Label Yourself

[Symmetry]

Free markets are pretty bad when it comes to stuff like this. Why be so adverse to looking at models that work better and cost less?

We haven't tried a free market approach to the health care in the US. Not even close. You might not understand how it works in the US so I shall explain.

The insurance companies in the US are cartels and they (with government blessing) have carved up the US into sectors. Only certain insurance companies are allowed to operate in any particular market. This informal cartel agreement is now well established through US Federal and state laws.

For instance, in any particular part of California one would only be able to shop about a half dozen to at most a dozen different insurance companies. There are over 1,200 insurance companies operating through out the entire US. But in any market you live you only have the opportunity to shop over but a tiny percentage of those companies. It is like this in every state of the Union.

This is enforced by state laws and Federal laws limiting the number of insurance companies that are allowed to operate in a given sector. This has the effect of insurance companies to keep prices high. It curtails competition. And the governments of individual states and the Central US government are all in cahoots with the system.

It's not a free market, it never has been.

There is also the other problems with rising health care that are never addressed. Such as the debasement of our currency. The Fed and the US government claim there is no inflation. Or that it is under control and acceptable. For two years there was no cost of living increase for SS.
In calculating inflation, official government statistics ignore one particular segment of the economy. Healthcare. Healthcare is not factored into the inflation models. Healthcare increase in cost 10X the national inflation rates in many segments of the nation.

There are no "solutions" to any problems in life. There are only trade offs. That's what people seem to lack understanding of. The more free markets are the better services tend to be in general. The better the quality as well if competition is allowed. There is none of that in the healthcare segment.

Currency debasement not only is the cause of inflation, it is also the root of problems across the board. Who cares if homosexuals can get married if no one has economic opportunity?
What good is it to have equal treatment under the law if we are all debt slaves?
How can we leave a better life for our children when more and more of the fruit of our labors is taken from us to "solve" these various social problems?
Our currency, our medium of trade, the measure of our labors is constantly being destroyed by The Federal Reserve and government spending policies. That's a bigger issue than some schmuck lighting up a cig in public or gays getting married, or any other myriad of problems different people perceive of as being "problems". Destroying our money is going to affect every single American and has disastrous consequences for nearly every nation on the planet.
Consequences that make all the social issues seem petty by comparison.

That's some pretty extreme rhetoric, but it doesn't really cut to the heart of the problem. If a completely free market system is the best system, but has never been tried, what makes you say it's the best? Why not model a system that costs less and provides better healthcare along the lines of other states?

[Symmetry]

i will try to find the statistic i saw the other day (it was on the eurostat website). it looked at some of the european countries, and the amount of patients in each who say their medical need was met by the health service. the two best were uk and sweden, which have systems run and funded by the state and free at the point of use.

these two country also spend much less on health care than the usa does, which is a fact easy for you to find yourself

Japan does pretty well, and I suspect a few other countries would turn up outside of Europe for this. Worth pointing out though that the UK is not entirely free- payment is required for subscriptions, albeit heavily subsidised and certain groups (children, people on various kinds of disability allowances, certain groups of unemployed people...) don't have to pay.

[patches70]

That's some pretty extreme rhetoric, but it doesn't really cut to the heart of the problem. If a completely free market system is the best system, but has never been tried, what makes you say it's the best? Why not model a system that costs less and provides better healthcare along the lines of other states?

Extreme rhetoric? How I explained health insurance in the US is how it is. Research it yourself if you wish.

You say free market won't work with healthcare but how can you know that when it hasn't been tried?

Everyone claims that the State run health care is cheaper and point to various nations as proof. However, none of those nations has to pay for a military like we do. The US subsidizes the European health care model because the US pays for her defense. How would the European nations manage if they had to pay for a military that not only could protect their own borders but also project power across the globe?

I'm all for cutting Europe lose. Let the Europeans protect Europe. Hell, Europe doesn't even need to project power if they don't want to. But our troops should be pulled straight out of there. It's not our job to defend them. Our troops could be home spending their money in our towns, in our cities and maybe we could afford such a system.
European's would raise hell because they rely on US soldiers spending money in their towns and cities. Screw that. Let Europe fend for itself like independent nations should.
Believe me, if Europe ever had a real problem and needed the US to save em, we'd come a runnin' quick enough.

