Socialist Health Care: Does it Work?

  • News
  • Thread starter t-money
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Health
In summary: Republican or Democrat government in quite some time. The US has had 4 different parties in the last 30 years.
  • #1
t-money
32
1
It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8172

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

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/03/infant_mortality.cfm
This one pertains directly to infant mortality

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/w...2680d22b&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

Just a few that came to mind
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
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.
 
  • #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 don't 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.
 
  • #6
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)?
 
  • #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.

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/

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?
 
  • #8
t-money said:
It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
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:
  • #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.

Oh, by the way, the US has had 'socialist' health care for the past 30 years or more. Ever heard of medicaid and medicare?
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 definitely not right wing ;)
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Greg Bernhardt said:
What is the tax rate in sweden?
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:
  • #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:
  • #12
turbo-1 said:
and cost of health-care?

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:
  • #13
yeah and those programs have been complete disasters.

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.
 
  • #14
Moridin said:
I agree that they could have been handled much, much better and gotten their priorities straight.

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.
 
  • #15
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 let's businesses in our Canadian neighbors kick our collective butts.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
t-money said:
It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?

Hint: See health care in Japan
Greg Bernhardt said:
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.

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:
  • #17
t-money said:
It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?

it does work in Canada
 
  • #18
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).

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.
 
  • #19
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.
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.
 
  • #20
I am self employed, so I have to pay all of it.


I agree that Japans system is better.
 
  • #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?
 
  • #22
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?

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?
 
  • #23
Pharmaceutical companies are spending 25% of their yearly budgets on commercials like this one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
edward said:
Pharmaceutical companies are spending 25% of their yearly budgets on commercials like this one.



I think it's pretty funny. I have a hunch most commercial companies spend nearly as much on marketing.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
gravenewworld said:
$ for $ Japan still has a much better health care system than Sweden.

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".
 
  • #26
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".

Well before I go to work I will list several quick reasons: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.2.) Everyone has access to health care

3.) there really doesn't exist incredible waiting times for health care like there are in Canada and England (see OECD report)

4.) There is a lower hospital death rate in Japan due to mistakes by doctors than in the US

5.) Better equipped ( this is arguable). In the US, advanced technology is spotty in hospitals throughout the country. For example, Japan has 20+ MRI scanners per 10,000 people while in the US it is something around 10-15 MRI scanners per 10,0000 if I remember correctly.

6.) Japan spends only 6.6% of their GDP on health care. The US 14.6%.No time for listing sources. Time to go to work. Too Da Loo
 
  • #27
gravenewworld said:
6.) Japan spends only 6.6% of their GDP on health care. The US 14.6%.
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.
 
  • #28
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.

Sounds nice. But could it be that a larger fraction of the taxes goes into health care in Japan compared to other countries with UH? Maybe the the total amount of money put specifically into the health system isn't that much smaller in Japan? (I'm just speculating.)
 
  • #29
6.) Japan spends only 6.6% of their GDP on health care. The US 14.6%.

Actually, the US is more like 16%. For comparison, Sweden is 9.2% of GDP.

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 US health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care or treatment. They spend $6,697 per person in 2005. Sweden has $2594 per capital spending.

About 50 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens. People do not have the money for insurance. Naturally, the US could get a lot of better health care for the privileged if they just ignored care of those 50 million.

Individualism in all honor, but to get the goods, you pay the price. But why should privileged people pay for the underprivileged when it comes to health care? Outbreaks do not discriminate between classes in society. The TB outbreaks in New York is a case-in-point.

Globalization has pushed communities against one and other when it comes to health care. I think it is time for public health to find a way to bridge the gaps and bring the US towards a rational and singular public health community because the health of one individual rises or falls with the health of all others. How to do this is another question.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/communicable/tuberculosis/fact_sheet.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=7993412&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/opinion/14thu2.html
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/PieChartSourcesExpenditures2005.pdf [Broken]
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml [Broken]
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st286/images/table-3.gif [Broken]
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/25/34970222.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Moridin said:
Outbreaks do not discriminate between classes in society. The TB outbreaks in New York is a case-in-point.
The American system is not that insane. If someone has a disease of this nature, they will be treated regardless of insurance.
 
  • #31
jimmysnyder said:
The American system is not that insane. If someone has a disease of this nature, they will be treated regardless of insurance.

Provided that a person with poor health, lack of education and lack of insurance understands that. Provided that the person understands that it is crucial to take the medication for years. Provided that the person is not being forced to sell the medicine for cash to buy food or rent to survive instead of taking them. I think that it takes public health imperatives both in education and a less hostile environment.
 
  • #32
Moridin said:
Actually, the US is more like 16%. For comparison, Sweden is 9.2% of GDP.

Offcourse the downside with healthcare in sweden is that the waiting time for some routine surgery can be well over a year. Not to mention the entire system is a bit unflexible and to bureaucratic.

The avarage american probably has acess to better healthcare than the avarage swede.
 
