Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Socialist Health Care

  1. Oct 28, 2007 #1
    It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 28, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Post some links to prove that it doesn't work anywhere else. Post some links to prove that the US's infant mortality rate, life expectancy, detection and treatment of preventable diseases, etc, are superior to countries that have universal health care coverage. You're going to have a hard time supporting your opinions because you are dead wrong.
  4. Oct 28, 2007 #3

    http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/ [Broken]
    Here are some good videos, definitely check out "Dead Meat"

    http://www.freemarketcure.com/ [Broken]
    Here is a Good little video about the uninsured in America myth

    This one pertains directly to infant mortality


    Just a few that came to mind
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  5. Oct 28, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You have posted links to right-wing sites that support your skewed view with no reliable statistics. Post some links to independent comparative reviews of the parameters that I suggested, including reviews of the total cost of health care in universal-coverage scenarios and the US system.

    Among developed countries, where does the US rank in infant mortality, longevity, incidence of preventable disease, and cost of health-care? You seem not to care for facts, just rhetoric.
  6. Oct 28, 2007 #5
    Did you look at any of the videos, or read the articles? Because I used to be in favor of universal health care until I read the opposing views. For example how do you define the cause of infant mortality. Over 50% of the deaths are from premature births in the U.S., not infections or bad care, you can only do so much to help a premature baby. Death rate statistics dont control for murders (includes suicide), car accidents and accidental deaths, which have nothing to do with health care.

    Besides one of my source is the New York Times, they are as left wing as you can get.
  7. Oct 28, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, I did look at some of the videos. And if you think the New York Times is left-wing and that everything printed in it is left-wing, you have some learning to do. Have you ever heard of Judith Miller (apologist for Bush's attack on Iraq)?
  8. Oct 28, 2007 #7
    'Socialist' Health Care actually works. Sweden has been ruled by social democracy for the majority of the last 100 years and it is in the top of the UN Human Development Report 2005. What doesn't work is the current US health care system.


    An interesting look at the history of the US health care system and what is actually wrong with it, I recommend the book The Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health by Laurie Garrett. Basically, it is underfunded and they have wrong priorities. Their focus should be public health.

    Oh, by the way, the US has had 'socialist' health care for the past 30 years or more. Ever heard of medicaid and medicare?
  9. Oct 28, 2007 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It works pretty well here (Sweden).

    (And now I see that this was what Moridin wrote above.)

    Just another comment: You are so biased over there.
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2007
  10. Oct 28, 2007 #9
    What is the tax rate in sweden?

    There are good arguements 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.

    yeah and those programs have been complete disasters.

    Overall though I dunno, I'm still on the edge either way.

    btw turbo, NY times is definately not right wing ;)
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2007
  11. Oct 28, 2007 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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).
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2007
  12. Oct 28, 2007 #11
    http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/574/a/30215;jsessionid=alEtytpI1O_5 [Broken]

    The public sector has responsibility for many services in Sweden, including education, labor market and industrial policies, health care, pensions and other social security, as well as environmental protection. Swedish taxes are relatively high, the revenue however goes back to the taxpayers in the form of public service. It is not like in the US where tax dollars just go missing =P

    Personally, I do not think that I agree fully with either the current republican and democrat suggestions / strategies.

    Sweden and the US cannot really be compared, not now at least. Sweden has not spent trillions of $$ on war. That makes politics a lot harder in the US, for obvious reasons.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  13. Oct 28, 2007 #12
    But ultimately, lowering price does not lower cost. Why should pharmaceutical companies continue to pump what has been said 900 million per drug in research and development. You lower insurance and medical care prices, but that drug development cost does not change. What also won't change is the cost to goto medical school. Doctors will make less, and maybe new students will not think it's a good idea anymore and become lawyers. After all, britian outsources nearly 60% of their doctors now :wink:
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2007
  14. Oct 28, 2007 #13
    Perhaps, but it is important to remember that those programs have saved millions of people and limited the scale of epidemic outbreaks that would have effected the rest of the population (TB, AIDS etc.). I agree that they could have been handled much, much better and gotten their priorities straight.
  15. Oct 28, 2007 #14
    Indeed but problem is that thought has been uttered throughout US history and it never magically comes true. I am very skeptical that congress and the white house will suddendly get their act together and make something actually work.
  16. Oct 28, 2007 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Every time there is a transfer of money, there is "friction" that bleeds money off to others. The more steps there are between the payment of insurance money to the final payment to suppliers of medical services, the more layers of denial of coverage, profit-taking, and other black holes that suck up the money, the greater the loss. Universal health care is not socialism/communism as the right-wingers assert. It is a basic, fundamental service that improves the productivity of a nation's work-force and protects our productivity. I live in Maine (surrounded by Canadian provinces)- a state in which the inability of businesses to supply cheap, decent, insurance lets businesses in our Canadian neighbors kick our collective butts.
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2007
  17. Oct 28, 2007 #16
    Hint: See health care in Japan

    Hint: See health care in Japan

    Japanese pay a similar amount of % wage tax as Americans do ( I think it is less), have universal health care, and have the same amount of waiting times as Americans do for health care.

    See page 3 of an OECD study

    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/27/26781192.pdf [Broken]

    Japanese health care is easily one of THE best in the world, why not steal some ideas from them? Japan only spends 6.6% of their entire GDP on health care while Americans spend almost 14% of their entire GDP on health care.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  18. Oct 28, 2007 #17
    it does work in Canada
  19. Oct 28, 2007 #18
    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.
  20. Oct 28, 2007 #19

    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.
  21. Oct 28, 2007 #20
    I am self employed, so I have to pay all of it.

    I agree that Japans system is better.
  22. Oct 28, 2007 #21
    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?
  23. Oct 28, 2007 #22
    How many dems or repubs are pushing for a system like Japan? few probably. The insurance companies are a powerful lobby. Nothing significant in American politics will get done until campaign finance reform is enacted, but when will that ever happen?
  24. Oct 28, 2007 #23
    Pharmaceutical companies are spending 25% of their yearly budgets on commercials like this one.

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  25. Oct 28, 2007 #24
    I think it's pretty funny. I have a hunch most commercial companies spend nearly as much on marketing.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2014
  26. Oct 29, 2007 #25


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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".
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook