I agree. I have no problem with Medicare for all and free college tuition as an ideal. But show me how it is going to be paid for before I sign up. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXXSR Point 1: If you think I am in favor of socialized medicine:
the thing with socialism, in order for it to work, there needs to be certain type of sharing mindset. Originally Posted by dilbert firestormIf you look at the examples of failed systems of the past...you compare the population to those running the country. It's a very "do as I say, not as I do" behavior. For example AOC decries pollution....wants us all to give up every luxury that creates pollution....while being driven around NYC in an Escalade and flying personal jets around the country. The faux socialists who advocate socialism for the masses are nothing but hypocrites who live in Ivory Towers where the rules "don't apply" to them.
I like how Socialists point to Scandinavian countries as some kind of "it works there so well, so it will work here" kind of example. What they fail at (miserably) is pointing out the differences between the US and the Scandinavian countries...and the differences are HUGE...A few examples: Los Angeles COUNTY has a higher population than any one of these COUNTRIES...these populations are largely HOMOGENOUS...with VERY FEW ILLEGALS...and none of them are the worlds sole superpower. Talk about comparing apples to freight trains...sheesh! Originally Posted by FriscoKiddoEven with those advantages, the USA comes out on top. Here's GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power, using World Bank estimates,
the thing with socialism, in order for it to work, there needs to be certain type of sharing mindset. the leftists haven't figured out that we are a very selfish people.I would say the Kibbutz is a good example. America could be a Great Socialist Country if it was transformed into a massive Kibbutz. That would mean one race, one Religion, everyone following the same lock and step.
socialism isn't new. its very ancient. it just been rediscovered time again.
I find it interesting that the one place socialism worked was the israeli kibbutz and they weren't very happy there.
socialism is a place of misery. it only works when you have nothing. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
I like how Socialists point to Scandinavian countries as some kind of "it works there so well, so it will work here" kind of example... Originally Posted by FriscoKiddoHere is a good refutation of that fallacy:
We'll see if his plan for socialized medicine is good...nothing socialized in medicine is good...please show me some "unvarnished" facts to support this. I can list story after story about the nightmares involved in this Utopian garbage...in a Gumment controlled system where there is no competition the PEOPLE ARE THE ONE THAT SUFFER...PERIOD!!Probably not a good one to argue bb. The USA health care system fits eccielover's description:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi.../#3bdab1f43f2f Originally Posted by bb1961
Most of the failures that get cited with our "system" is from government overreach and control, not true capitalist actions. The government rigs the system and people are surprised, than call capitalism a failure and ask for more government control.Britain spends less than half of what we do per person on health care, but the population lives two years longer. Not that we should be looking to the Brits as a model. Some other countries do better still, and for the same cost or less.
It's not capitalism failing, it government manipulation failing as it almost always does. Originally Posted by eccielover
Probably not a good one to argue bb. The USA health care system fits eccielover's description:Some of the statistic of longevity in other countries isn't due to their Health care system it's more attributed to their diet and life style. Americans have the worst diet which attributes to sickness over time such as Obesity, Heart Disease, cancer ect. Indonesia for instance will see a huge spike in Tobacco related Health problems very soon since 95% of the population smokes in contrast to America which is about 35%.
Britain spends less than half of what we do per person on health care, but the population lives two years longer. Not that we should be looking to the Brits as a model. Some other countries do better still, and for the same cost or less.
We don't have a free market in health care. Drug companies charge whatever they want. People don't shop around for cost effective medical care. We don't even know how much things cost.
As to Obama's Affordable Care Act, the Democrats basically doubled down on a failed system. And they paid for it with a tax on investment and savings, which are what drive economic and employment growth. Universal health care makes sense in other countries, but it needs to be delivered efficiently, and politicians at the federal level apparently are incapable of making that happen. Democrats just want to throw more money at something that already accounts for 17% of GDP. Actually we spend 6.6% of GDP just on Medicare and Medicaid, and that doesn't count Obamacare subsidies. Singapore spends 4.5% of GDP total, for everyone in the country, and they live four years longer than we do. And the Singapore government's expenditure on health care is only 1.6% of GDP. Maybe we should be taking lessons from them. Originally Posted by Tiny
Levianon, You're right. Diet in Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore is better than ours. However people in many European countries, Australia and Israel live longer than we do, and pay a lot less for health care. Can you explain all of that on us eating worse and sitting on our asses more? Unlikely I think, but possible. I don't think the argument that we need to pay twice as much as other people for worse outcomes because of our lifestyles is a good one.The cost of Healthcare is not a definitive factor in how long someone will live. The main factor as far as Healthcare is concerned is the quality and what procedures the Government will pay for, in terms of the persons overall health, age and their present medical issue. Your last sentence sums that up. When a person pays a Healthcare premium in America that Policy for the most part will cover a wide range of treatments, Drugs and Procedures. In Countries that have Socialized medicine they may not cover what a Doctor may specify as the Optimum treatment.
It's not just longevity. We're 44th in the world for maternal death rates, behind Libya and Bosnia. In infant mortality we're number 56, behind Bosnia, and Cuba. Admittedly though, if you've got cancer or need open heart surgery, the USA is a very good place to live. Originally Posted by Tiny
The cost of Healthcare is not a definitive factor in how long someone will live. The main factor as far as Healthcare is concerned is the quality and what procedures the Government will pay for, in terms of the persons overall health, age and their present medical issue. Your last sentence sums that up. When a person pays a Healthcare premium in America that Policy for the most part will cover a wide range of treatments, Drugs and Procedures. In Countries that have Socialized medicine they may not cover what a Doctor may specify as the Optimum treatment. Originally Posted by Levianon17Levianon, All true. I'd add we should get quality commensurate with what we pay for, and prices shouldn't be jacked up to ridiculous levels because there's no price competition, and failing that, no regulation of prices.