Talk:Universal Health Care

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Although, further reading of Luke suggests that Jesus believed that those without great means, are as righteous (or more) in his eyes as those to whom wealth is abundant.

And [Jesus] looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a certain poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on." (NAS, Luke 21:1-4)"

The author of this line, and his attempted inclusion of it within this article, failed to take note of the fact that such contribution is voluntary in nature, and from the heart. Proponents of universal health care are the opposite; that is, they seek to take such funding from people by force, and such individuals use Bible passages out of context to support their views. That is called theft, and it is just plain wrong. Karajou 16:43, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

If the people, poor and rich alike, choose to vote to provide a service out of their portion of taxes, so be it: It is not theft. America is based on the principles of democracy, wherein members of a society have a right to exercise their beliefs, and in whereas a plurality of members agree to adopt new policies, those policies become the law governing all. To suggest that the rules of democracy are equivalent to forced acceptance is ridiculous. To purport that the voting process is involuntary, and against God, is to say that God himself is against democracy. I sincerely doubt that God is against democracy (It is "one nation under God", is it not?).
Per your statement that I am using Bible passages out of context to support "their" views... I think you have misjudged my intentions. I am not seeking to support the views of the liberal left, nor do I particularly seek to support the views of the conservative right. I am but a humble man, who is meerly pointing out the gaps in your logic. The seething toxicity of your words and reactions (removing honest attempts at debate) donotes a deeply held hatred of your fellow man, and I fear that it has blinded you from the true wisdom of Jesus. Lest you forget, that Jesus himself preached to poor and dejected souls, we should not cast disparaging remarks against those not fortunate to have the benefits of wealth.
Unfortunately, I suspect that my words shall go unheeded, and that you will revert my contributions yet again. Sadly, I will only have the legacy of the wiki history feature to mark my attempts at tempering your misgivings. I can only hope that God has a T1.
I agree with you, LambOfMichael, and disagree with Karajou, on the point that taxation is not "theft", and the words "by force" are inappropriate (by compulsion would have been better).
However, this debate is not really over the whether taxation is theft or not, but over whether or not the government should be providing universal health care from taxpayer's compulsorily-acquired money. On that point, I agree with Karajou that the Bible is not talking about government support for the poor, but individual support for the poor. So his reversions were justified on those grounds.
Philip J. Rayment 20:39, 6 July 2007 (EDT)


I don't like controversy or controversial articles, but I saw this in RC and I just couldn't let this go. Canada's health care system isn't quite that simplistic. The situation is that Canadian citizens cannot jump the queue on health care. For-pay services exist (and are regularly used by non-citizens, such as myself), and are available to citizens (who regularly purcase supplementary insurance), but service providers must charge a fixed rate and handle patients in a specifically regulated order.

That said, I probably won't write a section on universal health care in Canada for this article, as it's going to be a magnet for controversy. Besides the American controversy, it was a major issue in the last Canadian national election, and when the Conservative coalition inevitably falls apart, it's going to be an issue in the next one. I just wanted to fix that glib inaccuracy. AManInBlack 12:23, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry about it, the guy who wrote it was a vandal. I've reverted every contribution he's made to CP so far... Jazzman831 12:38, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Heh, okay. AManInBlack 12:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Points of view

As to whether UHC is biblical, or whether it works out as well in totalitarian countries as in the free West, we need to present a balanced view.

It would help if we got some practice expressing both sides. Try contributing to Debate:Is universal health care better than market-based medicine? first. --Ed Poor Talk 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)


The article was almost pure opinion and POV. Better to have nothing than something this poorly written.

Someone, please start over with a good definition of what UHC is - or is supposed to be.

For example, how is it different from socialized medicine or free health insurance?

Is it an ideal, or a government mandate?

Who wants it, and why?

Does it describe a law or a situation? Does it entail a system, or does it refer to a hoped-for reality?

Perhaps it would be easier to describe health care in various countries we are all familiar with, first. Start with the family doctor, or the local hospital. Talk about health insurance and HMOs provided by local employers. Add to that Medicaid and Medicare, or their counterparts overseas.

Then write some articles about places where people are too poor to get decent medical care.