Also, people just don't even take into account how immense the US is. European nations aren't much bigger than individual US states. Hell, California by itself has a larger economy than most all European nations.
Cost of living is different across the US, what is fair in one market is not in another. Trying to provide a government run monopoly on healthcare in the US is a recipe for disaster.
Our politicians aren't that bright if ya hadn't noticed....
The waste alone would fund a typical European nation's healthcare.

Open up the market. Let competition in and break the back of the insurance cartel and government monopolies.
The fact is the US just can't afford the type of system the Europeans have. We already are borrowing over a trillion dollars a year as it stands now.
For sake of understanding, that borrowed trillion+ is more than all but one or two European's entire budgets. We borrow more money a year than a nation like Germany even spends in a year. And you think we should just start printing up more money to pay for socialized healthcare?
Do you want to watch the entire world economy tank into depression? I hope so, because that's what would happen. Either that or the federal government will have to tax the living piss out of Americans and we don't put up for that for very long....

[patches70]

Japan does pretty well....... UK

Really?

The top two most indebted nations in the world, Japan (471%+ of GDP) and UK (466%+ of GDP).

http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-datab ... o-gdp.html

Yeah, they're doing pretty well all right....

And people are flipping out about Greece's measly 146% debt to GDP.

[patches70]

Like I've said, what does one care if he has insurance or government healthcare if the entire freaking economy collapses. Oh, people'll will need doctors all right. Insurance be damned, the doctor will want gold instead of worthless fiat money.

Economics. the root of all problems.

[Symmetry]

That's some pretty extreme rhetoric, but it doesn't really cut to the heart of the problem. If a completely free market system is the best system, but has never been tried, what makes you say it's the best? Why not model a system that costs less and provides better healthcare along the lines of other states?

Extreme rhetoric? How I explained health insurance in the US is how it is. Research it yourself if you wish.

You say free market won't work with healthcare but how can you know that when it hasn't been tried?

Everyone claims that the State run health care is cheaper and point to various nations as proof. However, none of those nations has to pay for a military like we do. The US subsidizes the European health care model because the US pays for her defense. How would the European nations manage if they had to pay for a military that not only could protect their own borders but also project power across the globe?

I'm all for cutting Europe lose. Let the Europeans protect Europe. Hell, Europe doesn't even need to project power if they don't want to. But our troops should be pulled straight out of there. It's not our job to defend them. Our troops could be home spending their money in our towns, in our cities and maybe we could afford such a system.
European's would raise hell because they rely on US soldiers spending money in their towns and cities. Screw that. Let Europe fend for itself like independent nations should.
Believe me, if Europe ever had a real problem and needed the US to save em, we'd come a runnin' quick enough.

Also, people just don't even take into account how immense the US is. European nations aren't much bigger than individual US states. Hell, California by itself has a larger economy than most all European nations.
Cost of living is different across the US, what is fair in one market is not in another. Trying to provide a government run monopoly on healthcare in the US is a recipe for disaster.
Our politicians aren't that bright if ya hadn't noticed....
The waste alone would fund a typical European nation's healthcare.

Open up the market. Let competition in and break the back of the insurance cartel and government monopolies.
The fact is the US just can't afford the type of system the Europeans have. We already are borrowing over a trillion dollars a year as it stands now.
For sake of understanding, that borrowed trillion+ is more than all but one or two European's entire budgets. We borrow more money a year than a nation like Germany even spends in a year. And you think we should just start printing up more money to pay for socialized healthcare?
Do you want to watch the entire world economy tank into depression? I hope so, because that's what would happen. Either that or the federal government will have to tax the living piss out of Americans and we don't put up for that for very long....

How can you say it's the best when it hasn't been tried? The world economy isn't going to tank if the US reforms its healthcare. Get a grip dude.

[patches70]

How can you say it's the best when it hasn't been tried? The world economy isn't going to tank if the US reforms its healthcare. Get a grip dude.

I never said it was the best. I said it hasn't been tried. I said that the more free a market it the better the services in general. I said "There are no solutions, only trade offs".

I see you ignored the indebted nations, the two most indebted both having socialized and government monopoly on health care.
I see you ignored all the panic about Greece when their debt isn't anywhere near that of the UK, Japan, Italy, France.
I see you don't understand the systemic risk that hinges on Greece. If they go the whole financial debt system goes with it, right along with the entire EU's economy. Which is why Greece is under the thumb of the bankers and the people are rioting in the streets.

