Socialism is so bad that it allows poor people to live. Horrible true story

[gentlemand]

private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

[1713893687]

1713893687

[1713893687]

1713893687

[1713893687]

1713893687

[1713893687]

1713893687

[1713893687]

1713893687

[TECSHARE]

private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

Socialism is like saying a falling rock is flying. Eventually it is going to hit the Earth and come to rest. Also why is it when people need the best healthcare they come here?

[Naida_BR]

private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

In my opinion private Healthcare systems work better in any way.
Indeed it works better along with private insurance elements because this way the spending is balanced. But socialism is not connected with that at all...

[PrimeNumber7]

private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

socialist countries you cite pay less for the same service provided. They are not operating a free market.

There are also pervasive incentives for healthcare consumers in the US that are mainly caused by a third party payor system. The government gets to decide what healthcare services their citizens receive.

[CARrency]

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?

Who would want this? I am from a third world country and if this will happen, it will be troublesome not only for a lot of people but also for the government since people will obviously start a rally about this. It should not always about how rich people are but how people should be treated based on their diseases or sickness. Everyone should have an equal share of being cured and being taken care of.

[KingScorpio]

damn socialist, because of them not all are money earning cattle to the financialists

[TimeBits]

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?

It already is, I live in Canada which is suppose to have some of the best health care, I cannot fix my broken spine because I have no money. They want a large sum to fix my spine that is broken from feeding millions of my own kind from wearing a harness on my back from ages 4-31 picking fruit so people can live, from doing roofing and bricklaying and building over 50 homes. Yet I still do not own one. I can`t even get ODSP for my broken back even though the MRI`s show some seriously bad news for me. Someday`s I cannot get out of bed for hours, I can not sit in the same position for more than 20 minutes before it feels like someone is shoving 2 swords in and out my back repeatedly. The only thing that helps ease the pain for me is large does of cbd and thc, but it only mask it, They want to give me Oxycontin but that also only mask it as well, like putting a bandaid on something that need stitches, it just makes the problem worse, I refuse to take heroin and the other option cost me a arm and a leg I do not have.

[TECSHARE]

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?

Who would want this? I am from a third world country and if this will happen, it will be troublesome not only for a lot of people but also for the government since people will obviously start a rally about this. It should not always about how rich people are but how people should be treated based on their diseases or sickness. Everyone should have an equal share of being cured and being taken care of.

What people want or deserve is not a viable metric. The fact is there aren't enough resources to treat everyone equally, especially when they aren't paying into the system. Even if there were enough resources, any time you take away the cost of a product or service, corruption and inefficiency always follows, eventually resulting in reduced services for everyone.

[Cnut237]

Socialism creates disincentives to work and also to maximize productivity when working. It fails every time it has been tried and each time it has been tried, the country’s people see lower standard of living and the state has had to use violent force to compel people to participate in the socialism.

Socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past 120 years.

I think the key point is that any responsible system of government needs to have checks and balances built in.
The worst excesses of communism/socialism were where it descended into a system where the man is charge is effectively a god. Stalin, etc... and what we see right now in North Korea.

Capitalism is fine so long as the companies aren't allowed free rein over everything. Their purpose is to gain profit, especially for shareholders. Unrestrained, they are vampires, and they will bleed everything dry. Strong capitalism is a system where the government is also strong, and acts as a brake on inequality and greed. The US and the UK I think are failing because they allow business to rule without any real checks on their power.

The problem in the last couple of decades especially is that companies have got too powerful. The incessant lobbying is bad, but worse is the revolving door we see so often between the higher echelons of government and those of business, where top government officials create business-friendly legislation, and then move straight out of politics and into corporate directorships.

[coins4commies]

private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

Socialism is like saying a falling rock is flying. Eventually it is going to hit the Earth and come to rest. Also why is it when people need the best healthcare they come here?

Everyone knows capitalism is better for the super wealthy.  That was never part of any debate. 

[TECSHARE]

Socialism is like saying a falling rock is flying. Eventually it is going to hit the Earth and come to rest. Also why is it when people need the best healthcare they come here?

Everyone knows capitalism is better for the super wealthy.  That was never part of any debate. 

Capitalism is better for everyone, it is not even a debate if you are looking at factual information and not making arguments based on your emotions. You might be able to keep warm for a night by setting your apartment building on fire, giving equal heat for all, but then the next day everyone has no where to sleep.

[mOgliE]

Capitalism is better for everyone, it is not even a debate if you are looking at factual information and not making arguments based on your emotions.

Hmm...

Then explain why socialist health care treats better everyone and costs less?
That's kind of the whole point of the study... To show that capitalist health care is costly and inneffective...

[TECSHARE]

Capitalism is better for everyone, it is not even a debate if you are looking at factual information and not making arguments based on your emotions.

Hmm...

Then explain why socialist health care treats better everyone and costs less?
That's kind of the whole point of the study... To show that capitalist health care is costly and inneffective...

Its not a fact "socialist healthcare" "treats better and costs less". Socialism leads to shortages, doctors with less expertise, long wait lists, and government dictating what healthcare you can receive. Furthermore the costs are simply passed on via taxes, so it "costing less" is totally an illusion anyway, especially after bureaucratic bloat takes effect. Just because the study was attempting to make that point doesn't make the conclusion valid.

[mOgliE]

Its not a fact "socialist healthcare" "treats better and costs less". Socialism leads to shortages, doctors with less expertise, long wait lists, and government dictating what healthcare you can receive. Furthermore the costs are simply passed on via taxes, so it "costing less" is totally an illusion anyway, especially after bureaucratic bloat takes effect. Just because the study was attempting to make that point doesn't make the conclusion valid.

It's not a fact that people are treated better in France than in USA for a smaller amount of GDP?

