Failure of Socialism in America

Lets be clear - universal healthcare would be impossible without government instruction. A purely capitalist system does not support everyone getting free medical care. Some simply don't. But people need to realise America is not a purely capitalist system, far from it. The military is one of the greatest welfare institutions on the planet. America already runs some of the planets biggest welfare programmes (In terms of actuall £'s, the US spends far more than any single western country.)

Big companies want a national health system, and so do ordinary people. It is good for business, good for patients and it will help cure America's hideously overprices and stretched health service. I have been reading that A & E in US hospitals are literally insane as they are full with people with relatively minor ailments getting treatmeant (As the hospital is legally obliged to treat them, even if they can't pay) With the current system, there is no systematic preventative healthcare system - its just chaos.

And it could be sorted out if Americans would get past semantics and look at what would actually suit them.

Originally posted by Blueglasnost   About healthcare: many people still believe it has to be socialized, but some prominent economists - not least Milton Friedman -

Hello to you all

The socialised French system has the luxury to send a doctor to check in every week on elderly patients with certain long term care illnesses and provides a nurse for all the terminally ill patients, so much for socialised medicine eh.

French healthcare system is light-years ahead of the US system, does not even compare. US does not have even a health care system, but a 'disease industry'. They spend more money per capita on health than many, but that money goes to company profits. Giving taxes to the rich like this is not 'socialism'. Neither is buying minority shares with taxes in companies. That's corporate welfare, not 'socialism'. If US has socialism, it is for the rich. For the poor, it has the 'free-market'.

Given the lack of order in Haiti, it would be better to say the system is anarchy.

Originally posted by Lipovan87 Socialist health care might be considered viable in the long run insofar as you accept long lines, insanely cursory visits, and a lack of modern medicines.

Nationalised is run by the government. Socialised is paid for by the government. (Either way of course payment actually comes out of taxes, either the general fund or specified ones - i.e. compulsory contributions.)

Originally posted by gcle2003 You quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I've had experience under the US, UK, French, German and Luxembourg systems, not just for myself but for relatives and friends, and the French and Luxembourg systems are incomparably better on pretty well all counts. Germany isn't far behind, the UK is pretty dismal nowadays, and the US is the worst I've personally experienced. But the UK is not 'socialised', but 'nationalised' (big, big difference).

i have no experience with other healthcare systems but i think the German one is pretty solid. in what way is the French one superior?

BTW good count on nationalized vs socialized, never really thought about the difference.

Originally posted by beorna But our politicians are trying to murder it, perhaps it is still dead or in his last breathing.

That's what's happening here too. The American HMOs have deep pockets for lobbying and framing the issue through media etc.

Still, we have better prognoses, longer lifespan, and spend less of our GDP on health than the Americans do. The saboteurs have alot of work ahead of them.


Edited by edgewaters - 04-Nov-2008 at 04:37