These are the top 37 countries with the best healthcare systems in the world according to the World Health Organization (United Nations). I cut out the bottom countries, but just as a reference, they're nearly all 'private' systems. And if you're curious, Obamacare goes off an 'insurance mandate' system hence the giant arrow in the picture. You can find all this information on the internet, I just put the pieces together for this table.
What do you think is the best way for a country to provide healthcare?
-
Public [i]or[/i] private, but not an insurance mandate. What we're stuck with now pretty much takes all the bad parts about private health care and adds the worst part about public health care and the only benefit is that people with preexisting conditions are now insured (which I'm in favor of; don't get me wrong there) so for the most part we've got the worst of both worlds.
-
How Can Healthcare Be Real If Our Countries Arent Real?
-
Public of course.
-
Edited by DeclinedA1: 2/9/2014 10:46:32 PMPrivate would most likely deliver highest quality at the lowest cost. Despite being fiscally conservative, if it could be done publicly cheaper than privately, I would support it. This is not an issue with which I am very familiar, and thus I cannot argue either way without further research.
-
Public. Private f*cking sucks. I probably know this better than most people here.
-
Where's Charlie? I figured he would be all over this thread. I miss arguing against someone who actually had legitimate evidence and reasoning for his point. Not just "you're wrong, I'm right".
-
Public.
-
Edited by Hunter: 2/9/2014 7:37:15 PMPrivate.
-
The one that doesn't cost me one bit unless I want to donate to charity.
-
The vast majority of those are public. So public.
-
I read too many assumptions in this thread to bother giving a genuine reply.
-
Public.
-
Edited by Seggi: 2/9/2014 7:27:32 PMA private system without an insurance mandate and heavy subsidies leaves the poor and sick uninsurable. But, provided it regulates the price of healthcare (and does the above, obviously), it can be acceptable. I'd still prefer a single-payer system, though, to avoid the possibility of an uninsured gap and the ensuing inequality arising from a class of people being (further) discouraged from seeking preventative care.
-
Either public or private. Insurance mandate = shit, the other 2 are better.
-
This is a quality vs quantity debate mostly. Either everyone gets healthcare with low quality or not everyone gets it and high quality. Pre-Obamacare rollout the U.S. is #1 for quality of healthcare provided. So the debate stands, how to provide healthcare to all without sacrificing quality.
-
The WHO healthcare rankings are a joke and do not reflect the actual quality of healthcare delivered. What the WHO ranks more actually refect is wellness. Even if we used a magic wand and gave everyone in the US "free" healthcare, there would be little to no change in our ranking.
-
A mixture. Public healthcare should be available, but the gov't should support the market in delivering private healthcare by way of vouchers to poorer citizens and other means.
-
Lol, who needs healthcare?
-
I feel like this article should help accurately demonstrate why anyone who's had public healthcare knows it's a godsend.
-
Private
-
I think single-payer makes the most sense, but I am skeptical that the US can ever implement it on a federal level.
-
Private.
-
If you can afford it, get it through private company If you can't afford it, get it through the government Maybe add the something like Tricare in the mix as well. But coming from a military family, military hospitals and clinics can take a long time for you to see a doctor as there's lots of other families who use it also
-
Public health care.
-
Tricare.
-
Private Invest in your healthcare like you do anything else.