That's funny. Sadly, it kinda relates to how people against the whole healtcare reform are attacking it. It's like they see anything offered for free is an act of communism. Unfortunately, stuff still costs under communism; you just feel less of an effect and also in different ways. And why are we so afraid nowadays about the return of communism? Is it really the only crutch conservative republicans can lean on for leverage so that the world doesn't change? That sounds more like communism than unified healthcare.
Communism stresses de-individualization and lack of progress in favor of group effort and self-substantiation as a whole. Other than that people would be free to do what they want. It's when you add control over citizens actions that it becomes sticky and begins to seem that it is all evil.
Communism =/= Socialism
Socialized medicine =/= Socialist country.
That is all.
I think it was a huge victory when Jon Stewart got Billy Kristol to admit that the best health care in the US goes to the armed forces (which is government run). Find the clip and watch the look on Kritol's face when he realizes how big he just screwed up for saying that.
Also, in footage of the senate finance committee debate last night, one of the republicans had to admit that medicare is a good system (and is government run). The republicans are spiraling into worse and worse arguments now as they keep conceding and conceding that government CAN run big programs well.
The most enjoyable was Cantor's recent town hall meeting where he advised a woman that if she can't afford treatment that she should sell her house, all her stuff, and go bankrupt...cuz then she'd qualify for medicaid (a government run program!). Failing that, she could try to find a charity It's really like these people aren't even listening to themselves speak.
Then again, thats been happening to the rich for a long time now (before I was born), now its time for the middle class to be you know what. :P
So, the USA can stand to spend a lot less on its health care. Why is it spending so much, you ask? Mostly because the private health companies are pigs at the trough...they overcharge the government for the services they provide. Furthermore, the citizen themselves are overcharged.
In Canada, we have socialized single-payer health care AND private insurance on top. The private companies are doing quite well, they will tell you...but they pale in the glut that the US companies get to indulge in. It's not merely government inefficiency that causes the USA to spend so much for so little...it's because of who they're buying the coverage from! They contract out so much to for-profit companies without sufficient negotiation on price. They're just giving money away to the tune of billions each year.
It has been stated that the senate finance committee's bill would amount to a further 50billion PER YEAR giveaway to the insurance companies.
It would sure be nice if americans would actually look around the world to see for themselves how others are doing it for better for cheaper...before they denounce the idea as absurd. The US is absurd for not having universal health care...the last standout of the whole OECD, IIRC. I thought you guys were supposed to be leaders?
I think it was Hong Kong that a few years ago wanted to create a health care system from scratch. So, there was a documentary (I wish I remembered the name because it was so good) where they went from developed country to country (USA, Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea) comparing the pros/cons. You know what? The USA didn't have a single 'pro'! They rejected the US system almost immediately and out of hand...it's just THAT bad. But, too many americans (republicans have said this a LOT on air recently) still think that USA has the best health care system in the world. Well, you don't. What you may have is some of the best (maybe even the best!) doctors in the world...but that's not a system. Your system sucks even if you have it stocked with all the talent in the world.
My point was on a case by case basis and it was based upon socialized medical care.
Also do we keep forgetting America has a lot more people then say iceland, japan and canada.. most likely combined at that. Just because something can work on a small scale nation doesn't mean it can and will work for a massive one.
So, Finland is ~25x smaller than Japan, therefore Japan must spend 25x more per capita than Finland to run a good health care system...right? That's your logic?
So, by reverse logic, because Iceland is ~17x SMALLER than Finland, Iceland should spend far less, not more, per capita...right? That's your logic?
There's effectively no difference in administration costs per capita in delivering health care for a nation of 30 million than for 300million. Health care for 30million is not 'small scale'. You don't seem to understand how systems scale up/down.
Canada spends 5.4% of GDP on education, the USA 4.8%, UK 4.5%, France 5.8%. So, are you saying that the USA's education system can't possibly work because your country is too large? That it needs to spend more per capita than other industrialized nations just because it's bigger? That's exactly what you're suggesting, but it's false. It's false because the administration costs don't balloon with expanding populations. It's called economy of scale. It's what your entire country/economy is based on! It's cheaper, per unit, to produce 1000 units of something than to produce 10. When you scale things up, things become cheaper, per capita, because the administration fees drop relative to each new person added. So, it should be an advantage to be the USA and be so large...the USA should have a per capita spending advantage, not a disadvantage!
Your point was on a case by case basis...meaning what? Individual people? But that's exactly the point: on average, case by case, americans are doing worse than any other developed nation. And, those nations have socialized health care and the US does not. Your argument is false on every front, confirmation found in accessible fact.
It is interesting what medical providers charge when someone else is paying the bill. We get a bill every month for doing home dialysis for my wife, $30,000. Our doctor says it only costs $8,500., however. I'm not sure why there is this large a discrepancy, but our hospitalization plan pays 80% and Medicare pays for 20%. In June the figures reverse, with our hospitalization paying 20% and Medicare paying 80%.
Now here's the catch. Our hospitalization provider says they will not pay the 20% because that's duplication of services. My wife tried to explain to them that it's not duplication, just their part. They say they won't pay. If that comes about, we will have to pay 20% of $8,500., or of 30,000. a month. At this point, who knows?
This is why we need some sort of regulation. As for having to sell my house and give the proceeds to the poor, which is what it would be, I have another option. It's me standing at the door with the 30.06 and scope picking them all off until the cops kill me. At that point, what does anything matter.