Universal Health Care for U.S., Yes or No?

[Zakaqel]

Write this down. Come back 10, 20 years from now and read it. I guarantee you will no longer believe it.

If not, come look me up for a free steak dinner.

Yes, we are fully responsible for every member in society! Our current society proves that the "better-off" people are responsible for the hardships of the "worse-off" people. If that wasn't true, the "worse-off" people wouldn't be of a particular group of people. The people who are"worse-off" normally do not decide to be "worse-off". It's sort of like a cycle; if your born in a particular class you will most likely stay in that class(Rich-rich and poor-poor). It's sad to see instances where humans don't help humans just because of the lack of the "material" factor; just like how farming companies would rather dump millions of tons of grain in the ocean than send this wasted grain to areas infested with famine...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Zakaqel]

Not all of us that say functions. That's why we(the better-off folks) are fully responsible for their well-being[/quote]
Are you fckung kidding me? What you've been smoking, dude?!!! Please don't let your bleeding heart stain my carpet

Just because I care for the well-being of other individuals doesn't mean I'm a socialist-scumbag who on crack...

 

[EpiPEN]

1. There is no such thing as a liberal-elitist...most elitists are either left-wing socialists or right-wing conservatives. Who is resposible for all all the problems in the world? Die-hard conservatives/socialists who say they are for morals when in reality the are not willing to give a penny to save hungry children in Africa. Liberalism is a much better answer to the world's problems. In fact, if you deeply examine religious/ethical perspectives, you will notice that they are inherently Liberal. Last time I checked, George Bush and Osama Bin Laden were on the same side of the politcal spectrum...

so if I want the freedom to choose whether or not I should be paying for other people's health insurance then I'm not a liberal? Becuase according to you true liberalism is universal health care where we all chip in to pay for health insurance whether or not we want to. Or did I miss something in your logic.

2.I don't find my statement arrogant, I find it humble. Putting society as a whole as a higher priority than your individual gains is the best thing you can do.

Maybe you meant to be humble, but I agree with ryandote, it sounds pretty high and mighty.

3. You don't realize that the average health insurance costs money/month; you can easily get a small tv for less than $100. Saying that having a TV means that you should be able to pay for health insurance is incorrect. Everybody has a TV!

You know, you sound like the type of guy who wouldn't respect a dying patient's wishes to be left alone to die in his home with his family. Instead, you would push him to the hopsital, run every test on him, plug a 8 different tubes on him, strip him of any ounce of dignity, and say it's becuase everyone deserves a fair chance to live. Not that that's wrong, but it ain't my view is all.

Healthcare, like everything else we own in this world, should be an option that we choose to take on the burden for. Not something that's shoved down everyone's throats. If a guy wants to live in a life of luxury instaed of living a few extra years in the end becuase he believe it leads to a happier life, then let him. who are we to judge that it's wrong.

That said, I do believe that what we should be working on is making medical care cheaper so that it can be obtainable for those people who do want to work for it. My family couldn't afford healthcare for the first 5 years we immigrated over to the US even though we saved every penny. (although we did have a TV if you were wondering, it was a free one we found when someone moved out. Can't put that against us!) I know what it's like to be in fear of getting sick becuase you can't afford to get better. Yet I still think our efforts would be much better spent coming up with plans to bring down cost or create more affordable plans for those people who are willing to make an effort to get it instead of making everyone else pay for me.

 

[Zakaqel]

I find it pretty sickening that future doctors don't think everyone should have health care.

 

[Zakaqel]

if I want the freedom to choose whether or not I should be paying for other people's health insurance then I'm not a liberal? Becuase according to you true liberalism is universal health care where we all chip in to pay for health insurance whether or not we want to. Or did I miss something in your logic.

1. I'm 100% sure that if there was a referendum today asking, "Do you want the government to pay for your health-care?", the majority of the american public would say yes.

2. Of course it wouldn't be your choice(whether or not you chip in money) if the American public voted yes to universal health care. It would become part of the tax that you have to pay to the government. That is, assuming if the American public voted yes to univeral health care.

3. I'm not saying that you would have to "chip in" more if you wanted universal health care. Hey, how much of the annual budget does the American government spend on defense? The billions of dollars wasted on the Iraq war and developing "innovative" weapons could have been used to fund the poor-medical/educational system...but then again, according to Mr. Bush(and his republican gang), making sure that their pockets are full of oil-funds is more important than helping a dying child.

