Government has gone too far

We should remind the government that we control them, not vice-versa. A day like Guy Fox(real name blocked on basil), on the sixth of November.

Remember -- Remember, the sixth of November.

November 7, 2012

11 Comments • Newest first

saddays

[quote=Shatterss]@saddays: I am originally from Korea and lived in Busan then moved to Japan Tokyo for my dad's job then to the US now for about 12 yrs.

I think you're thinking of somewhere in Europe, because I'm sure you're wrong, but it's just something we know and I'm too lazy to bother searching it up, so if you disagree with me because I'm not giving you a source, you can go search it yourself. As they say, Google is a wonderous tool [/quote]

I already looked it up, and I can't find any source that claims that South Korea or Japan denies patients because they haven't "paid in full". The only thing I have found are reports on South Korea's single payer system, and how in both South Korea, and Japan, the healthcare system is funded by a pool so that 100% of the population receives treatment regardless of financial status. [i]That is how a universal healthcare system works, dude.[/i]Until you prove your claims, you are either lying and making up falsehoods, or you have no idea as to what you are talking about and you are clueless. Either way, you are wrong. I already gave you several sources. I can find you hundreds more. In fact, let me give you my entire college essay on universal heatlhcare, and healthcare in South Korea. I know about this subject because I have researched it for [i]years[/i]. Once again, I invite you to give me sources on your information, and I want you to find me this drama, or dramas that depict people getting rejected by South Korean, or Japanese hospitals. Go on, find me one reliable source. Just one.