Only then can we really write adequately about the partisan politics of "health". --Ed Poor Talk 14:14, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I can start working on it. I haven't had a good research project since summer started. And I won't be taking any poli sci courses next semester so it might be my last for a while :(
It would have been nice if you had done the normal procedure, though, and protected it instead of completely removing it. At least we can see what used to be there; I certainly didn't think it was opinionated before, and now I can't re-read it to make sure! Jazzman831 14:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
After you start the new version, I will un-delete the old version and put it somewhere where you can see it. Please leave me a note on my talk page when your first draft is ready for me to look at. --Ed Poor Talk 14:50, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
So... is that old version coming any time soon? Jazzman831 21:18, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
By the magic of Google...[1]
Thanks Jalepeno! I completely forgot about cache searching. Hrm and now that I see the article I see that I was right; it was bad, but in no way delete-worthy. Jazzman831 00:33, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

"Single-payer health care is a system in which one entity pays for the health care of the entire population. This entity is traditionally the federal government, and the system is paid for through taxes. Canada, Cuba and North Korea are the only 3 countries using this system." The above is a quote from the article. What about the countries of Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia that have single-payer health care systems?Panini 23:02, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

which one?Jaques 14:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

France, Germany, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, et al. in Europe. China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Australia in Asia. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay in Latin America. [User:Panini|Panini]] 10:57, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

all of those countries have multi-payer health-care system, except China, which has abolished universal health care since the death Mao (China is right now communism in name only). Jaques 16:10, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Explain to me the difference between single-payer health care and health care supplied by the federal government for free and is supported by taxation of the people, such as the system in the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Argentina and many other countries.Panini 11:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I sould assume that all of those countries allow you to buy private insurance to supliment or replace their government insurance, which is the definition of multi-payer insurance. (I learned a lot about insurance when researching this article :) Jazzman831 21:58, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Then Canada does not belong in that category as you can buy health insurance to supplement government insurance.. Carpet88 11:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Then how come some Canadians have to drive to Buffalo to get private health care? Jaques 05:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

There seems to be some kind of taboo about universal healthcare as if it were against the will of God. It's hard for me to understand what is so terrifying about it.Panini 17:41, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Hopefully this isn't in the article? I tried to make it as factual as possible, leaving debate for another page. I don't think you have to go very far, however, if you want to see why people dislike universal health care, especially on this site :) Jazzman831 18:28, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
A taboo? Well, the elephant in the living room is that the only three countries that have UHC have incredibly long and painful waits (Canada), terribly substandard healthcare (Cuba), and a multi-million-person famine (North Korea). I won't say God is against UHC, but I will go on record to say that He doesn't like human pain and starvation very much. :-( --Ed Poor Talk 22:24, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

How far would that be?Panini 22:51, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Seriously? There's a reference on the page in a section called "Opponents of [UHC]" (see here). Or if that's too "far" for you, there's a link on this very talk page to a debate about UHC (see here). Jazzman831 23:26, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Socialized medicine

Removed from intro:

While socialized medicine is often used synonymously for universal health care, this is incorrect <ref>Chua, Kao-Ping. ''Framing Universal Health Care'' []</ref>. Socialized medicine could be a form of universal health care, but UHC itself is an umbrella term which includes any form of universally affordable health care.
  1. The ref is to an advocacy site, not an objective source.
  2. If we use the ref, we should quote from it.