 

[-Goose-]

Just because I care for the well-being of other individuals doesn't mean I'm a socialist-scumbag who on crack...

What?

You're awful typing skills makes it look like you've misquoted me above.

 

[-Goose-]

Walk a mile... live without a cell phone, TV, or car for a month, and take a couple hundred dollars of the money you take in this month and put it aside for a "health care" fund while being perfectly healthy, and see if that changes your mind at all. I would say that these things aren't so much luxuries, but reasonable comforts.

They are only "reasonable comforts" if you've taken care of the basics first. If not, they are luxuries. Again this is all relative.

Look, I agree with the above poster that we need to cut costs with regards to health insurance to make it more affordable for families. But that doesn't mean that I am going to pay for every single person who has never taken their health as a priority and would rather put rims on their car or live in a house they could barely afford than pay for their health insurance.

A good starting point is spending some money on preventative health programs to decrease the unbelievable number of overweight syndrome X types we have in our country.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

I find it pretty sickening that future doctors don't think everyone should have health care.

Maybe in a utopian society, but then again didnt Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini try to create Utopian societies?

 

[EpiPEN]

1. I'm 100% sure that if there was a referendum today asking, "Do you want the government to pay for your health-care?", the majority of the american public would say yes.

Well if you word it like that, only the intelligent ones will ask the follow-up question of "whose pocket is it really coming out of?" It's kind of like if I was to take a poll of "Can we take a portion of your paycheck to pay healthcare for the homeless?" I'm guessing the majority might say differently

2. Of course it wouldn't be your choice(whether or not you chip in money) if the American public voted yes to universal health care. It would become part of the tax that you have to pay for the government. That is, assuming if the American public voted yes to univeral health care.

so... it's not a choice. Then how is this view different from the views of the very "die-hard socialists" who as you suggest cause all the problems in the world?

3. I'm not saying that you would have to "chip in" more if you wanted universal health care. Hey, how much of the annual budget does the American government spend on defense? The billions of dollars wasted on the Iraq war and developing "innovative" weapons could have been used to fund the poor-medical/educational system...but then again, according to Mr. Bush(and his republican gang), making sure that their pockets are full of oil-funds is more important than helping a dying child.

Even in that there are huge consequences. Let's say we pull out money from the defense secter and put into healthcare. What about the huge amount of unemployement that will occur as a result? If these persons with knowledge of US defense get contracted to other countries becuase they lost their jobs here, what do you think will happen to national security? If the US oil companies lost all their government contracts all of a sudden what do you think will happen to the US economy? Can our economy really take another blow?

See the problem is not so much that I disagree with your morals, but that I find it interesting you don't recognize the fact that the "republican gang" is as much a part of America as everyone else. (I'm a democrat but that doens't mean I won't respect the republican views) Yes we probably overspend on military, but at the same time, developing "innovative" weapons has had its advantages in the past not only in war but also in improving the lives of people in the US (internet for example). Not saying we should go develop weapons but just that everything is necessary. I just think you should weigh the negative consequences of what you are suggesting first instead of sending out the message that you aren't a good person if you don't support universal healthcare. I doubt a lot of the people who voted no are simple minded people with no morals.

 

[Zakaqel]

What?

You're awful typing skills makes it look like you've misquoted me above.

lol..sorry for the bad typing... I wasn't quoting you...I was quoting the guy who asked me if I was on crack...

 

[EpiPEN]

Maybe in a utopian society, but then again didnt Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini try to create Utopian societies?

cleary they failed becuase they didn't have universal health care as part of their platform.

 

[Zakaqel]

so... it's not a choice. Then how is this view different from the views of the very "die-hard socialists" who as you suggest cause all the problems in the world?

You misunderstood me. Currently, it's your choice whether or not you want universal health care. What I said was that if we ever end up having universal health care, it wouldn't be your choice. You don't have the choice of saying, "No, I don't want to pay taxes because the American government will use part of this money to fund the Educational system and I don't have any children." The same would go for universal health care if it is accepted by Americans.

 

[167649]

You realize that Marines have a so-called Communist healthcare system right? The VA hospitals are inexplicably free of charge, so as soon as you are willing to make this speech to your fellow veterans (free-loaders on a socialized healthcare system), I'll start paying attention.

I do agree that veterans should stop relying on the government and start paying for their health coverage like everyone else has to though. Or at least until everyone else has universal coverage too.

