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.
  • #106
ShawnD said:
There's a lot of voluntary tax out there, and most of it doesn't apply to most people. Most people don't smoke, most people don't binge drink, and most people don't buy lottery tickets.

I agree. My point though, is that people generally pay a lot more in taxes than others think when you take into account all taxes. There's a large number of taxes that people can't get away from.

See the article I posted below. It's short (2 pages) and be sure to read the whole thing.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/misc/Hogberg.pdf [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
gsingh1015 said:
Why do Americans come here! Tourists? Visiting family? or may be just so that people can ask silly questions!
As to basic human rights - health has the same place as life and liberty along with education and a clean water supply. As to happiness - there can be no happiness if your child is dying in front of your eyes and you have no medical access because you can't pay the bills. But then you cannot explain such simple concepts to people who think a right to carry arms is more important than universal health care!

Basically, in this situation, a parent probably qualifies for medical welfare and doesn't have to watch his child "die in front of your eyes" as you so dramatically put it. This is just emotionally based bologne. There is a system to help the poor in Americans in this situation.

Bills are just bills, when your childs life is on the line, bills don't have priority. Sell your assets, if you don't have any then you qualify for medical assistance. If you have to declare bankruptcy then cry me a river. Life goes on.
 
  • #108
drankin said:
Bills are just bills, when your childs life is on the line, bills don't have priority. Sell your assets, if you don't have any then you qualify for medical assistance. If you have to declare bankruptcy then cry me a river. Life goes on.

I know, as if bankrupcy was the worst thing in the world. Sometimes I don't think we realize how good we got it.
 
  • #109
Economist said:
I know, as if bankrupcy was the worst thing in the world. Sometimes I don't think we realize how good we got it.
IMHO a modern society should not allow its members to resort to declare bankruptcy if they are hit by accidents or illnesses that arise from factors which they can not control. As for those controllable factors, the government will have a better incentive to regulate those in the best interests of its citizens.
Over here social security levies a progressive health tax, and the citizen chooses a fund which will be paid that tax. The funds are NFPOs, and they offer unregulated added coverage at unregulated prices. The government regulates the basic coverage completely. It's not a perfect system though: the appointed committee that controlls what treatments are covered by the basic coverage is a subject of much heated discussions, but I suppose there has to be a place for the opposing forces of public interest in welfare and the free market to battle it out.
 
Last edited:
  • #110
There are some examples that may be instructive regarding free market medicine vs 3rd party payer plans (either nationalized or insured)

The LASIK eye procedure is not covered by 3rd party insurers in the US. Since 1999 its price has gone down ~23%. In the same period the average cost of medicine (mostly insured) has increased ~35%. General price inflation over the same period ~20%. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba572/" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #111
Many good reasons to think things in europe can't work in America: euro cars suck, men do not wear purses, i have a baseball cap on my head not a fruit basket, guns are not illegal here, american beer is the best in the world and baseball.
You try telling me that some hunky-dory system of what nots and want nots is going to improve something and i'll show you the image of the christ child on the side of a roadside mile marker. These things take time and euro qualities, which we do not have. We have hundreds of thousands of thousands of sqaure MILES, not km, of land. Everything here is bigger, like Texas. We do not have to give up our dreams of manifest destiny, the euro man's expidition into the wild ended at coming down from the tree, he has yet to take the next step into the land of greatness.
 
Last edited:
  • #113
gsingh1015 said:
Why do Americans come here! Tourists? Visiting family? or may be just so that people can ask silly questions!
As to basic human rights - health has the same place as life and liberty along with education and a clean water supply. As to happiness - there can be no happiness if your child is dying in front of your eyes and you have no medical access because you can't pay the bills. But then you cannot explain such simple concepts to people who think a right to carry arms is more important than universal health care!

Healthcare is not a right. It is a service. It is something that requires the skills of other people to provide. As such, it cannot ever be a right. If you make healthcare a "right," you are essentially infringing on the rights of the people who study hard for years to acquire the skills to be able to provide healthcare. No one is entitled to those services.

Education is the same. And food. And housing. All are services. Not rights. If you want those services, you have to pay for them.

Rights are things like the 2nd Amendment, which states you have a right to bear arms to protect yourself. It doesn't at all say the government is supposed to supply you with a weapon. That's on you to acquire it. Or the freedom to practice whatever religion you want. The government is not obligated to build you a church/mosque/temple, etc...things like healthcare, education, food, housing, etc...cannot be rights, because they require the skills of others.

Societies that consider these things rights are always less prosperous than more free-market systems, which is why countries like America and Switzerland have the highest standard of living in the world.

Regarding the drug and insurance companies, there is a huge misconception that these are oligopolies because of the free market, which is blatantly not true. The reason they are oligopolies is BECAUSE of government intervention, not the lack of it.