----------------------------------------------------

XXXXX Heelis
Professor Donni Jeferry-Harris
English 2010
28 February 2011

Universal Healthcare; The Healthcare Fix for America
Introduction; The Problem with America's Healthcare
Healthcare costs in the United States are roughly three times that of Britain's National Health Service, and several times that of healthcare costs in other developed nations like South Korea (Eastaugh 11). Kellis, Rumberger, Bartels state that despite these high costs, the quality, availability of access, and and efficiency ranked a dismal sixth behind Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (284). All of those nations have much lower healthcare costs than the United States, but still manages to ensure all of their citizens, unlike the United States. Three systems come to mind when discussing a successor to America's former system; A for-profit system which is the former system, a quasi-competetive model of mixed private and government management, and a totally government management system known as the single-payer system. Out of all of these systems, one system has proven to be successful. Single-payer Universal Healthcare is utilized in the majority of all developed nations. Many of those nations have successfully, and economically managed to secure health for all their citizens for decades. The United States is the only nation that does not guarantee healthcare for all of its citizens (Vogt 1). With most developed nations offering a single-payer universal healthcare system, the obvious solution to the nation's healthcare issue is the implementation of a truly universal system with reduced costs, and equal access for all citizens.
Universal Healthcare; The Healthcare Fix for America
In 2008, the issue of healthcare came to national attention; presidential candidates discussed their opinions, policies, and solutions to fix the system of health insurance, and healthcare spending (Menzel 12). Prior to the passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as many as 47 million Americans lacked health insurance (Parish, 5), and as much as 16% of America's GDP (roughly 2.1 trillion dollars) was spent on private health insurance (Marmor 485). This meant that the 47 million Americans that did lack insurance could not receive any health treatment at all from the average American healthcare provider. Many Americans believe this issue can be traced from the fact that the United States is the only nation out of all developed, and many developing nations not to employ a Universal healthcare system. As opposed to a national guarantee of healthcare to all citizens as a right, America's healthcare was, prior to the passage of the new act, treated as a product that could be purchased, and was simply optional. American insurance companies are for profit, and operate on that basis, while health service for Americans is more an afterthought (Marmor 487).
Since the 2008 presidential election, president Obama, and the US congress has passed a bill that would prevent insurance companies from denying those with pre-existing conditions, implement cost controls, and require a mandatory purchase of health insurance from all citizens. Americans are ideologically split on the issue; some favor the upcoming health law, while others are against it. The search for the best health insurance system continues, and there are many proponents, and opponents on all sides of the debate.
First, one must comprehend America's healthcare system before discussing it's issues and potential solutions. In the United States, Americans who are unable to directly pay for all healthcare costs purchase health insurance from private companies, as the cost for health services can, in many cases, reach tens of thousands of dollars. By paying into an insurance company on a monthly basis, money is pooled from many customers. When a situation requiring healthcare arises for a customer of an insurance company, that insurance company will pay for up to half, or most of the costs, depending on the provisions of person's coverage. Health insurance can be seen as a gamble; while it may not be immediately visible that a health problem will arise, being prepared for such a problem by pooling money into an insurance program can, in the worst case scenario, offer financial survival for the customer.
Unfortunately, Americans are complaining, and debating the costs of private healthcare. Private health insurance prices have grown disproportionate to wage within the past few years. In the past twenty years, the GDP per capita spending for healthcare has increased from10% to a staggering 20% (Howe 21). Some statistics estimated that this equates to about 2.1 trillion dollars spent a year on insurance costs (Marmor 485). Health insurance companies often denied coverage to patients who genuinely needed coverage (Riedel 439), as those with poor health conditions increased cost risk. Due to the unstable economy, and the high levels of unemployment, many Americans are asking for a revision to the healthcare insurance system (Bybee 64).
There is much discussion of a universal healthcare system. Many widely compare America's health insurance plans to that of every other developed nation in the world. The United States is the one developed nation out of all other developed nations that does not employ a universal health coverage plan for it's citizens (Vogt 1). Kellis, Rumberger, Bartels state that americans spend three times as much for healthcare than a person from England, and American quality of life still ranks at a disappointing 6th (284) . Similar statistics and conclusions can be seen with other nations, like South Korea, Canada, and Germany, where citizens pay much less, yet receive equal or more care than American citizens (Eastaugh 11). At first glance, one would assume that a Universal healthcare system is the solution to America's healthcare problem, as it covers everyone, is substantially cheaper than private insurance, and improves the quality of life for citizens (Waitzkin 400). Why shouldn't the United States employ a government-run universal healthcare system like other nations?
There are many objections to government-run universal healthcare, especially from the republicans in congress, and many conservatives. At the heart of conservative/republican values lies the idea that ï¿½big governmentï¿½ is exclusively bad, and that larger government is comparable to the historically maligned forms of government like socialism and communism. Private industry is their foremost interest. Conservative republicans are very critical of any attempts to nationalize healthcare. Some republicans, like congressman Steve King claim that government-managed universal healthcare is ï¿½a failed socialist modelï¿½. He also believes in self reliance, and that Americans, ï¿½refuse to submit to the nanny stateï¿½ (Woodward 1499).