I see you don't understand that the US dollar is (for the moment) the World reserved currency. Any debasement in the dollar causes rippled through nearly everyone because virtually everything is traded in dollars.
Any more borrowing via the printing press has consequences. Being as the US is the only nation that can legally print the world's reserve currency, your nation's economic life hinges on what we do. Until you dump the dollar that is.

The US dollar is dying, it is going to die. That's why there are bilateral agreements centered around China to bypass the dollar. It's also part of the reason Iran is in such hot water with the US since they are trading their oil without converting it to US dollars first (which we've forced them to do).

I understand and I mean no disrespect to you at all. Many don't really get the fiat currency system nor how it's all tied together. We are all tied to each other. This is by design. As I'm sure you are probably aware, it's this entanglement that helps "keep the peace" between the big powers. Namely the US and China. Being so intertwined together neither would risk war with each other.

But this is changing, China sees the writing on the wall and is steadily making progress to bypassing the dollar. Russia has already dumped half of their US paper in the last 8 months alone. Chine has been on a downward trend for the last 12 months in regards to owning US paper (thought they still hold a little over a trillion dollars of it).

The Europeans, in part to pay for their healthcare systems, have been borrowing, kicking the can and using every little bit of accounting magic to keep their unsustainable systems running. Those days are drawing to a close.

That's what it's like and the strange thing about history. What's coming is something none of us has ever lived through or seen before. The Great depression was bad enough, but the collapse of the western financial model is something else, and new. It will be historic. And that's the paradox about history. Often enough people living in those historic times don't see it for all that it is. It is only after the fact, after study do we begin to truly realize how historic something really is.

One way or another, it will be exciting at least.

Again, I mean no disrespect to you. There is no point in talking about socialized healthcare with you anymore because neither of us is going to agree with the other. So I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Symmetry]

How can you say it's the best when it hasn't been tried? The world economy isn't going to tank if the US reforms its healthcare. Get a grip dude.

I never said it was the best. I said it hasn't been tried. I said that the more free a market it the better the services in general. I said "There are no solutions, only trade offs".

I see you ignored the indebted nations, the two most indebted both having socialized and government monopoly on health care.
I see you ignored all the panic about Greece when their debt isn't anywhere near that of the UK, Japan, Italy, France.
I see you don't understand the systemic risk that hinges on Greece. If they go the whole financial debt system goes with it, right along with the entire EU's economy. Which is why Greece is under the thumb of the bankers and the people are rioting in the streets.

I see you don't understand that the US dollar is (for the moment) the World reserved currency. Any debasement in the dollar causes rippled through nearly everyone because virtually everything is traded in dollars.
Any more borrowing via the printing press has consequences. Being as the US is the only nation that can legally print the world's reserve currency, your nation's economic life hinges on what we do. Until you dump the dollar that is.

The US dollar is dying, it is going to die. That's why there are bilateral agreements centered around China to bypass the dollar. It's also part of the reason Iran is in such hot water with the US since they are trading their oil without converting it to US dollars first (which we've forced them to do).

I understand and I mean no disrespect to you at all. Many don't really get the fiat currency system nor how it's all tied together. We are all tied to each other. This is by design. As I'm sure you are probably aware, it's this entanglement that helps "keep the peace" between the big powers. Namely the US and China. Being so intertwined together neither would risk war with each other.

But this is changing, China sees the writing on the wall and is steadily making progress to bypassing the dollar. Russia has already dumped half of their US paper in the last 8 months alone. Chine has been on a downward trend for the last 12 months in regards to owning US paper (thought they still hold a little over a trillion dollars of it).

The Europeans, in part to pay for their healthcare systems, have been borrowing, kicking the can and using every little bit of accounting magic to keep their unsustainable systems running. Those days are drawing to a close.

That's what it's like and the strange thing about history. What's coming is something none of us has ever lived through or seen before. The Great depression was bad enough, but the collapse of the western financial model is something else, and new. It will be historic. And that's the paradox about history. Often enough people living in those historic times don't see it for all that it is. It is only after the fact, after study do we begin to truly realize how historic something really is.

One way or another, it will be exciting at least.