For example, the drug industry. You know what the requirement is to start a drug company? You'd need to create a new drug which is an effort unto itself, then it would have to pass through the FDA, thus costing you a couple of hundred million dollars and a ten to fifteen year wait.

Well obviously that kind of cuts out 99.99999999999999999999% of the population from starting any new drug companies. Thus the drug companies gain an oligopoly, and become very large and powerful. The barrier to entry in the drug industry regarding starting your own drug company is thus a good deal caused by government.

Contrast this with the computer/software industry which is incredibly free and unregulate, with very low barriers to entry. Thus you have constant startups forming in the industry, and incredible growth in the industry.

The FDA itself through it's stringent regulation also seriously hamstrings our drug industry because of that ten to fifteen year wait. We would be much better with an abolished FDA and having competing private agencies that could do the testing, and drugs available to people who want to use them before the testing if they want to run that risk.

More people die each year from drugs that don't make it to the market than are saved from ones that do. If these drugs could come to market, and then were undergoing testing by competing private agencies, then people could wait for them to be certified safe, but people more desperate (say going to die soon if they don't try something) could try the drug. It would be their choice.

Sort of like when the FDA announces a new drug that they estimate will save 14,000 people a year, well no one thinks that means 14,000 people died for each of the ten to fifteen years the drug had to go through FDA testing. That number could've been greatly reduced had the drug been released.

The drug companies, the insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid, etc...all are stringently regulated. And now individual doctor's practices are being taken over by government as well or regulated out of existence. Medicare alone has like 133,000 pages of regulation.

All this regulation of the industry was originally meant to "protect" us consumers, but it does exactly the opposite.

I don't trust my healthcare to a big corporation with little competition or the government, I trust my own private doctors with it. For over 100 years in America, our medical care system was simple: if you needed a doctor, you went to one and paid for their services. But somewhere along the line government had to step in and complicate things greatly.

The U.S. healthcare system is messed-up because of the intervention of government, not because of free-market policies.
 
  • #114
WheelsRCool said:
Healthcare is not a right. It is a service. It is something that requires the skills of other people to provide. As such, it cannot ever be a right. If you make healthcare a "right," you are essentially infringing on the rights of the people who study hard for years to acquire the skills to be able to provide healthcare. No one is entitled to those services.

Education is the same. And food. And housing. All are services. Not rights. If you want those services, you have to pay for them.

Rights are things like the 2nd Amendment, which states you have a right to bear arms to protect yourself. It doesn't at all say the government is supposed to supply you with a weapon. That's on you to acquire it. Or the freedom to practice whatever religion you want. The government is not obligated to build you a church/mosque/temple, etc...things like healthcare, education, food, housing, etc...cannot be rights, because they require the skills of others.

Societies that consider these things rights are always less prosperous than more free-market systems, which is why countries like America and Switzerland have the highest standard of living in the world.

Regarding the drug and insurance companies, there is a huge misconception that these are oligopolies because of the free market, which is blatantly not true. The reason they are oligopolies is BECAUSE of government intervention, not the lack of it.

For example, the drug industry. You know what the requirement is to start a drug company? You'd need to create a new drug which is an effort unto itself, then it would have to pass through the FDA, thus costing you a couple of hundred million dollars and a ten to fifteen year wait.

Well obviously that kind of cuts out 99.99999999999999999999% of the population from starting any new drug companies. Thus the drug companies gain an oligopoly, and become very large and powerful. The barrier to entry in the drug industry regarding starting your own drug company is thus a good deal caused by government.

Contrast this with the computer/software industry which is incredibly free and unregulate, with very low barriers to entry. Thus you have constant startups forming in the industry, and incredible growth in the industry.

The FDA itself through it's stringent regulation also seriously hamstrings our drug industry because of that ten to fifteen year wait. We would be much better with an abolished FDA and having competing private agencies that could do the testing, and drugs available to people who want to use them before the testing if they want to run that risk.

More people die each year from drugs that don't make it to the market than are saved from ones that do. If these drugs could come to market, and then were undergoing testing by competing private agencies, then people could wait for them to be certified safe, but people more desperate (say going to die soon if they don't try something) could try the drug. It would be their choice.

Sort of like when the FDA announces a new drug that they estimate will save 14,000 people a year, well no one thinks that means 14,000 people died for each of the ten to fifteen years the drug had to go through FDA testing. That number could've been greatly reduced had the drug been released.

The drug companies, the insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid, etc...all are stringently regulated. And now individual doctor's practices are being taken over by government as well or regulated out of existence. Medicare alone has like 133,000 pages of regulation.

All this regulation of the industry was originally meant to "protect" us consumers, but it does exactly the opposite.

