t-money
- 32
- 1
It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
The discussion revolves around the effectiveness of socialist health care systems, particularly in comparison to the U.S. health care system. Participants explore various aspects such as infant mortality rates, life expectancy, and the overall quality of health care in countries with universal coverage versus the U.S. system.
Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the effectiveness of socialist health care systems and the U.S. health care system. The discussion reflects a range of opinions and uncertainties about the topic.
Participants express differing views on the reliability of sources and statistics, and there is a lack of agreement on how to define and measure health care outcomes. The discussion includes references to specific countries and their health care systems, but comparisons are complicated by differing national contexts.
It works pretty well here (Sweden).t-money said:It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
yeah and those programs have been complete disasters.Oh, by the way, the US has had 'socialist' health care for the past 30 years or more. Ever heard of medicaid and medicare?
About 30%.Greg Bernhardt said:What is the tax rate in sweden?
turbo-1 said:and cost of health-care?
yeah and those programs have been complete disasters.
Moridin said:I agree that they could have been handled much, much better and gotten their priorities straight.
t-money said:It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
Greg Bernhardt said:What is the tax rate in sweden?
There are good arguments on both ends of the issue. There will be no fantastic solution either way. My girlfriend is living in London for 6 months for work. She mentioned that she wanted to get some dental work done but that she'd most likely wait to get back in the states because there is a 3+ month wait.
I also visited Vancouver over the summer and met with some relatives living there who are older and they have nothing but negative things to say about the system. Long waits and poor service.
t-money said:It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
EL said:About 30%.
On top of that the employer has to pay a similar amount named "social fees" which for example goes to your own pension.
So effectively that will be something like 45% of what the employer pays which goes into taxes and fees (but you'll get some of it back as pension).
That is skewing the facts. The $10K is the average premium for a family. Employers pay most of that 10 grand. Families aren't spending 23% of their income on health insurance.$ for $ Japan still has a much better health care system than Sweden.Skyhunter said:Median American household income which is a better representation than mean or average income is $48,201.
Average American household health insurance policy is $10,880, or 23% of income.
I think the Swedes are getting a better deal. Especially if you consider the fact that if you actually need health care in the US you will pay more. Add to this the taxes already paid for medicare and medicaid and there is little doubt that the Swedes are much better off.
And just because there are flaws in the Canadian and British systems, is in no way evidence that single-payer health care does not work. In fact Sweden is an example that disproves such a conclusion.
Greg Bernhardt said:Ok I think we can all agree having everyone insured is a good idea even if under a universal government system. But here is the problem, there are many proposals. How many of the democrats and pushing for a system like Japan?
edward said:Pharmaceutical companies are spending 25% of their yearly budgets on commercials like this one.
gravenewworld said:$ for $ Japan still has a much better health care system than Sweden.
EL said:Interesting, I don't know much about Japanese health care. What are the main differenses between the systems? I mean, what is it that makes the Japanese system better?
I think it can be pretty hard to compare different kind of systems. For example, the US health care can be really great, for those who can afford it that is. The Swedish system is good in the way it automatically includes everyone. If you are rich, you're probably slightly better off in US though. It all comes down to what you mean by "better".
And this is the problem. Socializing the American system won't fix it. We pay for overtreatment and for malpractice insurance. Take these two down if you want to fix it.gravenewworld said:6.) Japan spends only 6.6% of their GDP on health care. The US 14.6%.
gravenewworld said:1.) Japanese don't pay any where near the amount of taxes like other countries with UH do. They pay less or just about the same as Americans do in income tax.
6.) Japan spends only 6.6% of their GDP on health care. The US 14.6%.
Socializing the American system won't fix it. We pay for overtreatment and for malpractice insurance. Take these two down if you want to fix it.
The American system is not that insane. If someone has a disease of this nature, they will be treated regardless of insurance.Moridin said:Outbreaks do not discriminate between classes in society. The TB outbreaks in New York is a case-in-point.