I for one gladly would make that speech, because the VA system is a nightmare and many of those veterans would be better served just getting govt. insurance to use the private system.

And I would hardly call them free-loaders. If there is anyone who has earned any kind of handout from the government, it's our honorable veterans. But what we give them now (that socialized mess) is a discrace.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

cleary they failed becuase they didn't have universal health care as part of their platform.

Yeah, they were too worried about Global Domination , Racial superiority, and Military strength, when all along they secret was Universal Health Care.

 

[DadofDr2B]

You realize that Marines have a so-called Communist healthcare system right? The VA hospitals are inexplicably free of charge, so as soon as you are willing to make this speech to your fellow veterans (free-loaders on a socialized healthcare system), I'll start paying attention.

I do agree that veterans should stop relying on the government and start paying for their health coverage like everyone else has to though. Or at least until everyone else has universal coverage too.

The veterans have earned their healthcare by risking their lives in places that you have no guts to go to. They defend your right to say stupid things like the quote above.

You too can volunteer to serve the country and get free healthcare. Just do it.

 

[DadofDr2B]

Here is the answer-

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=516190

Where in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence does it say the government owes anyone healthcare services? No where.

You are allowed to earn your healthcare, retirement, etc. Our government reaches too far into things it shouldn't.

 

[AUD]

Healthcare has become so huge politically because it is a "feel good" issue. When most people only spend a few seconds thinking about a topic like healthcare, who wouldn't say, "Yeah, everyone deserves to live! This guy is great, he wants to give healthcare to everyone!" It's left at that, and no further analysis is done. Boom, you just got voters.

This happens with both parties by the way.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

The way I see it...Health is a persons most precious commodity. If the govt controls your Health, they are well on there way to controlling every aspect of your life.

*Heil Clinton*!!!

 

[Doctor]

Listen here. Those "freeloaders" fought for you and I, risking life and limb (and often giving the latter) so that we could live the life we do today. There is no doubt in my mind that they deserve the (meager) pension plans they recieve and the VA benefits. Thats the deal the millitary offers. You'll never be rich, but you will be taken care of in return for risking your life for your country.

I'd love to see you stand before a 90-something y/o WWII vet at your local VA and tell him to stop being a free-loader. He'd probably get up out of his wheelchair or off his deathbed and beat the living crap out of you.

So basically, socialized health care is a good thing, as long as the people receiving it are bad-*** enough to warrant it? Either it's a good thing or a bad thing, you can't have it both ways. If capitalism is awesome and socialism is bad, why does every veteran take so much pride in his socialized healthcare?

Actually, I think it is a promised benefit for time served toward our country. I could be wrong.... but I don't think I am.

So? Stop promising it, promise it to more people, etc. Socialized medicine isn't the right or wrong thing because you make promises or not.

the VA is hardly free universal healthcare. Each member have to be "service connected" to a certain degree based on a panel of people deciding whether or not the illness that a veteran experiences is military service connected. It's not like all the veterans get a free ride for the rest of their lives.

No, it's free universal healthcare for veterans and their entire families. My girlfriend is a former military brat, and her mom and sister get free healthcare for being married to and being the child of a veteran. Obviously their colds and flus that the American taxpayer subsidizes for them are not "war-related".

The veterans have earned their healthcare by risking their lives in places that you have no guts to go to. They defend your right to say stupid things like the quote above.

You too can volunteer to serve the country and get free healthcare. Just do it.

Again, socialized medicine isn't the right or wrong thing depending on whether the one receiving it is bad-*** or courageous enough or not. The point had to be made because a lot of the people saying "I didn't fight for this country to see it have socialized medicine" just don't realize that the people fighting for the country are actually the ones who receive this Communist form of medicine for the rest of their lives (if they serve long enough). Socialized medicine can't be an awesome idea for veterans and a crappy idea for everyone else... either it works better than health insurance or it doesn't.

 

[ryandote]

.

 

[EpiPEN]

so... it's not a choice. Then how is this view different from the views of the very "die-hard socialists" who as you suggest cause all the problems in the world?

You misunderstood me. Currently, it's your choice whether or not you want universal health care. What I said was that if we ever end up having universal health care, it wouldn't be your choice. You don't have the choice of saying, "No, I don't want to pay taxes because the American government will use part of this money to fund the Educational system and I don't have any children." The same would go for universal health care if it is accepted by Americans.

