This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[Blue Mountain]

The majority of the expense; per citizen served, is born by the government, and as such I do not want such an ineffective system.

Just because the government pays for something means it's ineffective? Boy, you must have really lousy roads, food inspection, street lights, medical drug assessment, immigration, national security, customs, bridges, port authorities, policing, and consumer protection in the USA!

 

[WildCat]

And please tell me how New Zealand has been sheltering behind anyone in terms of defense.

Thousands of miles of ocean between it and a belligerant nation is quite an effective defense all by itself!

 

[jimbob]

Indeed wildcat, and the US didn't pay for it.

You could argue that, given its lack of need, the US owes New Zealand for the help in various wars, as part of ANZUS (If you really want to use Jerome's "logic")

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Indeed wildcat, and the US didn't pay for it.

You could argue that, given its lack of need, the US owes New Zealand for the help in various wars, as part of ANZUS (If you really want to use Jerome's "logic")

The wars in Vietnam and Korea did prevent the communists from encroaching on New Zealand, did they not?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Just because the government pays for something means it's ineffective?

Nope.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So, yes Jerome, it is significant, but only explains about a quarter of the difference between the US and the other thirty-four other richest countries.

So you agree than that your presented measure of quality of health-care is void?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, at least Jerome is consistent. He started this thread in effect declaring that his government is too incompetent to be able to organise effective universal healthcare.

B-I-N-G-O !!!

 

[balrog666]

B-I-N-G-O !!!

Allow me to echo that! B_I_N_G_O!

Nobody here, at least nobody with two brain cells to rub together, wants any more government involvement in *ANYTHING* -- much less health care which involves human survival and important quality of life issues.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Allow me to echo that! B_I_N_G_O!

Nobody here, at least nobody with two brain cells to rub together, wants any more government involvement in *ANYTHING* -- much less health care which involves human survival and important quality of life issues.

So when are you two getting on the plane to Somalia to enjoy your government free paradise?

 

[jimbob]

So, yes Jerome, it is significant, but only explains about a quarter of the difference between the US and the other thirty-four other richest countries.

So you agree than that your presented measure of quality of health-care is void?

How do you work that out? A quarter of the ddifference can be accounted for by gun deaths and three quarters can't.

Can you think of a better proxy measure?

I would hazard a guess that this difference would be due to poor provision for hte disadvantaged.

Indeed wildcat, and the US didn't pay for it.

You could argue that, given its lack of need, the US owes New Zealand for the help in various wars, as part of ANZUS (If you really want to use Jerome's "logic")

The wars in Vietnam and Korea did prevent the communists from encroaching on New Zealand, did they not?

Yes the New Zealand government thought it was in their interest to help against the encroachment of communism

However as wildcat pointeds out it wasn't under any immediate threat, 1000 miles from the nearest land, and this being Australia. To protect against invasion, given the logistical difficulties, New Zealand could only need a small miklitary, and not worry about anything else...

What about the parts of WWI and WWII when New Zealand contributed disproportionatly :

Wiki on WWI

The total number of New Zealand troops and nurses to serve overseas in 1914-1918, excluding those in British and other Dominion forces, was 103,000, from a population of just over a million. Forty-two percent of men of military age served in the NZEF. 16,697 New Zealanders were killed and 41,317 were wounded during the war - a 58 percent casualty rate. Approximately a further thousand men died within five years of the war's end, as a result of injuries sustained, and 507 died whilst training in New Zealand between 1914 and 1918. New Zealand had one of the highest casualty and death rate per capita of any country involved in the war (Serbia suffered even higher per capita losses).

Wiki on NZ in WWII

The costs for the country were high - 11,625 killed, a ratio of 6,684 dead per million in the population which was the highest rate in the Commonwealth (Britain suffered 5,123, Canada suffered 3,750 and Australia 3,232 per million population).

 

[Corsair 115]

The wars in Vietnam and Korea did prevent the communists from encroaching on New Zealand, did they not?

Did they?

 

[Architect]

Allow me to echo that! B_I_N_G_O!

Nobody here, at least nobody with two brain cells to rub together, wants any more government involvement in *ANYTHING* -- much less health care which involves human survival and important quality of life issues.

You're being sarcastic, right?

The UK, Candada, and others have state-run universal healthcare which, it has been shown, provides superior healthcare to the US system for a much lower cost to the individual.

In what bizarre, topsy-turvy world would this not be a "good thing"? I would have thought that anybody with two brain cells to rub together might have wanted to imporve the US system based upon the successes of other comparable countries? Are you really saying, as your US citizens drop dead earlier and more kids die, that there's nothing to be learnt from us?

 

[Rolfe]

Note what I actually said in the post Jerome hailed with "BINGO!".

Well, at least Jerome is consistent. He started this thread in effect declaring that his government is too incompetent to be able to organise effective universal healthcare.

Emphasis added.

The main conclusion from all this seems to be that the almighty US of A is incapable of running the proverbial whelk stall.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

What I really don't understand about such a conclusion is why such a person seems to think USA folk are all so incompetent they couldn't even just copy what other folk in other countries have successfully done.

(Especially when there is so much evidence that USA folk are at least as intelligent and capable as other folk throughout the world.)

 

[WildCat]

Still waiting for Jerome to explain the infant mortality rate differences...

 

[Rolfe]

What I really don't understand about such a conclusion is why such a person seems to think USA folk are all so incompetent they couldn't even just copy what other folk in other countries have successfully done.

The thing is, they don't even have to copy. Several posters seem to be assuming we're suggesting that the NHS is perfect so they should just copy it. They then point to evidence of some of the failings of the NHS and say, no way!

The NHS is not perfect. But it's still a damn sight better than what's going on in America. And it costs very very much less than what's being spent in America. One possibility would be to look at how the main defects with the NHS could be avoided if one were prepared to spend more money on it.

Another approach would be to look at the different systems in operation in, say France, and Canada and Australia and New Zealand and Spain and other EU states, and see what works well and what doesn't.

But no, all we seem to get is, the USA is incapable of organising anything like this.

Sad.

Rolfe.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The UK, Candada, and others have state-run universal healthcare which, it has been shown, provides superior healthcare to the US system for a much lower cost to the individual.

Repeating false propaganda does not make it true.


If Canada provided superior health-care Canadians would not cross into the US to pay out of pocket when they could get the superior product for "free".

 

[Rolfe]

Repeating false propaganda does not make it true.

Try realising that yourself now and again.

If Canada provided superior health-care Canadians would not cross into the US to pay out of pocket when they could get the superior product for "free".

False argument. Nobody said the Canadian system (or any other) was perfect. It is quite easy to understand how a system which is generally superior might still contain areas of imperfection where those affected might wish to access a different, generally inferior, system. The existence of such anomalies does not negate the general point being made.

Rolfe.

 

[zooterkin]

Repeating false propaganda does not make it true.

And yet you persist in doing it. Why is that?

 

[Architect]

Jerome is on the ropes, and he knows it. All the benchmark indicators - life expectancy, infant mortality, etc - all show that these other countries provide a more successful healthcare system. Jerome has been unable to dispute any of this and all we get from him are the same hollow, unsubstantiated statements.

Perhaps he enjoys watching his tax monies get blown out the water needlessly?