I'm confused. Are you denying the existence of basically every first world that isn't the United States when it comes to having humane health care systems (and in some cases, free tuition)? Or are just hand-wringing about the semantics if the word "free"?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You're failing to see the other side of the economic ledger in those other countries. Those 'other' countries don't spend nearly the amount on their defense as the U.S. Let those other countries fund their own defenses, without American aid, and let's see how long they're able to provide "free" healthcare then. Their brand of socialism only has a facade of working due to the fact that they are being subsidized by America.
You are assuming that health care costs more in the rest of the first world. It doesn't. It costs less - far less. In many cases, these countries have total per capita health care costs equivalent to just the US government's per capita share of US health costs, which is about half the US total. The reason they have lower costs is that they have designed their systems to largely circumvent the bureaucratic bloat and profit leaching of the private sector, and to negotiate with providers and supplies on equal footing in order to get fair, competitive pricing. These and other advantages don't exist in the absence of government action.
I re-read my post. Where is the part where I assumed health care costs more in other countries? However, that said, your post raises 2 questions: 1. would you be willing to pay more, for a better product? 2. Why has it been historically the case, that people come from these countries (that offer free healthcare) to America, but not the other way around?
Willing, perhaps, depending on the product. Able, not necessarily.
This is not the case currently. People coming to the US from other first world countries for healthcare fall into two groups, rich people getting elective procedures, and people seeking a particular kind of cutting edge treatment that has recently been developed in the US and hasn't yet spread elsewhere. On the other hand, the numbers of people from the US seeking medical treatment in foreign countries has grown so large that it's become an industry. There are foreign hospitals designed from the ground up to cater to people traveling from the US to get essential procedures done. Health tourism destinations include not just developing countries like Mexico and India, but also first world countries like Spain. As I understand it, a foreigner traveling to a country that provides health care for its citizenry specifically to take advantage of it's health care system is charged for the care they receive, and even so it is often still beneficial for them to make the trip.
Ahh, you touched on the magic element in our (former) healthcare system - that is isn't socialized and run by the government. That is the very thing that drives innovation. Those are the innovations that attract people from all over the world. Get government involved and you kill that innovation, less people want the product, and it will forever depend on your tax $$ to support it. That is failure.
if you have found a way to circumvent the Iron Law.
more power to you.
See you are voting for every one of your own comments.
Interesting. Not illegal. Just interesting. And not exactly in line with the intellectual direction of your posts....
Only two ways to limit costs. By competition, or by rules.
"first world countries" that are socialist limit costs through rules.
Very difficult/impossible to sue your doctor -- essentially, you are suing the government. So "defensive medicine" doesn't get practiced.
You have no say over what you get. That is determined by government. Think you want a second opinion? Think you want services in a timely manner? Think you want an option that the system has decided is not "cost effective?" Too bad. You are SOL.
It is very difficult to compare European society to ours. Their public health system is very different. Lots of chemicals are outlawed there that aren't allowed here, so that's vastly less chemical burden in their food. They don't for the most part fluoridate their water, so they don't have all the health complications associated with this. They walk a lot more. They eat less. They eat more local produce. They have more time off. They focus more on life and less on things. These all lead to better health and have nothing to do with universal healthcare.
I see you are still pursuing the "monopoly produces highest quality at the lowest price point" non sequitur. Wonder why that doesn't work on the private side of things......
Once the size of government has been decided upon, then buying the things that the government wants to buy is easy. All that matters is that there's enough real resources available for them to buy without people jacking up the prices for everyone else.
In the case of pensions, the question is whether or not there's enough stuff for retirees to buy.
In the case of education, the question is whether there are enough teachers to provide the education.
In the case of healthcare, the question is whether there are enough medical professionals, medicines, etc. available.
In the case on infrastructure, are there enough engineers, architects, building materials, etc. for the government to spend money on without causing an increase in prices that the private sector would have to pay for the same things.
If the answer is yes, then funding it isn't a problem. If the answer is no, then it might be best not to do it.
Even then. It isn't free. They still pay taxes. Though you are right about a lot of what you said. :)
thanks for sharing and resteem..
None of those countries give "free" healthcare either. Governments cannot give FREE anything. They pay for things by taking from citizens or putting them into debt. They have no other product. So I don't care what country it is. It isn't free. So I am calling out the lies of politicians that use promises of "free" services to convince people to vote for them. It is a huge lie.
As to the places with humane health care. As I stated many times in the post. Health Care Insurance is NOT the same as Health Care. In the U.S. the Affordable Health Care Act is purely based upon Health Care Insurance and it is anything but affordable.
Some countries offer health care to all of their citizens. It is not free. It is paid for by their taxes. Depending upon who you talk to the quality of those systems is very debateable. I know people that come to the U.S. from say Canada just because they have trouble getting what they need in Canada. I even have met people that moved to the U.S. due to the taxation to pay for medical in Canada. Though they moved here before the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) and I doubt things look that much different financially now.
Prior to this you could still get healthcare. You might have a debt to pay off, but an ER would not turn you away. Now you have what essentially is an expensive tax and you still are in debt in the U.S. The prices have increased so much the debt actually is worse than it was before this mess.
The specifics of other countries I can't argue. I can tell you governments can't give any FREE services. There is no such thing as a FREE from governments unless we are endorsing enslaving the workers to provide that service, and we still must pay to feed, clothe, and house them so even then it still isn't free.
People are IGNORANT of the fact that a new service is something they STILL pay for. It typically comes in the form of more taxes. So suddenly they are getting less money from their paycheck. Or perhaps it is debt and printing money which devalues the currency and now their paycheck is not able to pay for as much due to inflation. So the people ENCHANTED by promises of "free" end up paying for it. They just generally are so emotionally caught up by "free" they miss the fact of how that is paid for.
It is worse. If people pay for things themselves they pay for things they need, and want. If the government pays for things with taxes then people end up paying for things and services they themselves would never use or need.
There is nothing compassionate about spending other people's money.
The ACA was handicapped by the fact that the entire Republican Party opposes any action to improve the health care system, and half of the Democratic Party is owned by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, including Obama's chief of staff at the time. It net-improved coverage, but did so by doing the policy equivalent of shuffling around deck chairs on the Titanic.
Other first world countries successfully use insurance-based models in their health systems. Some just run it directly by the government. All perform better than the US system, and for less money.
None of them - no country on Earth - has a successful, humane health care system that doesn't involve taxing somebody in some way. So if you're going to say "the health care system is bad, and taxes are bad", the onus is on you to convince us how it is possible to have a good health care system without government involvement, a notion that would seem absurd to most everybody else on the planet, including health policy experts.
Just a quick note that in Canada, our taxes only pay for a basic amount of healthcare. If you want more than the basic, additional money comes out from both your employer's and your pocket.
Yep I actually interviewed for a job in Edmonton once and encountered that. It was confusing at the time. That was many years ago.
ain't nothing free.
someone always pays.