Well I guess this is where the difference of opinion comes. I believe many would argue that educating the next generation is not the same as providing healthcare for everyone, because tax payers would most definately benefit from having a more educated country whereas the benefits that a tax payer gets from universal healthcare is less clear.

 

[Zakaqel]

Here is the answer-

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=516190

Where in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence does it say the government owes anyone healthcare services? No where.

You are allowed to earn your healthcare, retirement, etc. Our government reaches too far into things it shouldn't.

The constitution and the declaration of independence are not god; they can be changed. Issues will come up that are not discussed in either. For example, where are the issues of abortion or stem cell research discussed in the constitution? As time goes by, the constitution will need to be amended because some things in our modern times are not relevant to the times in which it was written.

 

[167649]

Here is the answer-

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=516190

Where in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence does it say the government owes anyone healthcare services? No where.

You are allowed to earn your healthcare, retirement, etc. Our government reaches too far into things it shouldn't.

Nowhere. Which is why people who advocate adherency to our supreme law think nationalized govt. run healthcare (along with most all social programs at a federal level) would be unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Let alone stupid.

"The purpose of American government is to leave it's citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Doctor]

The way I see it...Health is a persons most precious commodity. If the govt controls your Health, they are well on there way to controlling every aspect of your life.

*Heil Clinton*!!!

That's the problem in the United Kingdom. The government controls their Health, and they live longer lifespans than we do. Oh, and it costs their government less than our system costs us. It's really terrible, and they all hate it.

I forgot to mention how socialized medicine bankrupts their economy. It's the pound sterling and the euro that keeps tumbling month after month, year after year for this entire decade, while the capitalist U.S. and our Republican President have ensured that the dollar is strong and worth its weight in gold!

 

[167649]

The constitution and the declaration of independence are not god; they can be changed. Issues will come up that are not discussed in either. For example, where are the issues of abortion or stem cell research discussed in the constitution? As time goes by, the constitution will need to be amended because some things in our modern times are not relevant to the times in which it was written.

Not god, but the supreme law. I never cease to be surprised about the lack of understanding some people have for our constitution and it's purpose. We don't need to make constitutional amendments about stem cells or abortion.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

That's the problem in the United Kingdom. The government controls their Health, and they live longer lifespans than we do. Oh, and it costs their government less than our system costs us. It's really terrible, and they all hate it.

I forgot to mention how socialized medicine bankrupts their economy. It's the pound sterling and the euro that keeps tumbling month after month, year after year for this entire decade, while the capitalist U.S. and our Republican President have ensured that the dollar is strong and worth its weight in gold!

And I will go out on a limb and say medicare is responsible for a great portion of this.

 

[ryandote]

.

 

[EpiPEN]

No, it's free universal healthcare for veterans and their entire families. My girlfriend is a former military brat, and her mom and sister get free healthcare for being married to and being the child of a veteran. Obviously their colds and flus that the American taxpayer subsidizes for them are not "war-related".

Usually I'm on the same page as you regarding socialist medicine. However I really see VA as an exception to this. The VA "universal healthcare" is not FREE as the person had to do years of military service. What the American people have paid in taxes, these veterans have paid in blood and sweat.

I forget did anyone mention in any posts the possibility of the overall quality of medical care decreaseing as a result of universal healthcare?

 

[Doctor]

In utopia, everybody should have healthcare. In the real world, it's not possible.

That's a great argument. It's not like every other industrialized economy in the entire world, and our own US military, has made it possible for a number of decades now.

 

[ryandote]

.

 

[EpiPEN]

And I will go out on a limb and say medicare is responsible for a great portion of this.

say what? HMO?


Heil Clinton!

*EDIT*

Oh I just remembered, weren't you a huge Obama guy amwatts?

 

[167649]

That's a great argument. It's not like every industrialized economy in the entire world except ours has made it possible.

Last time I checked, Europe, China and the like were hardly Utopia. And I am surprised you keep swinging the VA system as an example for socialized medicine.

 

[Doctor]

I forget did anyone mention in any posts the possibility of the overall quality of medical care decreaseing as a result of universal healthcare?

No one has, I don't think, but that is the most valid point to me. I'm really just playing the devil's advocate about the VA system... they have earned it through service, obviously, but wouldn't they rather just have the money to go get their own private insurance? Even most 20-year veterans get other jobs after leaving the military, so it would seem to work out better financially for veterans if they were part of the more capitalist system.