--Ed Poor Talk 21:54, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough. I think the quote is still correct, though. I'll look for a better cite. Jazzman831 22:03, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
Look hard, please. ;-) Especially because there seems to be an argument being made that Canada's system is not socialized medicine, while Dr. David Gratzer appears to be saying (1) it is too! and (2) free market medicine is much better. --Ed Poor Talk 22:13, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Here's what one partisan site (I'm not going to use it in the article; I'm waiting patiently for you): Hollywood and the Democrats are gearing up to bring socialized medicine to the U.S. under the guise of "universal healthcare". [2]
It seems the problem is that the dictionary definition is different from the common definition. According to here, a liberal site (search for "socialized") and here, a dictionary, "socialized medicine" means that the health care is paid for and administered by the government. Since Americans have an aversion to the word "socialized" (and rightfully so, in my opinion ;) ) anyone politicians who think that it is good for the country must avoid calling it "socialized", so they go to the blanket term "universal health care". (Another reason for the vagueness is that, at least this early in the race, nobody really has a solid plan. It'd be better for them in the long run to stick to general terms so when the race gets tighter they aren't stuck with fewer options).
I couldn't, in my rather limited search, find anything that suggests Canada isn't socialized medicine, with the exception of a WP article which didn't seem correctly cited. I'm sure there are people who say it's not socialized, but it seems to me that these people are wrong. They probably make the argument to get people more comfortable with the idea of socialized medicine. Kinda like when your mom tells you there aren't any vegetables in the casserole... and then tells you when you are done eating that there in fact were!
How do you feel about either of those two sources as a definition of SM? Jazzman831 23:10, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

The student web site gives a good distinction between single-payer and socialized medicine:

  • Under socialized medicine (such as in the United Kingdom), the government controls all aspects of the health care system, from financing to delivery. [3]

The other definition is good, too (let's use both):

  • Socialized medicine: A system of health care in which all health personnel and health facilities, including doctors and hospitals, work for the government and draw salaries from the government. [4]

But the student web site is an advocacy site which exaggerates benefits of single-payer while hiding ALL the drawbacks. There's even some misleading math. (As an SAT prep tutor, I shudder at that!)

However, single-payer is a step (perhaps the second-to-last step) on the way to "full government control" of medical care.

I think the article should be re-titled Universal health insurance. We should also write a stub article explaining that "universal health care" is a motto or slogan.

Health care is an actual service. Health insurance is a payment system. I just read (okay, from a pro-freemarket site ;-) an assertion that advocates of UHI tend to use the term UHC in a misleading way. They say 1 in 6 Americans don't have access to health care, but if David Hogberg is correct, then everyone in the U.S. has been able get care regardless of income since 1986; see Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

We need to separate (partisan) advocacy for insurance systems from objective (factual) descriptions of the actual delivery of service and appliances.

More summer research for you, Jazzman! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 08:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I knew I said I was going to do this two days ago... but I didn't for various reasons. Today seems like a good day :)
I moved some of the stuff from the introduction to deeper into the article. My personal preference is to have a concise definition in the introduction and then expand more down below. Also, while it doesn't seem like it's opinion to say that Canada's health care sucks, some people still disagree. So at least for now I gave some of the opinion attribution. I'm trying to keep it as neutrally biased as possible, without making it sound like I'm pandering to liberals (or conservatives, for that matter). And who knows, I will probably change it around throughout the day anyways.
It's still rough right now, but I'll clean it up today and probably reorganize it several times. It will be in my usual slow and plodding manner, so don't be surprised if I only make an edit an hour or even less :) Jazzman831 11:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, I think we should keep it all at Universal health care. While Universal health insurance might be more technically accurate, it is rarely, if ever, used. Jazzman831 16:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

The costs of Universal Health Care

Removed from intro:

All universal health care methods in both categories aim to provide health care for free or low cost to all citizens in a country.

I heard that health insurance in Canada is a government monopoly and that it costs around $5,000 per year. So I don't understand the part about "methods aim to provide low cost health care". --Ed Poor Talk 12:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Aiming to be affordable and actually being affordable are two different things. I highly doubt that Canada tries to cost $5,000 per year. Plus you are making a distinction between tax dollars and out-of-pocket dollars. Obviously no health care is truely free, but that's not what it's aiming for. (Also $5,000/year doesn't mean anything to me. How much do other countries pay?) Jazzman831 18:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

"Bzzzz....No!" Reverting latest attempt....