Again, I mean no disrespect to you. There is no point in talking about socialized healthcare with you anymore because neither of us is going to agree with the other. So I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

We won't agree because I'm talking about observable reality, and you're talking about the apocalypse and a fictional free market salvation that you have absolute faith will work if the US experiments with. This, you seem to be arguing, is the last, desperate hope for the world economy.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't see Libertarian in that poll.....

Libertarian fits more closely with Liberal on Social issues and Conservative on Economic issues - so which of those issues is more important to you?

That's not exactly true. While a Libertarian is less likely is less likely to oppose gay marriage or be more liberal concerning immigration; he's also going to be vehemently opposed to programs like Obamacare. But Libertarians are more fiscally conservative though or rather fiscally sound.

Obamacare is a spending issue. A Libertarian would oppose it on those grounds.

Given the cost of US healthcare vs comparable western countries that use carious forms of socialised healthcare, I'm not sure a libertarian would have much ground to oppose it in terms of cost.

But looking at effective models has never been something that Libertarians really feel happy with when it comes to this topic.

lol, nice pot shot.

EDIT: Haha, ITT, Sym makes bold assertions with little evidence, yet people forget to ask him about it. His verbal attack was an effective enough distraction.

[Symmetry]

lol, nice pot shot.

EDIT: Haha, ITT, Sym makes bold assertions with little evidence, yet people forget to ask him about it. His verbal attack was an effective enough distraction.

You also forgot to ask me about "it".

Also, mention what "it" is.

[BigBallinStalin]

lol, nice pot shot.

EDIT: Haha, ITT, Sym makes bold assertions with little evidence, yet people forget to ask him about it. His verbal attack was an effective enough distraction.

You also forgot to ask me about "it".

Also, mention what "it" is.

Here's one which started much of this:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p3615866

Here's another:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p3615895


I was surprised VOL didn't ask you the same when you typed this:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p3615948


But seriously, thumbs up for the distraction. Your one-liners to patches are great work! Very sincere and honest debate!

[Phatscotty]

Free markets are pretty bad when it comes to stuff like this. Why be so adverse to looking at models that work better and cost less?

We haven't tried a free market approach to the health care in the US. Not even close. You might not understand how it works in the US so I shall explain.

The insurance companies in the US are cartels and they (with government blessing) have carved up the US into sectors. Only certain insurance companies are allowed to operate in any particular market. This informal cartel agreement is now well established through US Federal and state laws.

For instance, in any particular part of California one would only be able to shop about a half dozen to at most a dozen different insurance companies. There are over 1,200 insurance companies operating through out the entire US. But in any market you live you only have the opportunity to shop over but a tiny percentage of those companies. It is like this in every state of the Union.

This is enforced by state laws and Federal laws limiting the number of insurance companies that are allowed to operate in a given sector. This has the effect of insurance companies to keep prices high. It curtails competition. And the governments of individual states and the Central US government are all in cahoots with the system.

It's not a free market, it never has been.

There is also the other problems with rising health care that are never addressed. Such as the debasement of our currency. The Fed and the US government claim there is no inflation. Or that it is under control and acceptable. For two years there was no cost of living increase for SS.
In calculating inflation, official government statistics ignore one particular segment of the economy. Healthcare. Healthcare is not factored into the inflation models. Healthcare increase in cost 10X the national inflation rates in many segments of the nation.

There are no "solutions" to any problems in life. There are only trade offs. That's what people seem to lack understanding of. The more free markets are the better services tend to be in general. The better the quality as well if competition is allowed. There is none of that in the healthcare segment.

Currency debasement not only is the cause of inflation, it is also the root of problems across the board. Who cares if homosexuals can get married if no one has economic opportunity?
What good is it to have equal treatment under the law if we are all debt slaves?
How can we leave a better life for our children when more and more of the fruit of our labors is taken from us to "solve" these various social problems?
Our currency, our medium of trade, the measure of our labors is constantly being destroyed by The Federal Reserve and government spending policies. That's a bigger issue than some schmuck lighting up a cig in public or gays getting married, or any other myriad of problems different people perceive of as being "problems". Destroying our money is going to affect every single American and has disastrous consequences for nearly every nation on the planet.
Consequences that make all the social issues seem petty by comparison.

