Social Health Care vs. Private Health Care

Which is a better system: socialized health care or privatized health care? Discuss.

I may chip in later, but I want to see input that has nothing to do with my views at first.

 

No such thing as free healthcare, just different ways to pay for it.

Anyways, I prefer public health care over the privatized alternative, simply because the treatment each person gets shouldn't be dependant on what treatment they can afford.

 

Hmm, well I guess you're right. We have to pay for the doctors and the medicine and the hospital's lease somehow.

I've changed it from "free" to socialized. Glad to see you still got what I was getting at, even with my misuse of the word "free".

 

I find private health care better, but at a lower cost. Medicine is expensive as it is, but free health care would put America in even more debt. We would probably go from 2 million dollars every minute to 4 million dollars.

 

In some ways I'd prefer private in the UK, people wouldn't take advantage for silly little colds when theirs nothing that can be done about it ect, as well as the economic benefits, but then again everybody should be able to have health care which this is the only way to make sure 100% of the people have access to it.

 

I've heard about health insurcance. I've also heard that poor people can't afford it.

Why would there be no medical discoveries? We are not talking about socializing medical development.

 

Privatized health care, why give the gov't. something else to screw up.

 

I do believe socialized health care would be a better system, because then everyone could have it. Whereas with privatized, not everyone can afford it. To bluntly put it; I think everyone should have health care. The only way to ensure this is to have "free" (or as close as it gets to free) health care.

I see nothing wrong with Canada's health care. Care to enlighten me on this subject?

 

If there was nothing wrong with Canada's health care system, why did the Canadian Prime Minister come to the U.S. for his heart surgery?

 

For even better treatment?
Sports teams send there players to other countries for better health care all the time, it would be the same ideology I would of thought.

In my experience, there isn't much difference between Public & Private healthcare, the only advantage with Private is the less waiting time. In most cases the actual treatment you recieve is much the same.

Many Doctor's in the UK work 'public' for the annual salary, and privately on the side for some extra pocket-money.

And for us, this means the same quality of treatment.

 

If you're talking about Newfoundland's Premier; http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Da...anada+cardiac+care+doctors/2514581/story.html

If you really meant our Prime Minister had heart surgery in the US, can you point me towards an article, please? I can't seem to find anything about it anywhere.

 

- Extremely long waits
- Poor service
- Subpar hospitals and staff
- Did I mention long waits?

Oh, and it's not exactly "free" at all; there are extra fees for rooms, renting equipment, etc...

 

Those are all fairly good points I never thought of. The waits are pretty bad. I've seen someone wait 8 hours after breaking an arm and 3 hours when someone got stabbed in the arm (it wasn't bad, the bleeding was stopped by the time he got to the hospital, but still...)

The hospitals I've been to have really well qualified staff and are up to date with their equipment.

The fees aren't really that much. I stayed in a hospital for 3 days and we only paid $10 a day for the room, $3 a day for TV+Head Phones. Then when I sprained my arm, we had to pay $13 or $16 for the cast.

Overall, I'd say, I'm pretty happy with Canada's health care and I'd prefer it over America's. I will admit, however, we are understaffed in certain hospitals and some of the staff are less qualified than those in the U.S.
Though, that is in just certain hospitals. For example, my step mother had to be flown for 30 minutes to a different city when she had a heart attack. The same would apply to someone going into labour. Though, this is in a town with a population of no more than 1000.

 

Theres no better option,

Social Healthcare, perfect for the poor, should someones life depend on if they can pay it? should you put a price on someones life? Disgusting, Social Healthcare makes it much easier for the needy, Yes, Because its government ran service, long waits, and you get charged more in taxes, and -sometimes- poor service.

Private Healthcare, Good treatement, and Respectable, but have their priorities wrong, Money should not be more important than general health.

 

I'd really like to hear your reasoning on this. Because as far as I'm concerned prices for medicines are so high is because drug companies can essentially control the prices.

 

He probably went to a hospital you can't afford. Where a prime minister chooses to be treated is irrelevant in this discussion.

 

Honestly, I can't agree with you more.

The government involving in healthcare will only drive up the cost of healthcare. Although profit incentive can seem like a bad thing, it's really the best thing that can happen to any industry, including healthcare. Getting rid of the profit incentive (i.e., have the government subsidize or socialize health care) adds in countless inefficiencies that would be wiped out in a competition environment.

Long waits, crappy service, etc. are all decent reasons against socialized government, but really they are all avoidable with enough money. However, you simply cannot achieve optimal efficiency without the checks and balances of a competition-laden private sector. There will always be the extra "fluff" we pay for in a bureaucratic system of any industry.

By the way, Schnell's pointing out my incorrect use of the word "free" is genius. Either way, the doctors have to be paid and the medicine bought. In a socialized form of healthcare, we are still paying for the healthcare in the form of ridiculously high taxes.

 

Hey guys America's healthcare service consists of long waits and crappy service just like Canada. Also why would you choose the private sector over the government, when it is clear that these private health insurance agencies are clearly in it for profit and don't give a rat's ass if little timmy gets his heart transplant.

 

Tyro can give you a better answer than I can, but in a nutshell: For efficiency.

The incentive for private healthcare companies is our business while there is little to none for government run agencies.

 

I think there should be both.

In Sweden we kind of have both, majority of all hospitals and such are in the Social HC, and everyone does get "free" operations and all of the sorts.

But there are also private ones, they have shorter queues and might have better services.

The way USA has it (As far as my knowledge goes) makes poor people die from esily treated diseases (diabetes and such), i think we ove it to eachother to take care of eachother, even if it costs us (tax ).