Cause that's exactly what the study proves.

There is nearly no difference in how poors and rich people are treated in France hence people are treated much better in France than in USA.

There is no "long wait lists" or "shortages" or whatever in France.

It's the best health care in the world in terms of performance. The only category USA is first is on the amount of money spent per capita. Which shows how insanely innefficient it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000

[Cnut237]

For those who are interested, and haven't seen it, it might be worth watching Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko

"The movie compares the profiteering, non-universal U.S. system with the non-profit universal health care systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Cuba"

It might be 10 years old, but is still largely valid.

Another point of interest might be how health provision is changing in my country, the UK. We are gradually moving from an almost French system towards an American system as our fascination with privatisation takes a greater and greater hold. Services are suffering as money gets sucked out by private companies.

I won't deny that nationalised industries can suffer from inefficiency and bloat, but equally it is impossible to deny that once something is privatised, the whole purpose switches from quality of service provision to share price and shareholder dividends.

[mOgliE]

Another point of interest might be how health provision is changing in my country, the UK. We are gradually moving from an almost French system towards an American system as our fascination with privatisation takes a greater and greater hold. Services are suffering as money gets sucked out by private companies.

I won't deny that nationalised industries can suffer from inefficiency and bloat, but equally it is impossible to deny that once something is privatised, the whole purpose switches from quality of service provision to share price and shareholder dividends.

Funny thing is that... Same in France...

We have the best and most efficient healthcare system in the worls, absolutely all studies and associations agree on that, but no we're going full speed towards privatization.

Who gains from this?
I'm sure you can guess.

[TECSHARE]

Another point of interest might be how health provision is changing in my country, the UK. We are gradually moving from an almost French system towards an American system as our fascination with privatisation takes a greater and greater hold. Services are suffering as money gets sucked out by private companies.

I won't deny that nationalised industries can suffer from inefficiency and bloat, but equally it is impossible to deny that once something is privatised, the whole purpose switches from quality of service provision to share price and shareholder dividends.

Funny thing is that... Same in France...

We have the best and most efficient healthcare system in the worls, absolutely all studies and associations agree on that, but no we're going full speed towards privatization.

Who gains from this?
I'm sure you can guess.

You could try to argue a rock dropped, in mid air is in fact flying, but trends and time will demonstrate without a doubt it is falling. Just as cutting your own arm off to nourish yourself might work for a short period of time, eventually you run out of limbs to amputate.

"Copayment/Deductibles. 10% to 40% copayments.

Technology. The government does not reimburse new technologies very generously and because of global budgets and fee restrictions, there is little incentive to make capital investments in medical technology.

Waiting Times. France has generally avoided waiting lists, likely due to the fairly high coinsurance charges. Recent trends towards Increased restrictions, reduced reimbursement rates, and rationing has increased wait times however.

Tanner’s summary. “To sum up: the French health care system clearly works better than most national health care systems. Despite some problems, France has generally avoided the rationing inherent in other systems. However, the program is threatened by increasing costs and may be forced to resort to rationing in the future.”"

https://www.healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/14/health-care-around-the-world-france/


"Indeed, in a World Health Organisation comparison of 191 different countries, France came out at number one.

It’s important to be clear, however: Beyond legitimate questions about the WHO’s methodology, the ranking itself dates from 2000. That said, France remains on top of the list, because it was the first and last such ranking conducted by the WHO. Since then, France has occupied a number of positions in other rankings, depending on their criteria and definition of what constitutes a “good” health care system.

A July 2017 analysis by the New York–based Commonwealth Fund compared the health care systems of 11 industrialized countries. They put France at number 10, just above the United States, with the United Kingdom at number one. Yet in another ranking – published in May by The Lancet, it looked at 195 countries – the UK was ranked 26th, while France came in 15th. And in the top position, the tiny principality of Andorra. All this demonstrates just how difficult it is to interpret such rankings."

https://theconversation.com/how-healthy-is-the-french-health-system-83329

While these systems may function for a time, bureaucratic bloat uninhibited by market forces always takes over.

[Biswa7]

"Why socialism failed" and it appeared in 1995 in the Freeman,the flagship publication of the foundation for economic education.i think it was the first essay or op-ed i wrote for a general audience following graduation in 1993 from George mason university with a ph.d. in economics.note that the title of the article("failed") implied the past tense,as ig i perhaps aassumed the failures of socialism were so apparent and obvious(i called it the big lie of the 20 th century) that it would be forever considered only as a discredited system of the past,and never as a viable option going forward into the future!

[coins4commies]

None of this is "hypothetical" or "sometimes".  The graph I posted is actual spending and actual outcomes.  The trendline represents the affect spending has on outcome and the countries below that line (mainly the us) are wasting money while the countries above the line are getting health outcomes out of something besides money.  

Who knew you could get a better bang for your buck if you stopped giving trillions away to middle men?



Not so difficult to see what the other 19 countries have in common.  At least half of the money we spend is literally just being donated to the private sector.  4500 dollars per person per year being burned and thats the most conservative estimate.  Its probably more like 7,000 if you consider the average spending for our life expectancy. 

[TECSHARE]

None of this is "hypothetical" or "sometimes".  The graph I posted is actual spending and actual outcomes.  The trendline represents the affect spending has on outcome and the countries below that line (mainly the us) are wasting money while the countries above the line are getting health outcomes out of something besides money.  

Who knew you could get a better bang for your buck if you stopped giving trillions away to middle men?

Not so difficult to see what the other 19 countries have in common.  At least half of the money we spend is literally just being donated to the private sector.  4500 dollars per person per year being burned and thats the most conservative estimate.  Its probably more like 7,000 if you consider the average spending for our life expectancy. 

I find it terrifying you are teaching other people. Who taught you how to source? I see a meaningless picture.