That's some pretty extreme rhetoric, but it doesn't really cut to the heart of the problem. If a completely free market system is the best system, but has never been tried, what makes you say it's the best? Why not model a system that costs less and provides better healthcare along the lines of other states?

the more free a market is, the better the market performs. The health care market in the USA is FAR from free. As time goes on, government interferes more and more, until we are where we are now, skyrocketing prices to the point where people can not afford it and even refuse receiving health care when they need it. Only the the most oblivious person thinks that government taking over and interfering even more will solve the problem. Look at what happened to tuition when they tried to "expand" accessibility, and look at the results. Students with degrees have a mountain of debt and cannot find a job, so they are out occupying the streets. Look at what happened to real estate when government decided they make houses more accessible, sure it worked for a minute, but now it crashed our entire economy and less people own homes and their credit is totally fucked.

Whatever government touches explodes in price and makes markets less and less accessible. But hey, when that happens, just throw more money at it!

It's fucking insane!

[Lootifer]

What the f*ck does the current state of healthcare, world economics, european defense or any other crap have on a holistic debate on state vs private healthcare?!?

I think we all know the american system is fucko, but the details of how you fix it (or just put up with it since it still does kinda ok) have little to do with a state vs private debate (since the established system is so entrenched and needs specific analysis and debate on the specific details rather than some holistic pie in the sky rant about free market vs state control).

Both Sym and Patches are being dumbheads imo.

[rockfist]

What the f*ck does the current state of healthcare...or any other crap have on a holistic debate on state vs private healthcare?!?

You may have a point with the your other contentions but not this one.

[Lootifer]

What the f*ck does the current state of healthcare...or any other crap have on a holistic debate on state vs private healthcare?!?

You may have a point with the your other contentions but not this one.

Current state of healthcare only affects the path in which you get from current to "ideal" (ideal is determined based on your opinion on the holistic debate). The holistic debate is mostly ambivilent to this path. Hence current state of healthcare can be ignored in the case of the holistic debate, usless citing evidence for one side or the other; note that Im not saying talking about current state of healthcare as a data point is bad. Sorry for the lack of clarity here.

[Symmetry]

Free markets are pretty bad when it comes to stuff like this. Why be so adverse to looking at models that work better and cost less?

We haven't tried a free market approach to the health care in the US. Not even close. You might not understand how it works in the US so I shall explain.

The insurance companies in the US are cartels and they (with government blessing) have carved up the US into sectors. Only certain insurance companies are allowed to operate in any particular market. This informal cartel agreement is now well established through US Federal and state laws.

For instance, in any particular part of California one would only be able to shop about a half dozen to at most a dozen different insurance companies. There are over 1,200 insurance companies operating through out the entire US. But in any market you live you only have the opportunity to shop over but a tiny percentage of those companies. It is like this in every state of the Union.

This is enforced by state laws and Federal laws limiting the number of insurance companies that are allowed to operate in a given sector. This has the effect of insurance companies to keep prices high. It curtails competition. And the governments of individual states and the Central US government are all in cahoots with the system.

It's not a free market, it never has been.

There is also the other problems with rising health care that are never addressed. Such as the debasement of our currency. The Fed and the US government claim there is no inflation. Or that it is under control and acceptable. For two years there was no cost of living increase for SS.
In calculating inflation, official government statistics ignore one particular segment of the economy. Healthcare. Healthcare is not factored into the inflation models. Healthcare increase in cost 10X the national inflation rates in many segments of the nation.

There are no "solutions" to any problems in life. There are only trade offs. That's what people seem to lack understanding of. The more free markets are the better services tend to be in general. The better the quality as well if competition is allowed. There is none of that in the healthcare segment.

Currency debasement not only is the cause of inflation, it is also the root of problems across the board. Who cares if homosexuals can get married if no one has economic opportunity?
What good is it to have equal treatment under the law if we are all debt slaves?
How can we leave a better life for our children when more and more of the fruit of our labors is taken from us to "solve" these various social problems?
Our currency, our medium of trade, the measure of our labors is constantly being destroyed by The Federal Reserve and government spending policies. That's a bigger issue than some schmuck lighting up a cig in public or gays getting married, or any other myriad of problems different people perceive of as being "problems". Destroying our money is going to affect every single American and has disastrous consequences for nearly every nation on the planet.
Consequences that make all the social issues seem petty by comparison.

