[ QUOTE ]
Most Americans above the poverty line reject socialism...
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the topic in question--universal health care doesn't have anything to do with socialism.
[ QUOTE ]
...and therefore reject the idea of universal healthcare simply by its name.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a ridiculous statement. Universal healthcare is simply the notion that all of our citizens should have access to adequate health care--government should provide health care to those unable to pay for it themselves. I doubt that "most Americans above the poverty line" (or below it) reject this idea.
[ QUOTE ]
Are you poor? Rich people from other countires often fly in to America for any significant surgeries or procedures. The best doctors in the world often come to America because they make loads of more money as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone would argue that the United States doesn't have the best trauma care in the world. However, actual benefits to public health primarily come from sources other than cutting-edge procedures and newer, expensive medications. As Abramson (see my post above) states:
[ QUOTE ]
According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 'Since 1900 the average lifespan of person in the Unites States has lengthened by greater than 30 years;
25 years of this gain are attributable to advances in public health.' These include improvements such as sanitation, clean food and water, decent housing, good nutrition, higher standards of living, and widespread vaccinations."
[/ QUOTE ]
(Emphasis mine.)
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, Medicaid ain't that great but neither are Ramen Noodles and powder grape "drinks".
[/ QUOTE ]
As Malcolm Gladwell points out in
this "New Yorker" article,
[ QUOTE ]
Medicare, too, is based on the social-insurance model, and, when
Americans with Medicare report themselves to be happier with virtually every aspect of their insurance coverage than people with private insurance (as they do, repeatedly and overwhelmingly), they are referring to the social aspect of their insurance.
They aren’t getting better care. But they are getting something just as valuable: the security of being insulated against the financial shock of serious illness.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Emphasis mine. Although in this quote Gladwell discusses Medicare and not Medicaid specifically, his general argument--if not specific facts--remains applicable to both.)
[ QUOTE ]
Americans have the decision to accept universal healthcare and reject capitalism every year - all they need to do is cast a vote.
[/ QUOTE ]
Logical fallacies and factual inaccuracies abound in this statement alone. You've somehow analogized universal healthcare and a rejction of capitalism. Americans, as far as I know, have yet to be offered a vote on this issue ever, let alone "every year."
[ QUOTE ]
We pay over $5000 per capita on healthcare because thats what we are willing to pay, and if we aren't satisfied then we pay more until we aren't willing to pay anymore. To transfer all of these costs to the Government doesn't mean that the costs magically disappear and that healthcare becomes better though. If anything, the cost becomes much greater due to the welfare loss of the massive bureaucratic grinder that is the government, and the premium healthcare that rich people demand disappears, along with the best doctors in the world because they no longer make the most loot.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oy.
Read me. Medicare and Medicaid operate tremendously efficiently and have much lower administrative costs than private insurance does. To quote wholesale a large portion of Gladwell's article:
[ QUOTE ]
Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. What does that extra spending buy us? Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries. We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries. American life expectancy is lower than the Western average. Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average. Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations.
Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita.
Nor is our system more efficient.
The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita.
And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance. A country that displays an almost ruthless commitment to efficiency and performance in every aspect of its economy—a country that switched to Japanese cars the moment they were more reliable, and to Chinese T-shirts the moment they were five cents cheaper—has loyally stuck with a health-care system that leaves its citizenry pulling out their teeth with pliers.
[/ QUOTE ]