I don't trust my healthcare to a big corporation with little competition or the government, I trust my own private doctors with it. For over 100 years in America, our medical care system was simple: if you needed a doctor, you went to one and paid for their services. But somewhere along the line government had to step in and complicate things greatly.

The U.S. healthcare system is messed-up because of the intervention of government, not because of free-market policies.

Excellent examples.
 
  • #115
Great points WheelsRCool! I especially like the part about rights, because I totally agree. I always get so frustrated when I hear people through the term "right" around. They don't understand that a right is something that all people can have simultaneously, without it infringing upon the rights of someone else. For example, we can all have the right to free speech simultaneously, however, that doesn't mean anyone else has to listen or provide me with a mic and a podium. Also, when you talked about starting up a pharmaceutical company, I actually heard that it takes the average drug $1 billion and ten years of testing to get it passed (which (just like you said) CREATES AN OLIGOPOLY!)

I just wanted to add a few more short interesting articles for the debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/opinion/09krugman.html?hp
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=112007D [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #116
Plastic Photon said:
american beer is the best in the world

Well, the rest may be true, but the beer is better in Germany.
 
  • #117
WheelsRCool said:
Societies that consider these things rights are always less prosperous than more free-market systems, which is why countries like America and Switzerland have the highest standard of living in the world.
You may not want to group America and Switzerland together. They're so drastically different that it's like comparing China to Nigeria (except China and Nigeria both suck).
Here is an example: http://www.taxation.ch/index.cfm/fuseaction/show/temp/default/path/1-534.htm [Broken]
Higher up on the page you see this:
The maximum federal income tax rate is 11.5%
:biggrin:

Lower down you see this
Lump-sum taxation ("forfait tax") of resident aliens
...
"Ordinary Swiss income taxes per year CHF 300’000 (40%)
Alright so pure-blood Swiss people pay 11.5% while the scum from other countries pay 40%. I'm pretty sure America doesn't do that.
Switzerland is also listed as a country that has universal health care
Then there's 20% of switzerland is immigrants (they pay 40%, remember).
On that same page, the one that really strikes me as odd is where it says "Some of my clients have been surprised to find that children in Switzerland are openly friendly towards adults" which is the exact opposite of the American/Canadian teaching of "everybody older than you is automatically evil and you should not talk to them, ever"

It's an interesting country, and I think we can all learn a lot from it, but it's hard to make direct comparison. Everything seems different, so it's hard to pick the ones that are good and the ones that are bad, if any of them are bad, which I don't even know.



I agree on your FDA rant though. There's a theory out there that collusion is more likely to happen when the cost to get into an industry is high, so oil companies are pharm companies can pretty much do whatever the hell they want and nobody can stop them. Jon Stossel gave a really good speech about this at the Frasier Institue. It's on google video if you care to search for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #118
ShawnD said:
It's an interesting country, and I think we can all learn a lot from it, but it's hard to make direct comparison. Everything seems different, so it's hard to pick the ones that are good and the ones that are bad, if any of them are bad, which I don't even know.

Yes interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland" [Broken]where every citizen owns a gun and, if the authorities come to your house and demand to see your gun and you do NOT have it, they arrest you.:approve:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #119
ShawnD, thanks for the info. I don't know the full details, but I think that, with regards to the other European nations that are known for high taxation though, that the Swiss still tax far less. I have read that France for example has had a lot of its celebrities moving to Switzerland to avoid paying French taxes, which has caused France to actually go so far as to threaten Switzerland (economically, not militarily :) ) to which the Swiss have essentially told them to get lost, this is like an on-going thing I believe.

Regarding Swiss healthcare, it is universal I believe, but it isn't for the most part publicly-funded, it is a combination of a publicly-funded system (University of Geneva), subsized private, and totally private systems (private doctors and medical practices). I think though that it is law that all citizens have to buy insurance.

Regarding guns in Switzerland, I think America has those same kinds of laws if you own fully automatic belt-fed machine guns :) you have to keep them in a secured spot and the authorities will tend to check on you and them constantly, and if they demand to see them and you don't have them, not good!

Overall, regarding Switzerland and the U.S., I meant the two are similar in that the central governments both have little power in their economies in comparison to the governments of other countries, both have high gun ownership, and both have the best healthcare in the world, and both tend to be very free-market friendly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #120
WheelsRCool said:
Regarding guns in Switzerland, I think America has those same kinds of laws if you own fully automatic belt-fed machine guns :) you have to keep them in a secured spot and the authorities will tend to check on you and them constantly, and if they demand to see them and you don't have them, not good!
You are badly misinformed. In the US, if you own a firearm that can fire continuously while the trigger is depressed, you have to have purchased a class 3 license before taking possession of it, and you have to keep that permit current and pay fees, and you have to notify the ATF when you want to transport that gun to a location not specified on your permit. Practically identical weapons which have to be fired with individual trigger-pulls used to be exempted until a bunch of nuts pushed through laws forbidding things like flash-suppressors, folding stocks, and other features that might might make the semi-automatic rifles "look" like the full-auto military guns.

