A Challenge Question 3: How Economically Viable is Universal Healthcare?

Question

Please try to keep within the standards set out in my first Challenge Question, which also apply to the second one.

Argue on the side of them being successful or unsuccessful, using either the long or short term approach, though opinions might vary on what is long term; I presume less so for the short term. Use real examples that fit most definitions, as well as hypothetical examples using both large and small populations. Can it work in either?

baldpeanutlover, what on earth kind of an answer is that?

Please explain the stupidity you imply exists in my question, and how, other than the existence of some form of universal healthcare in Canada that connects my question to that country, why you would even think to apparently sarcastically ask me if I am Stephen Harper, which is not possible because I am not from Canada and have never been there, let alone lived there? For the record, I do not know the policies of Mr. Harper.

I waited a while for a response to my question and you come up with an answer like that? Why not just insult me? At least it would have spared me having read such absurdity as you put out.

This is a hard choice. I'll try to decide soon.

Answer 1

Apparently it is pretty economically viable. Check out statistics for life expectancy from the World Health Organization at http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2006/annex/06_annex1_en.pdf

United States is tied with Cuba at 78.
Switzerland (81), Sweden (81), Italy (81), Norway (80), Spain (80), Canada (80), France (80), Germany (79), UK (79), and Finland (79) beat out the US.

These are statistics from 2004. I don't know if more recent stats are available.

I'm not sure what it costs the countries in question, but as with any economic activity, doing more of one thing means you have less resources to do other things. In any case, the countries that do have universal health care and have better life expectancies than the U.S. seem to be doing fairly well and are considered modern developed countries.

Answer 2

Its not at all. Canada is a good example of the failures of Universal Heath care. People dying from simple ailments while sitting on waiting list to be given treatment.

Canadians flocking across the border to get medical treatment they are being denied in Canada. I understand that it has reached the point where doctors are being allowed by the government to treat patients outside the official heath care system.

The problem is really very simple. If you rig the market as is the case with Universal Health care the system will be swamped. There is no price incentive to dampen demand nor a profit motive to increase the supply. So shortages are inevitable. You can pretend the laws of supply and demand do not apply but its like ignoring gravity, sooner or later you'll still hit the ground.

The population size does not matter other than I would guess with a larger population there would be more inertia which would keep the system running longer, but that advantage would be offset once the problems appear the same inertia would delay corrections.

Answer 3

are you really Stephen Harper????
for all u americans he is the prime minister of Canada.
kinda like a president, but a little smarter (a very little bit)