Talk:Universal health care

top

How do you edit to add? The Austrian Health System should be covered since there is a great article on it from the JAMA. I am not a Wiki editor, but thought someone who knows how to do this editing should read and write an Austrian section.

Charles L. Bennett; Bernhard Schwarz; Michael Marberger Health Care in Austria: Universal Access, National Health Insurance, and Private Health Care JAMA, Jun 1993; 269: 2789 - 2794.

(67.184.121.92 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)). 

Proposed text on Mexico

Mexico's Universal Health Care

http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/en/press/?contenido=40872

Accompanied by state governor Leonel Godoy Rangel and Health Secretary José Ángel Córdova Villalobos, President Calderón declared that regardless of the country's accumulated lag in health and the number of years that have elapsed without dealing with the problem, this Administration is determined to deal with it. Proof of this, he declared, is that in 2009, Federal Government will assign $133 billion pesos to this sector, in other words, 20% more than in 2008. He added that over the past two years, the amount of resources assigned to the Health Secretary have doubled, while the amount allocated for Popular Insurance has risen from $16 to $48 billion pesos. “I am convinced that Mexico will only be a more equitable, fairer country when every Mexican has guaranteed, quality medical care," he stated. The President announced that the Hospital he opened in this municipality involved over $50 million pesos in investment from his administration and will benefit the northeast and east region of Michoacán. He added that this General Hospital, which he suggested should be called the Bicentennial Hospital, will have six specialties: Pediatrics, gyneco-obstetrics, internal medicine, surgery, anesthesiology and dentistry, in addition to traumatology, since it is located in the middle of the Mexico-Guadalajara highway. “If we go on like this, to celebrate the Bicentennial, by 2011, Mexico will be one of the few countries in the world to have achieved universal health coverage," he explained.

Mexico is going to accomplish public universal health care by 2011

Mexico 2

I've deleted the following text from the "Americas" section:

????? Mexico has Universal Health care for the children who were born since January 5th, 2007...please do not delete this information, just edit it. read the info here http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/mexico/593939.html

The tone is non-encyclopedic, and since the source isn't in English, it's impossible for a non-Spanish speaker to verify. If this information is correct (and I have no reason to believe that it is not), we need someone who can verify it and (ideally) find an English-language source, and then we need to rework the text to make it more encyclopedic. Depending on how much information is available, it may be appropriate to create a new subsection for Mexico.

Does Turkey have universal health care?

On July 8, an IP address added to the lead that Turkey doesn't have universal health care ([1]). I reverted that edit, because the original text that asserts that the US is the only wealthy, industrialized nation not to have uhc, was cited to two different sources supporting that assertion, whilst the new text was not supported by those two sources nor did the IP address add its own source(s) to support its assertion. I have asked the address to point out some sources that say Turkey doesn't have uhc, but I thought to bring this query to this talk page; does Turkey have uhc, and if not should we adjust the text in the lead accordingly? Otumba (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkey is a very big and poulous country but it is neither heavily industialized (its still 30% agricultural) nor particularly wealthy. Its per capita GDP is 92nd in the world putting it between Mauritius and Belarus. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html?countryName=Turkey&countryCode=tu&regionCode=me&rank=92#tu --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

IP Comments

Not only in the US section, but the entire article is 100% pro socialized healthcare. There is no talk about rationing bodies in the UK and Canada, and the "facts" stating that life expectancy is the lowest in the US in completely false. There is also no mention that most Americans are satisfied with health care especially at the beginning of 2008 before we were told there was a "crisis" with our system. Also no mention that of the 47 mil that dont have insurance in the US, 50% arent even citizens and another 10 mil make 75k or more and chose not to purchase it. And finally there is no mention of the millions of people from other countries who come here because their systems either wont spend the money to heal them or that our care is superior. The American health system as it is, is one of the best in the world. We provide inovation and the latest equipment to the entire world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to make this a little more fair in the respect that the entire article glorifies universal health care, but reading the replies to everyone else i understand now why it is so liberal in the first place. Dont try and make this article seem like universal is the way to go by supporting it with entirely liberal sources. This isnt the huffington post its supposed to be a biased online encyclopedia. If our system is so bad, why do millions flock here every year to see our doctors? exaclty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased (not biased).

There is also no mention that most Americans are satisfied with health care especially at the beginning of 2008 before we were told there was a "crisis" with our system.

• Under the United States heading under Politics: "Most Americans report satisfaction with their own personal health care."
• Your edits were reverted due to their violation of WP:V

--Jorfer (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Realise that any article talking about peoples access to medical attention is going to come across like having access to medical attention is a good thing 92.2.108.233 (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Realise that the problem in America is not peoples access to medicine; hosptials are legally required to treat any patient that enters. The problem is the cost to some people, especially those with pre-existing conditions. All Obama has to do is regulate prices. It also seems like nobody has updated the info on this page, like for instance the fact that more americans are now opposed to the president's proposed bill, and even more are happy with their current plan. There is no evidence that a government run health plan is any better than a free market anywhere in the world. It may be cheaper for the individual, but seniors recieve less coverage, long waits for ordinary procedures are unavoidable, and quality of care and innovation drop dramatically, and these things can NOT be argued. Please, in the name of journalism and unbiased info sources, make this article less bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how single-payer *insurance* reduces innovation in any way, I'd like to see some verified information on that. I could see how a public *healthcare* system would reduce innovation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.240.133 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read through the article and it's pretty damn well unacceptable as is. I'll be making sourced edits this weekend to improve arguments against healthcare, because a number of arguments were skimmed and removed. --170.97.167.61 (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservatives statement

OK we obviously disagree on this paragraph:

Conservatives can favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes.