Switzerland's laws are structured more toward the maintenance of a citizen militia, in which an invasion/incursion can be countered with well-armed quick-reaction forces. I would NOT want to attempt a home invasion of a Swiss home for any reason.
 
  • #121
mheslep said:
Yes interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland" [Broken]where every citizen owns a gun and, if the authorities come to your house and demand to see your gun and you do NOT have it, they arrest you.:approve:

I'm not sure if they've repealed this yet, but they used to require that every building, including houses, have bomb shelters. Most people put a bar and a pool table or hot tub in them :biggrin:

Regarding Swiss healthcare, it is universal I believe, but it isn't for the most part publicly-funded, it is a combination of a publicly-funded system (University of Geneva), subsized private, and totally private systems (private doctors and medical practices). I think though that it is law that all citizens have to buy insurance.
I can't vouch for other countries, but this is pretty much what Canada has too. I don't know the details of the Swiss system, but maybe somebody on this forum is from that country and can compare:
-all family doctors are private
-all specialists not located in a hospital are private
-all dental is private
-all eye care is private
-all blood testing, urine testing, x-ray, mri, cardiogram, ekg, and other things of this nature that are not in a hospital are private
-doctors who have private practices are not allowed to work in hospitals
-doctors who work in hospitals are not allowed to work in their own practice
-doctors can switch between hospital or private any time they want, but they can't work in both at the same time (conflict of interest apparently)
-most private health procedures are paid for by showing your health care card; I can't think of anything that isn't covered, but I know they exist
-everybody is (somewhat) required to buy government insurance. I wasn't even asked if I wanted health care, they just started sending me a bill for $120 every 3 months. You can opt out if you want, but that seems like a really bad idea.
-everybody has the option of getting extra government subsidized insurance (blue cross) to help pay for dental, eye, and drugs. It's not required, but it's a good idea. In Alberta it's $41/month for a family, or I think $20 for an individual.

Where's Monique from? Doesn't she live pretty close to Switzerland?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #122
turbo-1 said:
You are badly misinformed. In the US, if you own a firearm that can fire continuously while the trigger is depressed, you have to have purchased a class 3 license before taking possession of it, and you have to keep that permit current and pay fees, and you have to notify the ATF when you want to transport that gun to a location not specified on your permit. Practically identical weapons which have to be fired with individual trigger-pulls used to be exempted until a bunch of nuts pushed through laws forbidding things like flash-suppressors, folding stocks, and other features that might might make the semi-automatic rifles "look" like the full-auto military guns.

Switzerland's laws are structured more toward the maintenance of a citizen militia, in which an invasion/incursion can be countered with well-armed quick-reaction forces. I would NOT want to attempt a home invasion of a Swiss home for any reason.

Yeah, Switzerland seems more "American" than America itself in some ways it seems.

But yeah those laws you said I think were in line with what I was thinking, point is, if you own such firearms in America, the government keeps an eye on you.
 
  • #123
All my brothers and sisters live in Holland, are married with kids and their social healthcare system is awesome. They have no complaints whatsoever. hg
 
  • #124
ShawnD said:
I can't vouch for other countries, but this is pretty much what Canada has too. I don't know the details of the Swiss system, but maybe somebody on this forum is from that country and can compare:
-doctors who have private practices are not allowed to work in hospitals
-doctors who work in hospitals are not allowed to work in their own practice
-most private health procedures are paid for by showing your health care card; I can't think of anything that isn't covered, but I know they exist

i think it changes between provinces also. i live in ontario and my family doctor is at the hospital almost every night checking on patients (i think the people she checks on might just be patients from her family practice though). also i know that ambulance, air lifting and some rehabilitation programs are not covered entirely by the ontario health insurance plan. I am fairly sure a ride in an ambulance is $100, i don't know about the air lifting but a 2 month stay at a hospital's brain injury rehabilitation facility is about $5,000. all 3 are covered totally by blue cross
 
  • #125
hubertg said:
All my brothers and sisters live in Holland, are married with kids and their social healthcare system is awesome. They have no complaints whatsoever. hg
In 2003 Holland instituted some major reforms of its health care system so its not clear what it means to say the care there is 'awesome'. It use to be awesome but not now? It use to be terrible but now its awesome? They use a private insurance plan to bypass the waiting lists and that is awesome?
 
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
542
  • 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