Integrating Socialist ideas has worked well in the West

[CMD]

Ah never mind I found my own answer. That is government spending.

Here is the out of pocket costs for the actual people using the healthcare. Seems like the USA isn't much higher than most other countries that offer "free healthcare" meaning what is the point? All I care about is what it is costing ME. If I have to still pay nearly the same with "free healthcare" then it's not free since I am still paying out of pocket AND paying more in taxes too! Together I would be paying MORE than I am now with insurance which is mostly paid by my employer.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46944[/ATTACH]

I'm honestly not entirely sure what specifically all of the out-of-pocket expenses are for. Perhaps those who live in these other countries can shed some light on this. But even with some out-of-pocket costs, most of those countries still have lower out-of-pocket costs than the U.S. Japan, Finland, New Zealand, France, U.K., Sweden, Germany, etc.

These governments are both spending less than the U.S. on healthcare (i.e. there is less, not more tax-payer money being spent on healthcare as compared to the U.S.), AND their citizens are paying less out of pocket. Sounds like a win-win to me.

[Starlight]

If they have socialized medicine why are they spending anything at all? I thought it was supposed to be free for the people? And is this just the out of pocket for people in the USA or including what the insurance companies pay to the health providers?

The systems vary in different countries.

In NZ, there are government hospitals and specialists which are free, and private hospitals which you pay for and which typically offer a faster and more luxurious experience. The vast majority of the people choose the free system, and those who are feeling particularly rich or feel that the free system isn't dealing with them well or fast enough for whatever reason, pay to go privately. The free system doesn't tend to offer cosmetic treatments and other optional surgeries, so if you want something that isn't necessary you pay to go privately. And separately to that, non-hospital prescription medication is subsidized down to ~$3 US per medication per prescription. Rates for visiting a local physician / family doctor range from free to ~$30 US depending what subsidies you are or aren't eligible for. So spending 10 weeks in hospital and having 5 operations and seeing 3 specialists can be free, but going to the doctor with the sniffles and getting a prescription might end up being $40 US.

Other countries, which have government hospitals might have some sort of surcharge on treatment. Almost no two countries in the world structure the funding of their healthcare systems in quite the same way. There's also differences as to whether hospitals are government owned and run (e.g. NZ and UK) or are owned by non-profits and which charge fees for patients which the government pays (e.g. Australia, France), or whether there's an additional layer of non-profit insurance companies (e.g. Netherlands and Switzerland). As far as I am aware, the US is the only Western country that lets for-profit entities constitute the majority of its healthcare market.

Here's a graph that separates out private and public spending by country. Figures are percentage of GDP in 2009:

[Starlight]

No, the important part is that none of it works without capitalism.

I don't view your underlying assumption that capitalism is about making money and socialism about spending it as having any validity.

One example: If I get sick and can't work (or even die) then I can't be productive and can't make money. If the government pays some money to make me better, then I can work again and make money. Socialism increased productivity in this example.

Another example: 10 people run a cooperative company. They make and sell products. Socialism in this example makes money.

Another example: The government owns a mining company. That company employees lots of people and those people extract minerals from the ground which are used and sold. Socialism in this example makes money.

[JimL]

He's talking about a "mixed economy," something that the US already is, in fact, it's probably more socialist now than it's definitely been in like the last two decades as per its insane debt, yet we've had more sociopolitical conflict in that timeframe than ever before.

Without the trillions spent on insane wars, the trillions lost in huge tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, the trillions lost due to the deregulation of the banking industry, 2008 recession, not to mention inept handling of pandemic costing trillions more, all the result of Republican administrations, there would be no huge debt.

[seanD]

Without the trillions spent on insane wars, the trillions lost in huge tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, the trillions lost due to the deregulation of the banking industry, 2008 recession, not to mention inept handling of pandemic costing trillions more, all the result of Republican administrations, there would be no huge debt.

Yeah there would be. Politics changes very little of whether the debt increases or not.

[Charles]

The systems vary in different countries.

In NZ, there are government hospitals and specialists which are free, and private hospitals which you pay for and which typically offer a faster and more luxurious experience. The vast majority of the people choose the free system, and those who are feeling particularly rich or feel that the free system isn't dealing with them well or fast enough for whatever reason, pay to go privately. The free system doesn't tend to offer cosmetic treatments and other optional surgeries, so if you want something that isn't necessary you pay to go privately. And separately to that, non-hospital prescription medication is subsidized down to ~$3 US per medication per prescription. Rates for visiting a local physician / family doctor range from free to ~$30 US depending what subsidies you are or aren't eligible for. So spending 10 weeks in hospital and having 5 operations and seeing 3 specialists can be free, but going to the doctor with the sniffles and getting a prescription might end up being $40 US.

Other countries, which have government hospitals might have some sort of surcharge on treatment. Almost no two countries in the world structure the funding of their healthcare systems in quite the same way. There's also differences as to whether hospitals are government owned and run (e.g. NZ and UK) or are owned by non-profits and which charge fees for patients which the government pays (e.g. Australia, France), or whether there's an additional layer of non-profit insurance companies (e.g. Netherlands and Switzerland). As far as I am aware, the US is the only Western country that lets for-profit entities constitute the majority of its healthcare market.

