OmCheeto said:
Imagine driving around in a car for 125 years, and then someone tells you it was a lemon. What a load of crap.
UM...I never said any of those systems (British, French, or German) "don't work," I said that they are all in debt. Also I would not compare the current German system with the one implemented 125 years-ago. Bismarck simply was the first to create a state healthcare system for everyone.
The current German system is a complex combination of public and private. As for the British and French systems, they are having to undergo reforms with regards to spending, rationing, etc...as costs increase. I am sure one could find more info online, but in the book
The Undercover Economist, the author explains some of the problems the British NHS is experiencing. Some of the French system's problems are explained in one of the articles.
Proof? Maybe I've lost my train of thought. Or perhaps the request was a bit vague. hmm...
MechEngineer asked for proof regarding turbo-1's statement that "universal healthcare works well in the rest of the developed world and the sky won't fall if we implement it here."
You responded with a post showing the percentages of GDP each country devotes to healthcare spending and the percentages of the populations that are obese.
My response is how exactly is any of that "proof" that universal healthcare "works well" in the rest of the world and that it would not be a disaster if implemented here?
I then pointed out that of the two single-payer systems we have, Medicare and Medicaid, both have exploding out-of-control costs right now, and are going to have to go through some severe reform or else face very painful cuts soon.
I also pointed out the Massachusettes experiment with universal healthcare, which IS a legitimate issue, because the program's costs blew completely out-of-control and Massachussettes now has the highest health premiums in the nation:
http://www.boston.com/news/health/a...health_insurance_premiums_highest_in_country/
Now there are some working examples lately it seems, such as the VA system I believe, which is single-payer but has made some modifications, such as decentralizing the bureaucracy and also I don't think doctors can be sued for frivolous lawsuits (Ivan Seeking posted an article on this awhile back) and also the Bush Medicare Prescription Drug Program which thus far is managing to pay for itself (
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/16/bush-drug-plan-beats-cost-mark/).
So to just say, "If we implement universal healthcare here, everything will be fine..." is not necessarilly accurate. It doesn't mean it is incorrect either, but I mean if done incorrectly, it could very much be disastrous financially.
Turbo's statement that it "works well" elsewhere, and fact that we spend so much more than anyone else for the same thing, strikes me as proof enough, that something needed to be done.
Sure "something" needed to be done, doesn't mean we need to copy other systems from around the world though.
I see from your "Broken 125 year old German health system" link that Germans spend "14.9% of gross pay" for their healthcare coverage.
...with higher taxes. They have a VAT tax and they are mandated to purchase health insurance, which is a form of a tax.
I also see on my final earnings statement from work this year that 21.7% of my gross pay went to a private HMO.
hmmm... 14.9% or 21.7%? which would I rather pay? Oh no! I think I'm turning Libertarian! I support a system that may one day reduce the money sucked out of my wallet!
Yes, that
may, but it also could explode in costs. In the European nations they may pay less in terms of percentage of income, but they also have higher taxes on the middle income and poor, something that the Democrats don't want to do in America.
EDIT: To be fair, I should say it is something neither party wants to do really, at least not with the current tax system; some mandate reforming the tax code with lower rates, but much fewer exemptions so as to include more people.
In America right now, about 40% pay nothing in Federal income taxes (because of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a Republican innovation, the Child Tax Credit (which was doubled under Bush from $500 to $1000 per child), and an across-the-board reduction of marginal income tax rates (prior to Bush the bottom rates were 15% and 20%, now they are 10% and 15%).
In Europe, they have VAT taxes, which hit everybody, and in countries like Germany, people are mandated to purchase health insurance, which is a form of tax as well. They also can have higher income tax rates.
I don't know if we can have a healthcare system that provides universal coverage, freedom of choice, cost controls, and does all of these with 40% exempted from federal taxes.
And as far as the Massachusetts health care reform act of 2006, I'd say that anything implemented in the last 4 years is probably in financial trouble.
The Massachussettes program was meant to provide universal coverage though without exploding in costs. Some say, "Well, it's on the state level..." yeah, but the states are like policy laboratories. They are micro-versions of America.
Also Medicare and Medicaid are both single-payer systems. One of President Obama's original claims I remember was he wanted to create a form of "Medicare for all..." well okay, but the current Medicare is unsustainable at the moment. Expanding it to everyone would be rather difficult.