Reference

A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage, Randall Hoven, December 12, 2007

Not just is conservatives ability to favor universal health care being listed in that section an Ad hominem argument against non-conservatives (conservatives can support it, so Universal Health Care should be approved), but it is a statement that takes a very diverse group of people and concludes a common attribute...that needs more sourcing than an editorial. That wording also reads like and advertisement.--Jorfer (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but you don't seem to know what Ad hominem means. The argument that conservatives can support it for the reasons listed in that section IS an argument in favor of UHC, not only for the reasons listed, but because it shows it's possible to get conservative support. And it doesn't say all conservatives support it (obviously) but that there are good reasons that align with traditional conservative interests that would allow conservatives to support it.

Also it would be possible to both cut spending and cut taxes. Mystylplx (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mystylplx here. The viewpoint was specifically the reasons why conservatives should support UHC. So just presenting the argument supporting the premise wihout mentioning the premise itself is not doing the reader any favors.--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

An argument is an argument regardless of who it persuades. To say that one one person's support is more important than another person's support is definitely Ad hominem (if conservatives support it than I should support it). The ability to get conservative support is an argument to pursue Universal Health Care but not one for Universal Health Care itself. As it is written, it implies all conservatives. If it wasn't for the mentioned problem, "many conservatives" and "should be" would have to be used to clarify and make clear that it is speculation.--Jorfer (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing ad hominem about it. There's no personal attacks and it is not saying "if conservatives support it then I should." That's not what it's saying at all. It's giving reasons why conservatives can support it. That's all.

Your point that this is an argument to pursue UHC but not an argument for UHC is, I think, an accurate distinction, but too fine a distinction to make any difference. Mystylplx (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Again I agre ewith Mystylplx. The "ad hominem" argument makes no sense and must be a misunderstanding of the term. The simple matter is that the article espoused why conservatives should support the bill. The argument is of cource not irrelevant but the issue was a philopsophical one about whether Action A or Action B is better. You can agree or diagree with the argument but you cannot pretend the argument has not been made or rhat it cannot be discussed encylopediacally (if tht word exists).

The distinction may seem subtle, but it makes a big difference. Conservatives are part of a systematic (that of the government) argument in determining the fruitfulness of pursuing Universal Health Care since conservatives are a part of the system, but are not an aspect of the Universal Health Care system itself. Thus conservatives are irrelevant in the second case. Also, to say that conservatives can support something is a psychological estimation, which is much more difficult to prove than to state something like "is compatible with conservative principles such as" and thus would require better sourcing. It would be an argument from definition if conservatism was defined strictly enough and thus would not require much sourcing, but it is not.--Jorfer (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "is compatible with conservative principles" is actually better wording, and is also supported (maybe even more supported) by the cited source. I would not be opposed to changing it to that.

Let's put this into perspective--the section is about arguments that have been made, for and against, UHC. It's not our job as writers/editors for an encyclopedia to make judgments about the quality of those arguments (WP:OR), but merely to faithfully summarize those arguments as they have been made. The cited source for that particular argument is all about why conservatives can support UHC, or alternative wording, how UHC is compatible with conservative principles. Both, the arguments in isolation, as well as the point that they are in alignment with conservative principles, (conservatives being most often the chief opponents of UHC) are arguments in favor (of pursuing, or otherwise) of UHC. Does that make sense to you? Mystylplx (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well if the argument is wholly wrong and one can prove it then it is fair game to challenge it. For example one might accept that UHC based on single payer could lower costs but this has to be balanced against potential issues of choice (for example, will the single payer system pay for the branded medicine I have always used or do I have to switch to a cheaper generic? If that trade off had to be made and you felt choice of medicine was more important tham cost, a conervative might not go for the cheaper option.--Hausk

