing to Germany if 2/3 of what is sold to Germany winds up in the US, and undercuts their own high-margin US sales.

Or, how about this: Why don't you tell me why medications are cheaper in Germany than in the US? Go ahead, do a little research, and after that, try to explain how importing drugs from Germany is a long-term solution to drug prices.
 
First you pretended like there was no difference in R&D and acted like other countries are our equivalents in innovation in the industry.

Trying to raise profits doesn't account for us blowing away all of Europe combined in R&D spending. I hate to break it to you, but this isn't like humanities research... pharmaceutical companies have to actually produce something that is both safe and effective. I've already stated multiple times that we are on top of the world when it comes to innovation in the healthcare industry, and this is a direct correlation to the Grand Canyon like gap between R&D between countries.

And are you really that dense? R&D doesn't account for the difference in healthcare spending no, because that R&D is ACTUALLY PRODUCING SOMETHING. What it produces actually costs money (who knew) and much of the money the gap between our spending and theirs is our propensity to use new technologies in the healthcare sector. So if you turn your argument around, then yes, trying to get healthcare for pennies on the dollar DOES account for a much lower amount of money into R&D.



Roughly 15% of the US is currently uninsured. (Also, the ACA is trying to reduce the number of uninsured; the article is partly written to respond to critics of the ACA.) I'd say that group matters.
Like I said, if our average cancer survival rate is higher with only 85% of the population insured vs. their survival rate with 100% insured, what does that say about quality?

Plus, the article points out how several nations with UHC match US survival rates: Canada, Japan, Cuba, and Australia.
Looking at overall cancer survival rates across the board, it becomes quite clear that the US is at the top of nearly every statistic. The same cannot be said for every other country. For example, while Canada only has a 9% higher mortality rate for breast cancer, it has a 184% higher mortality rate for prostate cancer than the US. 10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care | NCPA

Of course you are going to say "we test for it earlier" and of course you are right. So what does that statistic say about the merits of testing later at a more advanced stage?

So find me a better statistic then.

You're right, pancreatic cancer is deadly. You still have a 14 times better chance to survive if you catch it stage one as opposed to stage four. This is where your argument continues to fall apart, you base your arguments far too much on sumarizing facts and statistics rather then looking at the intrinsic details which they possess.
Pancreatic cancer survival by stage

As I was saying, every single type of cancer has a higher survival rate the earlier its caught.

And new guidelines reflect advancements in technology of cancer screening which makes frequent testing unnecessary. I never ever said anything about needing to test frequently. Funny thing about cancer is that stage 4 doesn't just appear out of nowhere. The more advanced we are technologically, the earlier and more accurately we can detect cancer and the less we actually need to test for it.

So if I have a heart attack, I should tell the EMT's to take me to see a doctor in the morning because it's cheaper? Yeah, that's the ticket.
Chronic conditions account for 75% of healthcare spending. CDC - Chronic Disease - At A Glance
Talking about our healthcare system as if it is only used in times of dire need is completely dishonest of you.


You're right, Germany would stop getting such favorable pricing if such a change were to happen.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…