President Obama, and the formerly democratic congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010. This was an attempt to ï¿½fixï¿½ America's health-cost issue, and therefore, implement a sort of universal healthcare system. Unlike a single-payer system, this healthcare system would require patients to purchase from private companies. The idea behind the plan is that it satisfies universal coverage for all, yet lacks total reliance on the government. This method of healthcare delivery is similar to what author Luft proposes with his SecureChoice method (9). Despite the bill being passed, many Americans have not supported the plan. Conservatives often refer to the plan as ï¿½Obamacareï¿½, which is used in a demeaning fashion. Others state that while they appreciate the new efforts to solve the healthcare problem, it is not a true, single-payer system (Waitzkin 398). Some who do support universal coverage outright discredit the plan, and believe that inevitably, a single-payer system will be implemented, as private companies will become unreliable (Bybee 63). According to the conservative opposition, the new plan is a ï¿½socialistï¿½ plan, and creates more problems than what it is worth (Woodward 1499). While the patient protection is by no means an actual socialist policy, opponents do bring up a good point; the new healthcare plan would only save 8 billion dollars in the course of the next 10 years. This is a disappointing amount, considering that this is only a fraction of the 2.1 trillion dollars being spent on healthcare (Marmor 486).
The United States is compromising between a true, single-payer system and a private insurance system for many reasons. The biggest issue, and complaint against a total healthcare reform for government healthcare is that the United States is a capitalist market; it should as such, allow health-insurance companies to exist (Woodward1499). Many citizens in the United States proclaim that the government would be totally incapable of running such a system by itself, and would be unreliable (Bybee 63). Others contemplate the consequences of private-health banishment; private health insurance companies support many jobs in the United States. There could be a potential impact on the economy, possibly negative, should private insurers be abolished.
Obviously, there are many arguments against private insurance. This is why the topic of health insurance remains a debate, and remains an issue for every American. American citizens have their own ideas on how to repair the healthcare system, and what should be done to overcome high costs. Many republican lawmakers (who receive tax-payer funded healthcare) believe that America's healthcare system should be left as it is, as it is, according to them, the ï¿½finest medical systemï¿½; Any changes proposed by the democrats is a ï¿½failed socialist systemï¿½ (Woodward 1499). Other republican lawmakers, while agreeing that healthcare is mismanaged, claim that healthcare is not a right, and that by ï¿½enforcingï¿½ healthcare for all citizens, it actually eliminates the rights and liberties for American citizens; in his speech, Healthcare is not a right, senator Ron Paul states just this. On the other side of the fence, many people believe that healthcare is indeed a right (Riedel 439), and that all logical, and economically sound attempts should be made in light of this philosophy. The opinions regarding healthcare vary; perhaps the facts, and personal comparisons to other nations can provide a better conclusion on the next steps that should be taken to fix America's ailing healthcare system.
I lived in South Korea from 2003 to 2005. In 2000, South Korea had implemented a single-payer system; An update to the older 1989 government healthcare reform, which guaranteed universal coverage for taxpayers who wanted a government option. During our residence, members of our family were treated for various illnesses, including body pains and minor dysfunctions. My most memorable treatment was auricular (in-ear) acupuncture, in which our family would visit a local hospital every other weekday to receive new acupuncture needles, verdicts, and suggestions. Our treatments were for non-fatal, non-serious conditions, and were probably requested for personal interest. Even with these notions, our service was payed for by South Korea's single-payer, government run insurance system. Perhaps most importantly, our service was undoubtedly cheaper than if we were to receive the same service in the United States. Our family, if we were living in the United States at the time would have forgone treatment altogether. South Koreans in 2000 payed a little under $800 per capita, yet received much better, and more frequent healthcare than an average taxpaying American.
Other nations have statistics with equivalent results; They spend less on healthcare. For example, if US citizens were to spend as much for healthcare as the Canadians do, it is estimated that it would save up to a trillion dollars a year. That amounts to six times the combined deficits for all 50 states, according to Kellis, Rumberger, Bartels. It is now evident that nations who have private healthcare systems have higher infant mortality rates, and inefficient healthcare delivery (Bayoumi 178). Many critics state that waiting times for health services in nations that employ national health is extended due to Universal access. While this is true for elective procedures (and waiting is still minimal), there is no waiting list for primary healthcare, according to Ham, York, and Shaw.
Taken from the perspective that there is indeed a problem with healthcare in the United States, one, like congress may consider the newly passed Patient Protection bill. There may be potential benefits to this system, as it does not outright remove the previous health-insurance system; it simply adds more regulation, and ï¿½patient protectionï¿½, as the bill's namesake implies. The most important point of this bill is that it guarantees everyone healthcare. Even those who cannot pay for healthcare due to a lack of income will be given government rebates for coverage. This means that the major issue surrounding pre-existing conditions will be eliminated, and that those who do genuinely require health services will have affordable access to them. Some, like Kellis, Rumberger, and Bartel suggest that unlike a government system (which may suggest a lack of competition), the ï¿½quasi-competitive/governmentï¿½ model will create a competitive market for private insurers, and will encourage medical innovation. Because the overhead administrative costs for our past system was inefficiently high, the new system will attempt to regulate and reduce administrative costs by prohibiting ridiculously high prices (Marmor 487).
While the Patient Protection system sounds like a potential solution, there are still many problems with the private-public combination, or ï¿½quasi-competetiveï¿½ model. There are many who oppose the plan, regardless of party preference. The first point is that the new bill asks that US citizens purchase their healthcare from a private company; instead of voluntary payment, US taxpayers are practically forced to purchase from these private companies. The main concern is that Americans are still relying on the same private insurers that cost the United States up to 15% of its gross domestic product on health costs (Riedel 441). The cost percentage of those healthcare costs continued to rise, with some sources saying that the costs increase at an average of 2.1% faster than the growth rate of America's gross domestic product (Antos, Wilensky, and Kuttner 468). All of these costs can be attributed to the actions of private-insurers, who are unlike the government, for profit organizations (Bayoumi 178). Though the bill attempts to regulate the costs of healthcare, some, including Bybee state that eventually, private companies will find loopholes, ignore legal limits, and become completely unreliable; once Americans ultimately realize this, they will turn to the obvious solution, yet, for whatever reason, ignored solution of single-payer, government managed healthcare (Bybee 63).