That's some pretty extreme rhetoric, but it doesn't really cut to the heart of the problem. If a completely free market system is the best system, but has never been tried, what makes you say it's the best? Why not model a system that costs less and provides better healthcare along the lines of other states?

the more free a market is, the better the market performs. The health care market in the USA is FAR from free. As time goes on, government interferes more and more, until we are where we are now, skyrocketing prices to the point where people can not afford it and even refuse receiving health care when they need it. Only the the most oblivious person thinks that government taking over and interfering even more will solve the problem. Look at what happened to tuition when they tried to "expand" accessibility, and look at the results. Students with degrees have a mountain of debt and cannot find a job, so they are out occupying the streets. Look at what happened to real estate when government decided they make houses more accessible, sure it worked for a minute, but now it crashed our entire economy and less people own homes and their credit is totally fucked.

Whatever government touches explodes in price and makes markets less and less accessible. But hey, when that happens, just throw more money at it!

It's fucking insane!

Not at all- as I pointed out, many countries have universal healthcare and get both better results and pay less as a percentage of GDP, while also covering more people.

If your arguments were correct, surely they would have the opposite. The insanity here is a fundamental inability to look at working systems and accept that they work, cost less, cover more people, and are more effective.

[thegreekdog]

The insanity here is a fundamental inability to look at working systems and accept that they work, cost less, cover more people, and are more effective.

I think the insanity is the fundamental inability of anyone to think of a third option that does not involve the government... which is ironic since we used to have that system here in the United States.

We spend a lot of time discussing the uninsured and the underinsured and the costs of healthcare. We don't spend near enough time discussing the reasons why healthcare costs more or why people are uninsured or underinsured. Why are the costs for healthcare or health insurance so high? I asked myself this question... and here is what Time Magazine had to say (back in 2010):

(1) Insurance companies are businesses and want to make money, not keep people healthy.
(2) No electronic records (which means repeat tests and prescribing ineffective medications).
(3) Doctors and hospitals get paid for the specific and expensable services they provide. They earn more money for each test, office visit and treatment.
(4) Medical malpractice - 10% of healthcare costs cover doctor malpractice insurance. Further, doctors tend to go overboard with providing healthcare as they are afraid of malpractice suits.
(5) Doctors get paid for doing surgeries they don't need to do (I experienced this in real life).
(6) The emergency room is not always necessary, but people go there when they don't need to (and the ER costs more).
(7)The US has a lot of fat people.
(8) Health insurance is exempt from anti-trust laws.
(9) No shopping across state lines.
(10) We don't know what good prices are because we don't directly pay for stuff.

So, can we fix these problems? Or do we just assume that having the government do it will solve these problems automatically? There are problems associated with giving the federal government more control (over anything) and we should avoid doing that. It might be an American-only kind of thing, but, well, there it is.

[Symmetry]

The insanity here is a fundamental inability to look at working systems and accept that they work, cost less, cover more people, and are more effective.

I think the insanity is the fundamental inability of anyone to think of a third option that does not involve the government... which is ironic since we used to have that system here in the United States.

We spend a lot of time discussing the uninsured and the underinsured and the costs of healthcare. We don't spend near enough time discussing the reasons why healthcare costs more or why people are uninsured or underinsured. Why are the costs for healthcare or health insurance so high?

When the option that works in comparable countries costs less and works better, surely that would be the sane choice, as opposed to some fantasy third option?

[patches70]

Not at all- as I pointed out, many countries have universal healthcare and get both better results and pay less as a percentage of GDP, while also covering more people.

You keep saying that but ignored that the two most indebted nations on the planet are Japan and the UK. That is an absolute indisputable fact. So, if their socialized health care and government run health care is so cheap then why are they in so much incredibly insane debt?
What are they spending their money on? Certainly not military. Neither of those countries can project any meaningful power and would be hard pressed to even defend themselves from a determined enemy without the US backing them.

None of the nations you would set as an example have healthy debt to GDP ratios.
So what is costing them so much?

The US has some government run health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid. The cost in unfunded liability of those two programs alone is over $60 trillion. Just for comparison, the total GDP of the entire world is around $65 trillion.

One can say a lot of things about socialized health care, but one thing that no one can say about it is- "Sustainable"....

[Symmetry]

Not at all- as I pointed out, many countries have universal healthcare and get both better results and pay less as a percentage of GDP, while also covering more people.