  • #33
Moridin said:
Provided that a person with poor health, lack of education and lack of insurance understands that. Provided that the person understands that it is crucial to take the medication for years. Provided that the person is not being forced to sell the medicine for cash to buy food or rent to survive instead of taking them. I think that it takes public health imperatives both in education and a less hostile environment.
All true. And the lack of on-going screening and regular checkups for uninsured people can ensure that people who are vectors (highly contagious, but mobile) will continue to infect others. Denial of health-care for one class of a society has some serious potential risks for the rest of society. Let's say that you've got a migrant farm worker with no credentials and he or she is infected with a contagious disease, and follows hand-tending and harvest seasons from coast to coast, cutting lettuce in CA, digging onions in GA, picking apples in NY, harvesting and packing broccoli in northern ME, then back to CA to harvest grapes... This person has no access to health care, and unless they are much too sick to work, they will continue to work and infect others as they are transported around in vans and buses by the brokers that supply migrant labor. Homeless people are in the same boat regarding access to preventive health care, though they are less mobile. Here in the US, we often take a parochial "it can't happen here" attitude and point out Equatorial Africa, China and SE Asia as problematic places that might be the source of the next killer pandemic, but our own house is not in order. We have a very large segment of our population with little or no access to preventive health care and much of our population is highly mobile, unlike people in rural communities in other countries so some really deadly stuff could race through our country much faster than medical professionals can respond to it.
 
  • #34
Azael said:
Offcourse the downside with healthcare in sweden is that the waiting time for some routine surgery can be well over a year.
Really? I know it could be like that some years ago, but thought it had shaped up a bit since then.
 
  • #35
jimmysnyder said:
The American system is not that insane. If someone has a disease of this nature, they will be treated regardless of insurance.

of course someone would get treated in America if they had something wrong with them, regardless if they had insurance or not. However, this doesn't mean that that person isn't going to pay! Hospitals hire collection agencies all the time to collect on bills, file lawsuits against uninsured patients, and in some states can even go into patients' bank accounts without written patient authorization in order to collect on unpaid bills. Sure a hospital will treat you for your broken leg if you are uninsured, but the hard question is how are you going to afford to pay $30,0000 in order for that surgery to fix your broken leg if you are uninsured?
jimmysnyder said:
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.
This is the typical argument that insurance companies use in order to justify their existence. While it is true that we must all pay for malpractice and overtreatment, the amount is no where near a significant % of the amount of the total overall spending on healthcare.

Evidence from states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4968&type=0Even if you look at states with caps on tort liability, malpractice insurance/overall spending on health care hasn't really gone down. Sorry but the "over treatment/malpractice" is one of the weakest excuses to explain why America spends so much on health care. Americans spend a disgusting amount on health care because of overhead costs associated with insurance companies. Another huge factor is the fact that preventative medicine is poorly practiced in America once again due to insurance complications and lack of access to adequate health care for millions of Americans. When preventative health care is not practiced, patients with poor access to preventative measures (like the uninsured) end up in the ER which is the most expensive and least effective form of treatment available.
Azael said:
The avarage american probably has acess to better healthcare than the avarage swede.
Do you honestly believe that? 1 million+ children in this country do not receive all of the recommended vaccinations by physicians solely because of insurance reasons/affordability issues. This was even after they were referred to public clinics! Children who don't receive all of their vaccinations are not only a threat to themselves, but to the public in general. Yes, that's right, Insurance BS puts the general public health at risk in some cases. "Gaps in Vaccine Financing for Underinsured Children in the United States"-JAMA

Despite high vaccination coverage
and low incidence rates of most vaccinepreventable
diseases,3,4 anecdotal reports
from state policy makers and clinicians
suggest that the US vaccine
financing system is under increasing
strain. Childhood vaccines in the United
States are financed by a patchwork of
public and private sources.5 Children
who are privately insured often have insurance
coverage for vaccines (BOX).
However, some children are enrolled in
private health insurance plans that do
not cover the cost of vaccines and they
are considered underinsured for immunization.
In 2000, it was estimated
that 14% of children aged 0 to 17 years
were underinsured in the United States,
requiring families to either pay out-ofpocket
for the cost of vaccines not covered
or forgo receiving vaccines.Among clinical preventive services,
childhood immunization has been
ranked at the top in terms of health impact
and cost-effectiveness by the National
Commission of Prevention Priorities.
15 Despite the benefits of
childhood vaccination and the high coverage
rates achieved with older childhood
vaccines,3 our study demonstrated
gaps in the financing of new
vaccines for children who are underinsured
with respect to vaccination. Assuming
14% of children are underinsured
in the United States, we estimate
that 2.3 million children are unable to
receive state-purchased meningococcal
conjugate vaccine in the private sector,
and 1.2 million children are unable
to receive this vaccine even if they
are referred to the public sector. Due
to lack of funds to purchase newer vaccines
for children who are not VFC eligible,
many states have adopted more
restrictive policies for provision of publicly
purchased vaccines since 2004.
The lack of sufficient section 317 funding
and state funding for vaccine purchase
has led some states to provide vaccine
to VFC-eligible children but not
to underinsured children. Disparities
among states are worse for the most expensive
and newest vaccines, including
pneumococcal conjugate, meningococcal
conjugate, and hepatitis A
vaccines.
The public sector safety net for offering
vaccine to underinsured children
seems to be under considerable
strain. Past studies have suggested that
many private clinicians refer underinsured
children to public health clinics
for vaccination.16,17 Unfortunately, a
growing number of states are no longer
able to provide expensive vaccines, such
as the meningococcal conjugate vaccine,
to underinsured children in the
public sector. Furthermore, the proportion
of vulnerable US children
whose insurance plans either do not
cover vaccines or require families to pay
out-of-pocket for preventive care is
likely to grow. A recent article by the
American Academy of Pediatrics found
that 20% of employers are offering catastrophic
health insurance plans (highdeductible
health plans), up from only
5% in 2003, and only 30% of these plans
covered preventive care before the deductible
was met.18,19 These trends are
of concern because inadequate insurance
coverage has been associated with
forgone health care among families who
lack resources.20