There are also concerns about any proven success of the proposed system. While semi-public-private health insurance systems have worked in some nations, like Chile, where everyone was at least required to purchase healthcare from private companies, it has completely failed in other nations. In Argentina for example, the private-public system contributed to a financial crisis that hurt the nation's economy (Waitzkin 400). Another complaint is that because the upcoming ï¿½Patient Protectionï¿½ act is not single-payer, it will be unnecessarily more expensive. A single payer system has the greatest resistance to risk-costs, because an entire nation pays into the same system. For example, if someone living in California were to purchase health insurance under this system, a person living in Florida could be covered by the payments of the person living in California, and vice versa. Under the system that is currently proposed, Americans are not paying into a single-payer system. Because many Health insurance companies in the United States cover smaller localities, health providers are less inclined to offer services in areas where patients may be more likely to be sick, especially after high-cost prevention, and regulations. In addition, the general management overhead costs for any insurance companies costs a minimum; this overhead minimum cost ratio to costs for health services increases if the company is smaller. In the past, total administrative overhead for private health-insurers in the United States cost up to 30% of all healthcare expenses (Woolhandler, Campbell, and Himmelstien 768). This meant that insurance costs in general were much higher that the costs of many other insurance plans in developed nations, including all European nations. Because European nations are single-payer, their administrative costs are only between 3 to 5 percent of all healthcare expenditures(Kellis, Rumberger, Bartels 288). It would appear that the major difference between America's healthcare and European healthcare is that American healthcare costs go more into expenditures rather than actual health services, as they do in Europe.
It has already been determined through history that an exclusively private system does not work. America's previous system was exclusively private, and the costs of healthcare cost a little over 15% of the gross domestic product, and was growing a 2.1% faster than said gross domestic product. In addition to the growing uninsured population, there were also hidden costs behind the costs of caring for those who were underinsured, or uninsured. Uninsured patients cost hospitals nearly $130 billion a year (Riedel 441). It can be concluded that this is the option the United States does not want to take.
There are chiefly three different systems being considered as a replacement for the healthcare system. The first, and probably most illogical choice was the fully private insurance system; Through former records and evidences, it can be determined that the completely private system was unreliable, and was costing the United States more than the amount of health services provided. Not everyone was covered, and the quality of American health was disappointingly low despite being the highest in costs. It was this system, and it's flaws that initiated the attention, and focus on resolving the health insurance. This system can no longer be considered. The second option was the hybrid government, and privately managed insurance system. This system (according to the Obama Administration's plans) was promising in the idea that it protects former private companies by still requiring private insurers, but that the costs would be regulated. It also claimed that it would enforce a no-discrimination policy to those who had pre-existing conditions. Those who could not pay for private insurance costs would receive aid, and other reduced prices from the government. Unfortunately, the success of such a system is not guaranteed, and this is where that plan falls short. Despite having good intentions, with the promise of ensuring all Americans, it has been shown that in other nations, the combined system could fail, and contribute to a larger economic problem (Waitzkin 400). In other nations though, it has worked, and it continues to be used today in those nations. However, and once again, the success of such a system is not guaranteed. It begs the question as to why the United States should gamble on potential successes when the economy is not very stable, millions of Americans suffer, and will continue to suffer into the next decade when the new healthcare plan is fully implemented. The final plan to be discussed is the fully government-managed singe payer system. This plan continues to receive criticism for being too ï¿½socialistï¿½, of a policy. There are also many criticisms regarding responsibility, and that this system may ï¿½babysitï¿½ those who are irresponsible. Questions like, ï¿½Why should a taxpayer have to pay for someone else's costs?ï¿½, ï¿½What if the person they are paying for is lazy?ï¿½, ï¿½Doesn't this system encourage a lack of self reliance?ï¿½, and ï¿½Is the government even responsible enough to handle the health insurance of a nation?ï¿½. The one nation where it has not lived up to expectations is China. China's failure is not representative of the general successes seen in developed European nations. China's inability to successfully utilize a single-payer system is due to various reasons, including the rather huge income disparity (the income difference between the middle class and the lower classes can a difference as great as ten fold), lack of nearby medical services for all citizens, mistrust in the government, and general lack of trust in the government, according to Carrin. The United States is fortunately in a different situation than China. The income disparity between the lower and middle classes does not exceed higher than 3 fold income. All citizens are generally located only several miles from the farthest medical facility (Carrin 7). It seems that the only limitation that China, and the United States shares is their mistrust in their government. Because of China's underdeveloped nature, it is not fair to compare a failure of China's single-payer system to that of the potential future single-payer system in the United States.
Despite all the criticism, and the fear of labels like ï¿½socialismï¿½, and the fact that China alone has not enjoyed much success with government-run universal healthcare, one must realize that most developed nations abide by this system; these nations have seen incredible successes. Even with ï¿½socialistï¿½ policies, the economies of these nations have grown while that of the United States declined, the costs of healthcare is undeniably low, the quality of care is much better, and every citizen is covered by design. The fact that this system covers every potential patient efficiently, covers even minor health concerns, and does it at a fraction of the cost of the United States healthcare system makes it far more practical, and ï¿½successfulï¿½ than the proposed, and former system.