You keep saying that but ignored that the two most indebted nations on the planet are Japan and the UK. That is an absolute indisputable fact. So, if their socialized health care and government run health care is so cheap then why are they in so much incredibly insane debt?
What are they spending their money on? Certainly not military. Neither of those countries can project any meaningful power and would be hard pressed to even defend themselves from a determined enemy without the US backing them.

None of the nations you would set as an example have healthy debt to GDP ratios.
So what is costing them so much?

The US has some government run health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid. The cost in unfunded liability of those two programs alone is over $60 trillion. Just for comparison, the total GDP of the entire world is around $65 trillion.

One can say a lot of things about socialized health care, but one thing that no one can say about it is- "Sustainable"....

Because they're not in debt because of their healthcare programmes.

[thegreekdog]

The insanity here is a fundamental inability to look at working systems and accept that they work, cost less, cover more people, and are more effective.

I think the insanity is the fundamental inability of anyone to think of a third option that does not involve the government... which is ironic since we used to have that system here in the United States.

We spend a lot of time discussing the uninsured and the underinsured and the costs of healthcare. We don't spend near enough time discussing the reasons why healthcare costs more or why people are uninsured or underinsured. Why are the costs for healthcare or health insurance so high?

When the option that works in comparable countries costs less and works better, surely that would be the sane choice, as opposed to some fantasy third option?

First, it doesn't cost less than a third option; it costs less (maybe) than the current option. And if you take out the tax increases in the Affordable Care Act, it costs more than the current option. In terms of working better, in my 32 years in this country there are few things the federal government does better. Maybe that means it's not a comparable country.

[Symmetry]

The insanity here is a fundamental inability to look at working systems and accept that they work, cost less, cover more people, and are more effective.

I think the insanity is the fundamental inability of anyone to think of a third option that does not involve the government... which is ironic since we used to have that system here in the United States.

We spend a lot of time discussing the uninsured and the underinsured and the costs of healthcare. We don't spend near enough time discussing the reasons why healthcare costs more or why people are uninsured or underinsured. Why are the costs for healthcare or health insurance so high?

When the option that works in comparable countries costs less and works better, surely that would be the sane choice, as opposed to some fantasy third option?

First, it doesn't cost less than a third option; it costs less (maybe) than the current option. And if you take out the tax increases in the Affordable Care Act, it costs more than the current option. In terms of working better, in my 32 years in this country there are few things the federal government does better. Maybe that means it's not a comparable country.

What would be a comparable country then? Which system works well?

[Lootifer]

I just had free knee surgery!

Arthroscopy + Microfracture!

All govt paid!

I like our system.

[patches70]

Not at all- as I pointed out, many countries have universal healthcare and get both better results and pay less as a percentage of GDP, while also covering more people.

You keep saying that but ignored that the two most indebted nations on the planet are Japan and the UK. That is an absolute indisputable fact. So, if their socialized health care and government run health care is so cheap then why are they in so much incredibly insane debt?
What are they spending their money on? Certainly not military. Neither of those countries can project any meaningful power and would be hard pressed to even defend themselves from a determined enemy without the US backing them.

None of the nations you would set as an example have healthy debt to GDP ratios.
So what is costing them so much?

The US has some government run health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid. The cost in unfunded liability of those two programs alone is over $60 trillion. Just for comparison, the total GDP of the entire world is around $65 trillion.

One can say a lot of things about socialized health care, but one thing that no one can say about it is- "Sustainable"....

Because they're not in debt because of their healthcare programmes.

And thus you will come to see the trade offs. Except, no one wants to sacrifice anything at all.

If these nations are not in debt because of their government run (government spending) health care, then they have been unable to politically sacrifice what is needed to have that "benefit" in the first place!". And this is what people fail to understand or admit.

Of course they're in debt because of their health care system. And their entitlement spending. And their welfare spending. And their bureaucracy spending.

So, what have they sacrificed to be in such debt? First and foremost they have sacrificed national defense, obviously. Or that is, have sacrificed being able to project power anywhere outside their own borders. (That's not such a bad thing BTW. Other than they are at the whims of their neighbors and pray there is no serious aggression against them.) They don't need to, they have the US to do that for them.
So what are they spending, borrowing and wasting to be in such debt? hmmm....

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.- Oscar Wilde

[Lootifer]

Er is this government or total debt you're talking about?