Take a look at the article in JAMA. The older vaccines may be inexpensive, but the newer ones that insurance companies won't cover are still very expensive. The cost of vaccines has increased from $155 in 1995 to $1170 in 2007.
Uninsurance poses a threat to the control of communicable disease by delaying the detection, treatment, and reporting of infectious disease outbreaks, which may include emerging infectious agents such as SARS and perhaps someday those linked to bioterrorism. Hospital emergency departments and health departments play critical roles both in infectious disease surveillance and in caring for low-income populations, who are more likely to be uninsured. When high rates of uninsurance make emergency department crowding worse, the capacity of the emergency care system to handle a sudden influx of patients from a natural disaster or terrorist strike is compromised. To meet the burden of caring for the uninsured, health departments may be forced to shift scarce resources from traditional population-based public health activities, such as monitoring water quality and restaurant inspections to the delivery of personal health services to uninsured persons. This can weaken the ability of local health departments to contain outbreaks of infectious disease and other public health threats.
-Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., M.P.H.Chair of the Dept. of Emergency Medicine at Emory Univ. (one of the best medical schools in this entire country)

in front of the US Senate.
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. What is socialist health care?</h2><p>Socialist health care is a system in which the government is responsible for providing health care services to all citizens. This means that the government owns and operates the health care facilities, and also regulates the prices of medical services and medications.</p><h2>2. How does socialist health care work?</h2><p>In a socialist health care system, the government collects taxes from citizens to fund the health care system. These taxes are used to cover the costs of medical services, medications, and other health care expenses. The government also sets guidelines for health care providers and ensures that all citizens have access to necessary medical treatment.</p><h2>3. Does socialist health care work?</h2><p>The effectiveness of socialist health care systems varies depending on the country and its specific implementation. Some countries with socialist health care systems, such as Sweden and Canada, have high life expectancies and low infant mortality rates, indicating successful health care outcomes. However, there are also challenges and criticisms of these systems, such as long wait times for certain procedures and limited access to specialized treatments.</p><h2>4. How does socialist health care compare to other health care systems?</h2><p>Socialist health care systems differ from other systems, such as private or universal health care, in terms of who owns and controls the health care facilities and how medical services are paid for. Private health care systems are run by private companies and individuals, while universal health care systems are funded by the government but may still involve private providers. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the success of a health care system depends on various factors.</p><h2>5. Are there any drawbacks to socialist health care?</h2><p>One potential drawback of socialist health care is the high cost of taxes. Since the government is responsible for funding the health care system, taxes may be higher in countries with socialist health care compared to those with private or universal systems. Additionally, some critics argue that socialist health care systems may limit innovation and competition in the medical field, leading to less advanced treatments and technologies.</p>

1. What is socialist health care?

Socialist health care is a system in which the government is responsible for providing health care services to all citizens. This means that the government owns and operates the health care facilities, and also regulates the prices of medical services and medications.

2. How does socialist health care work?

In a socialist health care system, the government collects taxes from citizens to fund the health care system. These taxes are used to cover the costs of medical services, medications, and other health care expenses. The government also sets guidelines for health care providers and ensures that all citizens have access to necessary medical treatment.

3. Does socialist health care work?

The effectiveness of socialist health care systems varies depending on the country and its specific implementation. Some countries with socialist health care systems, such as Sweden and Canada, have high life expectancies and low infant mortality rates, indicating successful health care outcomes. However, there are also challenges and criticisms of these systems, such as long wait times for certain procedures and limited access to specialized treatments.

4. How does socialist health care compare to other health care systems?

Socialist health care systems differ from other systems, such as private or universal health care, in terms of who owns and controls the health care facilities and how medical services are paid for. Private health care systems are run by private companies and individuals, while universal health care systems are funded by the government but may still involve private providers. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the success of a health care system depends on various factors.

5. Are there any drawbacks to socialist health care?

One potential drawback of socialist health care is the high cost of taxes. Since the government is responsible for funding the health care system, taxes may be higher in countries with socialist health care compared to those with private or universal systems. Additionally, some critics argue that socialist health care systems may limit innovation and competition in the medical field, leading to less advanced treatments and technologies.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
867
Replies
39
Views
15K
Replies
15
Views
541
  • General Discussion
Replies
0
Views
542
Replies
1
Views
676
Replies
3
Views
952
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top