There are many benefits of government-managed universal healthcare. Statistically shown and the most discussed are the reduced costs and increased quality of life. There are also other benefits that reveal themselves in more subtle ways. In addition to the up-front benefits of Universal healthcare, some suggest that children who do receive healthcare have better chances of achieving academic success (Phillip Anthony O'Hara 321). It can be generally agreed upon that a more educated, and knowledgeable populace can account for stronger economies, and more participation from citizens in their societies. It is also widely agreed upon that a healthy population is more likely to succeed. Many studies show that malnutrition early in life results in decreased brain density, and inability to cope with life situations, such as stress and anxiety (Salonga 42). Some may say that nutrition has little to do with available healthcare, and is specifically a problem with available food. While nutrition is not directly connected to available healthcare, many nations with above-average malnutrition rates also have high incidences of preventable diseases. Researchers Stotch and Smyth have gathered data that compares infant disease incidence, it's effects on brain weight, and intelligence (determined via IQ tests). Perhaps not surprisingly, children who had suffered from diseases early in their infancy proved to have a smaller head size, decreased brain weight, and a decreased IQ score average than a group of healthy children (546-552). In the comparison of Universal healthcare, or single-payer abiding nations to education and student achievement, the 2006 IES National Center for Education Statistics concludes that other developed nations consistency score higher in Mathematics Literacy, Reading Literacy, and Science literacy than American students. The skeptic may decide that other factors must be involved, and may point out GPD spending per capita on education. Surely, other nations must spend more for their students. Therefore, the attribution of healthcare access to education must be invalid. This is not true; the United States in 2004 spent 5.5% of its' GDP on education. Similarly, other developed nations with Universal healthcare, including the UK, Canada, Australia, Spain, Korea, and Japan (both Japan and South Korea scored the highest on the IES study) spend as much, or slightly less than the United States on education based on GDP percentage (The World Bank; Public Spending on education, total (% of GDP)). As noted by the rather odd variables, Japan, and South Korea, which spend up to a percentage less than Americans on education per GDP percentage yet score the highest out of average literacy scores of the nations being discussed on literacy rate averages, the argument that GDP spending on education has a profound impact on academic success is flawed. An International Monetary Fund study, using evidence from various papers and sources concludes a similar result. While little empirical evidence yet exists to prove that additional spending on education would improve academic success overall, the authors ultimately conclude that healthcare spending does in fact increase the likelihood of academic success (Gupta, Verhoeven, and Tiongson 19). The United States does indeed spend the most per GDP on healthcare, but once again, a very large percentage of that healthcare spending does not at all go to healthcare, but management overhead and administration costs. This contrasts with European, and other developed nations, where a small fraction is spent on management. The culmination of all this information regarding academic success, student health, more spending on actual health services, and comparison to Universal healthcare nations with correlating higher literacy score rates can be determined with this verdict; healthier students means academic success. Student success is merely one of many benefits that may come of universal coverage for all citizens.
Ultimately, the benefits of Universal Healthcare far exceed those of other systems. The private healthcare system was not successful; It was recognized by many Americans as a failure on many levels, thus congress acted to repeal the system in 2009. The new system recommended by Obama and the formerly democratic congress attempted to emulate European systems with some capitalist elements to ensure a distancing from ï¿½socialismï¿½ as many still refer to it as, and still allow for all Americans to receive healthcare without outrageous costs and expenditures. The intentions of the new bill are noble, but there are still major issues with the system. Overhead, and other administrative costs will still be much higher than single-payer systems. The United States is still relying on for-profit organizations who will seek to find loopholes, and disregard the intentions of regulations of the legal system. Authors state that eventually, and inevitably, a system is destined to fail, and a true universal healthcare single-payer system will be left as the only option. It seems as if the government, in an attempt to satisfy the most Americans has decided to gamble on our healthcare, and implement a system that is mostly theoretical and not proven successful for long-term use. Single payer systems have proven to be successful in many other nations. Countries like England and Germany, who have been running Universal Healthcare systems in the few years following World War II have seen lower costs by almost half that of the costs in the United States. Many nations that have joined the ranks of first world economies, including Japan and South Korea have been using Single-payer universal healthcare systems, even before they were classified as first world.
Ultimately, the issue of healthcare is left for the American people to decide. Should Americans give up their personal health ï¿½preferencesï¿½ and certain companies so that a potentially corrupt government manages their health? Should Americans decide that tens of millions of uninsured citizens is unjust, and that healthcare is a right, and not merely a consumer good? This choice is left to the American people; at this point however, and with the incredible amount of evidence that shows the successes of single-payer universal healthcare systems, it seems rather odd to compromise for a more business oriented system that the government is attempting to promote with the ï¿½patient protectionï¿½ bill that has yet to be proven, or known for success. At this time, the American economy is not stable, and a recession is still underway for many citizens. Americans need affordable healthcare under a guaranteed successful system. Until people realize the importance of health for all without concerns of the interests of abusive private insurance corporations, health in the United States will remain expensive for all, detrimental for the economy, harmful to our students, and destructive for everyone. The solution is clear, as it is for every developed nation in the world ï¿½ If America wishes to escape it's financial, and social plight in regards to its own health, a single-player universal healthcare system is the most viable system.