Here's a graph that separates out private and public spending by country. Figures are percentage of GDP in 2009:

In some countries with public health systems certain mechanisms are in place to ensure you get your treatment without having to wait too long. If you have to wait for longer than a given period for the public health system to treat you, you are allowed to go to a private hospital right away to get the same treatment and the public health system will have to pay for you since they failed to treat you in time.

[seer]

I don't view your underlying assumption that capitalism is about making money and socialism about spending it as having any validity.

One example: If I get sick and can't work (or even die) then I can't be productive and can't make money. If the government pays some money to make me better, then I can work again and make money. Socialism increased productivity in this example.

Another example: 10 people run a cooperative company. They make and sell products. Socialism in this example makes money.

Another example: The government owns a mining company. That company employees lots of people and those people extract minerals from the ground which are used and sold. Socialism in this example makes money.

Except your cooperative company is actually practicing capitalism. They are buying and selling, the ownership is immaterial. And I'm not arguing what social welfare programs we should or should not have, only that the funding depends on capital markets doing what they do. In other words the free market provides the ability to pay for these programs. Social programs depend on capitalism.

[Starlight]

Except your cooperative company is actually practicing capitalism. They are buying and selling, the ownership is immaterial.

You can, of course, invent your own personal fantasy definition of capitalism.

I guess it goes with your comment in the other thread where you had your own personal fantasy definition of socialism, which included fascism.

Whatever. You can make up your own meaningless terms if you like. I don't think I care to argue with that level of silliness. Peace out.

[seer]

You can, of course, invent your own personal fantasy definition of capitalism.

I guess it goes with your comment in the other thread where you had your own personal fantasy definition of socialism, which included fascism.

Whatever. You can make up your own meaningless terms if you like. I don't think I care to argue with that level of silliness. Peace out.

What are you talking about? Is not your cooperative company buying and selling, using free market principles? Of course they are, and you know that Star. The fact is social programs depend on the free market generating the necessary funds. That is fact. Where do you get the monies for your social health care? Who pays the doctors and nurses, pays for equipment? You get the funds from tax payers. And where do the tax payers get their funds? From buying and selling or working for a company who is buying and selling. And the reason why you don't want to argue is you know that I'm right.

[Leonhard]

In some countries with public health systems certain mechanisms are in place to ensure you get your treatment without having to wait too long. If you have to wait for longer than a given period for the public health system to treat you, you are allowed to go to a private hospital right away to get the same treatment and the public health system will have to pay for you since they failed to treat you in time.

That's the way it is in Denmark.

[Maranatha]

In some countries with public health systems certain mechanisms are in place to ensure you get your treatment without having to wait too long. If you have to wait for longer than a given period for the public health system to treat you, you are allowed to go to a private hospital right away to get the same treatment and the public health system will have to pay for you since they failed to treat you in time.

When your socialist medicine breaks down, you resort to feeding the capitalists, enriching themselves off the poor. lol

Doesn't sound like anything special.

In the US, if one goes in for medical treatment, they will be treated same day, with no money!

[JimL]

In the US, if one goes in for medical treatment, they will be treated same day, with no money!

What do you call that?

[CMD]

When your socialist medicine breaks down, you resort to feeding the capitalists, enriching themselves off the poor. lol

Doesn't sound like anything special.

In the US, if one goes in for medical treatment, they will be treated same day, with no money!

That's only true if you're talking about an emergency room visit with something that needs immediate attention. It doesn't apply in a whole heck of a lot situations, however.

The whole "free" thing comes with some caveats. I had to go to the emergency room once when I was a teenager, we were dirt poor so never could pay for it (so I ended up getting it for "free")... she got calls from the hospital demanding payment for awhile and eventually they turned her over to collections and the whole thing completely wrecked her credit for years. It wasn't just "hey, you can't pay, no problem, free no-strings-attached treatment for you!"

And this whole idea that wait times are only a thing in socialist countries and in America it's all just right away is just flat out wrong. My last two doctor visits I had to wait over a month for an appointment, same with my sister's last couple of visits (different place/doctor). My mother needed to get a colonoscopy as she had signs of colon cancer, she had to wait over 2 months and despite being poor as heck, she could only get a small bit of financial help (and 5 or so months later she's still waiting for some of that help to actually kick in; she just got a bill for something that was supposed to waived, blood work I believe). So now she's got even more credit card debt and she's been turned over to collections again, so bye-bye credit score.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm honestly not entirely sure what specifically all of the out-of-pocket expenses are for. Perhaps those who live in these other countries can shed some light on this. But even with some out-of-pocket costs, most of those countries still have lower out-of-pocket costs than the U.S. Japan, Finland, New Zealand, France, U.K., Sweden, Germany, etc.

These governments are both spending less than the U.S. on healthcare (i.e. there is less, not more tax-payer money being spent on healthcare as compared to the U.S.), AND their citizens are paying less out of pocket. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Here's one major reason why...

https://www.medscape.com/slideshow/2...port-6011814#2
Capture.GIF

[Watermelon]

What are you talking about? Is not your cooperative company buying and selling, using free market principles? Of course they are, and you know that Star. The fact is social programs depend on the free market generating the necessary funds. That is fact. Where do you get the monies for your social health care? Who pays the doctors and nurses, pays for equipment? You get the funds from tax payers. And where do the tax payers get their funds? From buying and selling or working for a company who is buying and selling. And the reason why you don't want to argue is you know that I'm right.