But anyway, yeah, from what I've heard about the VA system, I don't think the standard of care is as good as the private system. If we did have state-run medicine here, hopefully it wouldn't look like the VA! (But it just might.) I think that veterans should be able to pay into the private system and not feel like they are "missing out" on a benefit.

 

[ryandote]

.

 

[Doctor]

Last time I checked, Europe, China and the like were hardly Utopia. And I am surprised you keep swinging the VA system as an example for socialized medicine.

I'm pretty sure China is still a developing economy... but if you want to compare Japan and Europe to us, they do manage to have socialized medicine and better economies than us at the same time. That being said, it's not socialized medicine that gave them those better economies and stronger currencies right now... it's more the absurd financial mismanagement of the Bush administration, and Bush will be a black eye on our economy for years and years after he leaves office.

McCain or Obama is going to have a big steaming pile of crap to clean up, and either one is going to have some hard choices to make that will make them pretty unpopular in the first few years of office. Whoever the smart politicians are (Gore, Rice?) are waiting until 2012 because whoever is President next has a number of severe disadvantages to being successful.

.... and you're right about the VA system, it's really not very good! Haha.

 

[Zakaqel]

IOkay, you don't have to think that there are liberal-elitists.

How, exactly, is "liberalism" a better answer to the world's problems?

Hillary Clinton and Kim Jong are on the same side of the political spectrum, too. Isn't that a stupid comparison to make?

Yes, I agree with you, they are on the same side. I never said Hillary Clinton was a model politician. If you look at Hillary Clinton and compare her to Bush, they are the same thing. Believe it or not, Republicans and Democrats are not different; the only difference is in their name. I think me and you have a different opinion on what liberalism is. I don't consider Democrats liberals, they just pretend to be liberals because they found out that's the only way they will sell to the average/below-average sector.

It wasn't your exact words that were arrogant, it was your straw man. It was your claim that most people disagree with currently proposed Democratic health care plans because they want to line their own pockets. It was extremely arrogant for you to assume that was why, and then posit why you are better than that.

I never said that everyone who says "no" to universal health care is worried about their salary; I said that many of them say "no" only for this reason. I'm sure that there are individuals who say "no" to universal health care and genuinley care about the well-being of society.

Finally, check my statements. I never said that "having a TV means you should be able to pay for health insurance." Your ability to misrepresent is astounding. I pointed out consumer luxuries that have somehow and some way become higher priorities for people than looking after their own health. TV's obviously cost much less than healthcare, silly.

"We're not talking about just plasmas, we're talking about ANY TV AT ALL. You should buy insurance first. If you can afford your cell phone + your TV OR a health insurance payment, which should you choose?"....you said this in a previous post...

This means that you think that anybody who has a TV should be able to fund their own health care. Buying a TV or getting a cell phone is inexpensive compared to health insurance. I could work for one day at a Burger King and manage to buy a TV from a local thrift store. With that same money, I won't be able to buy health insurance for a month.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

I'm pretty sure China is still a developing economy... but if you want to compare Japan and Europe to us, they do manage to have socialized medicine and better economies than us at the same time.

That being said, it's not socialized medicine that gave them those better economies and stronger currencies right now... it's more the absurd financial mismanagement of the Bush administration, and Bush will be a black eye on our economy for years and years after he leaves office.

McCain or Obama is going to have a big steaming pile of crap to clean up, and either one is going to have some hard choices to make that will make them unpopular in the first few years of office.

One reason why whoever wins they will be a one term president.

 

[EpiPEN]

Last time I checked, Europe, China and the like were hardly Utopia. And I am surprised you keep swinging the VA system as an example for socialized medicine.

I'm confused now... who's on what sides again?


I thought you were both AGAINST universal healthcare

*EDIT*

both as in Doctor and Rooter

 

[167649]

I'm pretty sure China is still a developing economy... but if you want to compare Japan and Europe to us, they do manage to have socialized medicine and better economies than us at the same time.

Fine, China is sort of a unique case so to avoid confusion than Japan it is.

That being said, it's not socialized medicine that gave them those better economies and stronger currencies right now... it's more the absurd financial mismanagement of the Bush administration, and Bush will be a black eye on our economy for years and years after he leaves office.

I agree with you here. But what's your point then?

 

[167649]

I'm confused now... who's on what sides again?