The phrases "One of the benefits of the Massachusetts plan, which was devised by Mitt Romney, is that a free market solution was created while ensuring that even the sickest of residents can get access to health care and without creating additional government bureaucracy via a "public option" among others, are totally unsupported by citation, and smack of subjective opinion. In fact, the "Massachusetts Plan" really isn't conservative, inasmuch as it is forcing the citizens, compelling them, to purchases what they might not want or need. Recent news stories (use Google News) show them to be in deep fiscal do-do. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:41, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

It is more conservative than a single payer system or a system with a public option. However, while googling for more information, I found a column by Mrs. Schlafly, who bases her analysis on verifiable information from comprehensive surveys that have recently been completed. I will say from the outset I don't agree entirely with her conclusions, but I do know the facts are correct, and these were the facts that I was looking for, rather than anecdotal information. Not now, but perhaps tomorrow, I'll incorporate Mrs. Schlafly as a reliable source in a neutral and factual manner.[1] Brown25 00:10, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
While a far more knowledgable source than most people, Phyllis Schlafly would not be considered a health expert for encyclopedic purposes. Andy might not agree with me, nor should he, after all she's his mother, not mine! Perhaps she sourced the information, and you can use her sources? Maybe that is what you any rate, proceed, Brown25. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:24, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
Thank you for removing the unsourced information and protecting the article in the interim. Anytime someone does not get necessary health care, it is heartrending, be it because of a ridiculous wait time for a cancer patient in Canada (this happened to my late grandfather - I am a dual US/Canadian citizen) or because of a lack of fiscal resources (I have not seen this in my family here in the States, but I have seen this with needy people who have come for assistance to the Church - unfortunately their only option sometimes is to go to the ER and rack up a $1000 debt which kills their already shot credit profile and usually they do not get the care they need). However, this article must present the facts and only the facts. Then, the reader must decide, should he or she desire to, what their position is on socialized medicine/universal health care.
Because I tend to think of our societal issues in terms of supply-demand diagrams, rather than ideology, I realized something that I had not when I had initially edited this article in a favorable way about the Massachusetts plan - if health care is mandated and long-run supply of doctors is governed by reimbursement rates, wouldn't the insurance companies collude and pay only the minimum reimbursement fee required by law? Two things are accomplished ... they ensure (no pun intended) that they pay the lowest cost per visit and they ensure less visits - two birds with one stone. This multi-payer system is thus as bad as a single payer system. Now, it's possible, and I think probable, for a two-tier system to later be created, whereby doctors only accept special insurance plans with higher reimbursement rates ... but only the well and financially well off are able to afford these plans. However, this brings us back to the same state that our country is in today, except that less people would opt for these truly private plans because the healthy don't need them and they already receive the government care or its equivalent provided by a private insurer at a lower cost.
The Romney plan and the equivalent Obama plan is going to morph, and I say this with no negative connotation, into an equivalent of the multi-payer National Health Service. In my opinion, if universal health care is to succeed, doctors must be allowed to reject certain insurance companies, queue patients differently from different insurance companies and allow patients to pay a premium to get bumped to the front of the line, so long as they publish the results of the various queue times. Of course, the government can set a baseline maximum wait time through its public option, so long as the public option is not financed to taxes, minus any subsidies for low income individuals. Secondly, insurance companies and the government must be able to charge differing rates, not on preexisting conditions but on lifestyle choices including body weight and other fitness indicators, including perhaps a Presidential fitness test.
Government subsidizing health care will only work if the free market is allowed to pick up the difference. This is not happening fully in Britain, Canada, Germany, or Massachusetts right now.
Brown25 19:12, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

Page is locked

I wanted to add a comma to this... to universal health care,the ... but the page is locked. FYI. FredM 16:36, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

South Korea's Single Payer Healthcare System

I noticed that the article says this

"Single-payer health care is a system in which one entity pays for the health care of the entire population (see single-payer system). This entity is traditionally the federal or national government, and the system is paid for through taxes. Canada, Cuba and North Korea are the only three countries using this system."

This is 100% false. I lived in South Korea for several years, and South Korea has a 100% single payer system. Citizens pay for healthcare through taxes. All private insurers were consolidated in the early 2000s. If you don't believe me, you can read the following sources.

- - - - - -

Perhaps I misunderstood the conservepdian definition of "single payer" healthcare, but in my book, "single payer" means that there is only one insurer, and South Korea has only one insurer, and that insurer happens to be the government. Like it or not, South Korea has a single payer universal healthcare system. I suggest that it be added to the list of nations with single-payer healthcare, lest my experiences are too "liberal" for this website.

--Yelonde 15:54, 11 January 2012 (EST)