Works Cited
Antos, Joseph, Gail Wilensky, and Hans Kuttner. "The Obama Plan: More Regulation, Unsustainable Spending." 16 Sept. 2008. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
Bayoumi, Ahmed M. "Equity and health services." Journal of Public Health Policy 30.2 (2009): 176-182. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 7 Mar. 2011.
Bybee, Roger. Can we have universal health care?. Dissent (00123846) 56.2 (2009): 63-69.
Carrin, Guy. "Social health insurance in developing countries: A continuing challenge." International Social Security Review 55.2 (2002): 57. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 9 Feb. 2011.
Eastaugh, Steven R. "National Healthcare Spending and Fiscal Control: Comparisons among 15 Countries." Hospital Topics 78.4 (2000): 9. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 30 Jan. 2011.
Gupta, Sanjeev, Marijn Verhoeven, and Erwin Tiongson. Does Higher Government Spending Buy Better REsults in Education and Health Care? Does Higher Government Spending Buy Better REsults in Education and Health Care? International Monetary Fund. Web. 24 Mar. 2011. <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/1999/wp9921.pdf>.
Ham, Chris, Nick York, and Rob Shaw. "Hospital Bed Utilisation in the NHS, Kaiser Permanente, and the US Medicare Programme: Analysis of Routine Data." British Medical Journal 1257th ser. 327.7426 (2003). British Medical Journal. British Medical Journal, 27 Nov. 2003. Web. 22 Mar. 2011. <http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7426/1257.full>.
Howe, Roger. Healing Healthcare: How to Fix Our Broken Healtcare System: Texas: Durban House, 2008. Print.
Kellis, Dana S., Jill S. Rumberger, and Bruce Bartels. Healthcare Reform and the Hospital Industry: What Can We Expect?. Journal of Healthcare Management 55.4 (2010): 283-297. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23 Feb. 2011.
Luft, Harold. Total Cure. Washington: Harvard University Press, 2008. Print.
Marmor, Theodore. "The Obama Administration's Options for Health Care Cost Control: Hope Versus Reality ï¿½ Ann Intern Med." Annals of Internal Medicine. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.
Menzel, Paul. ï¿½Too Hot for Politics to Handle? Hard Questions about Health Insurance.ï¿½ JStor Sep- Oct. 2008: 12-14 . The Hastings Center. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
O'Hara, Phillip A., ed. "International Encyclopedia of Public Policy - Governance in a Global Age." 29 Aug. 2010. Web. 17 Mar. 2011. <http://pohara.homestead.com/Encyclopedia/Volume-3.pdf>.
Parish, Anne. Confronting America's Health Care Crisis. Bloomington: Authorhouse, 2008. Print.
Parish, Anne. Confronting America's Health Care Crisis. Bloomington: Authorhouse, 2008. Print.
"Public Spending on Education, Total (% of GDP) | Data | Table." Data | The World Bank. The World Bank, 2008. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD(dot)TOTL.GD.ZS>.
Riedel, Lisa M. "Health Insurance in the United States." AANA Journal 77.6 (2009): 439-444. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Feb. 2011.
Ron Paul Health Care Is Not a Right. Perf. Ron Paul. Ron Paul Healthcare Is Not a Right. Youtube.com, 29 Sept. 2009. Web. 25 Feb. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=iBGx3ZXdVeM>.
Salonga, Mendoza A. "Nutrition and Brain Development." South African Family Practice. South African Family Practice, 16 June 2004. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. <http://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/viewFile/904/813>.
Stotch, M. B., and P. M. Smythe. "Does Undernutrition during Infancy Inhibit Brain Growth and Subsequent Intellectual Development?" British Medical Journal 38.546 (1963): 546-52. Archives of Disease in Childhood - BMJ Journals. British Medical Journal. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://adc.bmj.com/content/38/202/546>.
Vogt, Thomas M. "Improving CRC Screening Requires Innovative Approaches." National Institute of Health Public Access. Am J Prev Med, 1 Sept. 2009. Web. 21 Mar. 2011. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562532/>.
Woodward, Cal. "Obama's health law at six months: survival is not assured." CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 182.14 (2010): 1498-1500. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28
Waitzkin, Howard. "Selling the Obama Plan: Mistakes, Misunderstandings, and Other Misdemeanors." American Journal of Public Health 100.3 (2010): 398-400. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 Feb. 2011.
Woolhandler, Steffie, Terry Campbell, and David U. Himmelstein. "Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada." Physicians for a National Health Program. New England Journal of Medicine, 21 Aug. 2003. Web. 24 Mar. 2011. <http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf>. <http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_402.asp>.