I thought you were both AGAINST universal healthcare

*EDIT*

both as in Doctor and Rooter

Like Ryandote I am having difficulty determining what Doctor's side is. Maybe my sarcasm detector isn't working today.

If when you say Universal Healthcare you mean socialized medicine, I am against it, to clear anything up.

 

[Doctor]

Your sarcasm is hard to interpret, so I can't really tell which side you are on.

Like Ryandote I am having difficulty determining what Doctor's side is.

I'm willing to consider universal healthcare that isn't run by the state (single-payer), like a system where everyone is required to purchase health insurance on their own. I think that's the Obama/Clinton proposal. Why? Because it's so inefficient financially to have so many uninsured who use the ER as their family doctor. But it all depends on how much it would cost. I haven't looked into either proposal enough to see if the nation can actually afford it. And I don't think truly socialized medicine like everyone else has would work well here because our demographics are different, our medical schools cost a lot more, etc. If you go into a VA hospital, the quality of care is subpar, the doctors get out as soon as they can, etc.

And I don't see our doctors running abroad to practice because doctors in the UK just don't make as much as they do here (except in family medicine, where they somehow make more). It's an okay system for them because their universities are cheap or free, and it doesn't take as many years and almost no tuition expenditures to be a doctor there, etc. So it's a very different environment.

For the record, I'm against "socialized" medicine but willing to consider something "universal" without a single-payer system.

 

[Zakaqel]

Not god, but the supreme law. I never cease to be surprised about the lack of understanding some people have for our constitution and it's purpose. We don't need to make constitutional amendments about stem cells or abortion.

I didn't say that we need to make amendments about stem cells or abortion. I said that not everything is discussed in the constitution. It may be the "supreme law", but the law does not make itself, humans create it. If you think that everything can be solely decided by the constitusion or declaration of indepenence, then what do you think of the quote "Life, libirty and the pursuit of happiness." Wouldn't having universal health care fulfil life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

I was referring to amendments just for the sake of saying that the Constitution is not god.

 

[ryandote]

.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

Of Big screen TV or Healthcare...

TV wins everytime

 

[ryandote]

.

 

[EpiPEN]

Of Big screen TV or Healthcare...

TV wins everytime

clearly the answer is televised healthcare

 

[Bibbed]

Pfff... I'll put my personal gains ahead of society's. I need to retire early, baby!

 

[TheBlueBlazer]

So you must agree that you we shouldn't use government money to fund scholarships to MD students either, or to subsidize their loans? I mean, when it comes down to saving for their med school or their tv/car/cell phone, they should have chosen their education first.

 

[EpiPEN]

So you must agree that you we shouldn't use government money to fund scholarships to MD students either, or to subsidize their loans? I mean, when it comes down to saving for their med school or their tv/car/cell phone, they should have chosen their education first.

Paying for education trains better physicians that would most likely benefit the taxpayers directly. Having long lived homeless folks and more people sleeping in ICU on governmental healthcare has a much less noticible effect.

 

[coldweatherblue]

Those countries don't get what we get. Plain and simple. They don't get MRI's and caths when they need them. They don't get expensive, futile end-of-life interventions. They don't have access to cutting edge technology.

And you know as well as I do that average lifespans, mortality rates, infant mortality, etc. can't be compared stress across. We have incredibly different populations, with incredibly different risk factors unrelated to medical care. It's impossible to partial everything out.

We could easily fund primary care and some emergency care for most Americans. Heck, a lot of people would get the liver transplants that they need. You WON'T get the tertiary, specialty, and critical care than we all claim entitlement to.

This is a good description imo of the differences between the actual care in countries like the UK and Germany, and the expectations that American's would have for Universal Care in the United States. You can't just look at another country's health care system and say "I want that for the US." and make it work. The US has different population demographics and ultimately expectations for health-care, so any comparison to what works in Europe is flawed at best.

My great-aunt in England is retired and had severe cluster headaches for years before seeing a PCP; he told her to drink more water and that if they continued to worsen she could get in line for an MRI. Never happened; she hasn't been able to even get an appointment. This is where the line is drawn; cluster headaches aren't particularly serious unless caused by a tumor. The likelihood of my aunt having a brain tumor was found to be fairly low, so she never got to have an subsequent tests or treatment because she was low risk. Five years later she's fine. This would NOT fly in the USA because we want and expect every possible procedure, and if the doctor fails to order a test that would have prevented a patients worsening condition, the doctor can be held legally liable.