Only if the challenge can be backed up by reliable sources. And in this case the section is 'arguments for and against' so the challenge would have to be that the arguments have not been made rather than that the arguments are faulty. If the arguments have been put forth by reliable sources then they deserve inclusion in that section, whether we agree with them or not.Mystylplx (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR applies to the actual content. It does not apply to the determination of the inclusion or copyediting as policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV restrict what content comes in and how it is to be presented. It also does not apply to the analysis of the reliability of an article even if it from a reliable source as you can see in Talk:Accelerated Christian Education#Third opinion starting at "Rspeer said that I made no suggestion on how to fix the problem...".--Jorfer (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as the content and how it's presented, I'd say the current version does a pretty good job of presenting the content from the citation, though I really do like your suggestion of "compatible with conservative principles" better. As far as the reliability of the article, I'd say it's a reliable enough source to count in the section in question. Again, the section in question is merely a listing of arguments that have been made, both for and against. By it's very nature this is not Wikipedia making these arguments, but simply detailing the arguments that are 'out there.' That doesn't mean we have to include any nutjob who thinks UHC is mandated by the alien overlords, or conversely, will destroy the planet, but any argument in a reliable source deserves mention in that section. Mystylplx (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It should not be used as a source at all, as it a man's personal opinion. And he even admits, in the piece, that it is -not- compatible with conservative principles. The crux of his case is that that the only thing compatible with very conservative, or his own librertatioan principles, would be for the government to stop interfering all together- but since the government is interferring, he thinks we should get our money's worth. This piece, being pure opinion, and not that of any historical figure or person of note regarding health care, should not be used - and it does not make a convincing case nor a support for a conservative platform for universal healthcare, so it is extremely misleading.

Article for Deletion proposal Shona Holmes

Editors to this article may wish to know that the article Shona Holmes (who has appeared in advertsements and in congress campaiging against health care reform and especially against single payer) has been nominated for deletion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shona_Holmes_(3rd_nomination)#Shona_Holmes Please feel free to add your comments about this proposed deletion as you see fit. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cuba?

There should be a section on Cuba (main article: Healthcare in Cuba). They have one of the best health care systems in the world, despite economic hardships.--87.162.34.82 (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to start one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Politics Section - Merge with Health care reform in the United States

The politics section begins by waffling about far reaching changes being necessary to health care systems globally. This is, surely, disputable. The document it quotes does not even appear to be in the public domain. I suspect the main reason for this preamble is to justify the sections that follow, which re-iterate all the arguments going on in the United States. The fact is that most health care systems around the world with UHC do not seem to have the same problems that the US has.

Because the U.S. does not actually have a UHC system and the political issues being played out in the U.S. are covered in other articles, I would argue that most of this politics section does not belong in this article. It should be merged into Health care reform in the United States with a reference to this main article being put in its place. Comments please. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The standard for for sourcing is WP:RS which does not indicate any preference toward public domain sourcing over sources not in the public domain. As for the location of the section, there has been a consensus established that it should be here (see Talk:Health care in the United States#Debate section should be deleted or moved.), but that may have changed over time of course.--Jorfer (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But also has to be verifiable and I cannot see how it can be verified. And as for the suggestion that it be moved here - I think you misread the section. It referred to a section on pros and cons in that article and not an addition here. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and delete the section. There are better articles carrying this stuff.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The section is verifiable as arguments (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion), which is why no one has raised this as an issue with it. This section has a long history. User:Wikidea said on Talk:Health care#Merging Universal health care into Health care: "...the debate on universal health care, which is now found under the politics section of Health care in the United States because it's a very US specific debate." This merge proposition is part of a temporary mess that was caused by a bold move to redirect Universal Health Care to Health Care. It was originally here and was moved to Health care in the United States in the merge. Since the merge ultimately failed, I took the suggestion it be relocated back, as reflecting the consensus the merge was a bad idea.--Jorfer (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Hauskalainen you're being a WP:ASSHOLE. That was a good section and now I can't get ANY of the references. If there's a way to restore the hard work that was put into that, and possibly suspend Hauskalainen, I would greatly appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.175.26 (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2009

I stand by my argument. The United States of America does not have Universal Health Care but many countries do have it. It is crazy to have such a large section devoted to politics in the United States and say nothing about health care politics in the countries that actually DO have Universal Health Care. I wouldn't mind if the politics in the U.S. actually reflected political debate about health care in the countries which have Universal Health Care, but as far as I can see, it simply does not. There are places in Wikipedia for texts such as these such Health care in the United States for example, and even that other article Health care reform in the United States (which is highly biased in what it includes and especially what it omits - see my recent on its talk page. Other editors are welcome to try and fix it or get it deleted, nut I for one will no longer edit it). But the text I deleted certainly does not belong here. If you need the references you can easily get them from history but most of the text has been culled from other articles en bloc. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is certainly not an appropriate place for a discussion of US health care politics. Fact is, the US doesn't have a universal health care system. This version, as rewritten by Huskalainian, with minor follow-ups by The Squicks and myself, is adequate and appropriate for this topic. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that much of this material discussed above is already in Health care reform in the United States. I've reverted the recent insertion of this disorganized block of material from Health care in the United States. Speaking as just one WP user, I have no objection to inserting the rest of it into either Health care reform in the United States or Health care reform debate in the United States. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going off Hausk suggestion without realizing that the Health Care in the United States article is more organized than is used to be, the section was there for a while, and the debate section is a summary. My mistake. The text is now available at User:Jorfer/Sandbox if you want to try to incorporate the information that is not already in the reform article.--Jorfer (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for saving it for potential future use of its various components. The bullet-list of pro and con arguments remains in Health care reform in the United States#Common_arguments_for_and_against_health_care_reform, and at some point in time will likely need to be cleaned up as well. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I come back to this article every few months - it is much improved from a few months ago! Good stuff --Nmcclana (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)