Reply November 8, 2012 - edited

Shatterss

@saddays: I am originally from Korea and lived in Busan then moved to Japan Tokyo for my dad's job then to the US now for about 12 yrs.

Reply November 8, 2012 - edited

saddays

[quote=Shatterss]You've got to be joking... I lived in Korea for 8-9 years and Japan for 2-3 years...
It didn't personally happen to me because I've had money, but my friends and some family members got denied while I was there.
If you ask anyone from Korea, you'd know that what I say it clearly the truth.
It's on news time to time and also in dramas/movies where they depict this very clearly.[/quote]

Sorry, lies aren't going to work. You have not lived in Korea for 8 years and Japan for 3.
Please answer the following questions

1. What is your nationality?
2. How old are you?
3. Where in South Korea and Japan did you live, and for what reasons did you move there?

Once again, where is your actual source for this information? You can claim anything you want about something. I can claim that ice cream is the most healthy food ever invented. I can claim that scientology is proven true because Hubbard's "Dramas" say so. Anyone can say anything they want, but you need an actual source for your information to prove it. I want you to prove to me that Korean and Japanese hospitals "demand payment in full" before treatment, because that is bullsh--. Oh, and the opinions of friends and television dramas don't prove opinions to be true. For that matter, I have never seen a korean/japanese drama that depicts people getting denied treatment. What is this drama you speak of?

South Korean and Japan cannot deny people because they don't directly pay to hospitals. Only in America does that happen because in America, you pay for it up front, at the hospital. In South Korea, and Japan, healthcare is payed for from the single-payer pool, which is payed through by taxes. Hospitals cannot immediately check if you have payed or not because once again, they get money from the pool. I wonder if you even know what a single payer system is, because in a single payer system, it is impossible to assess if someone has "payed in full or not" because once again, money is sent to the pool via taxes. Noone pays hospitals directly up front.

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/101476/E93762.pdf
http://www.coopami.org/en/countries/other_countries/south_korea/social_protection/pdf/south_korean_health_care_system.pdf
http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/1/63.short