Augustus
…
I can easily give you pro's and con's on both systems.
What are the pros of paying more taxpayer money per capita for the US version of public healthcare than say the German one ?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I can easily give you pro's and con's on both systems.
I can easily give you pro's and con's on both systems.
"The Cons of Socialized Medicine
People need to make sure that in every medical system they use to engage with, they are always ready with the possible consequences that this might be giving. It is a must that before deciding, you must be equipped with all the data and information before getting in touch with the medical system. Here are some of the disadvantages that this socialized system might give:
• The degree and quality of the health care services that hospitals offer will decrease. It is because this socialized medicine is being run by the government. Hence, they have the power to control this health care system. They will be the one controlling everything regarding the health services they are providing the people.
• With the control given to the government, patients tend to wait for longer hours before they are being rendered by the health service that they are aiming for."
And if the degree and quality of health services decrease, you will watch your loved one die.
What are the pros of paying more taxpayer money per capita for the US version of public healthcare than say the German one ?
For less than the average American pays you can get:
a) Universal healthcare
b) Additional private coverage which negates any of you criticisms
What are the advantages of paying more for less?
Again... PUBLIC healthcare is the same for the first 6 countries and not too far for the next 4 or 5. LIBERTY gives us the choice to pay more for more services.
I pay less than 400 a month for two -- and it is not government health-care. That is "less" and gives me "MORE". Your point?
All one has to do is watch the news and take the object lesson of Venezuela and Socialisms failure there.
Communism and socialism are fraternal twins.
That produces wealthy people at the top and lazy people on the bottom.
Our infrastructure is a mess because we've lost our democracy, industry is now in control and there's no profit in maintenance of the public sector.Is that why our infrastructure is a mess and the postal service is still asking for more money?
This is only a problem with a government that's been bought out by bankers and industry; a government divorced from The People and democracy.• The degree and quality of the health care services that hospitals offer will decrease. It is because this socialized medicine is being run by the government. Hence, they have the power to control this health care system. They will be the one controlling everything regarding the health services they are providing the people.
A common but false trope, and what does "to the government" mean? Is the government an arm of industry, or is it us? Do we have a democracy, or an oligarchy?• With the control given to the government, patients tend to wait for longer hours before they are being rendered by the health service that they are aiming for."
But we already have the worst health care outcomes in the developed world, as well as the highest costs. Doctors must already negotiate with insurance companies in developing treatment plans.And if the degree and quality of health services decrease, you will watch your loved one die.
More profits?What are the pros of paying more taxpayer money per capita for the US version of public healthcare than say the German one ?
"Public" healthcare is not the same. The US already pays as much in public, tax funds as some other countries pay for their entire healthcare systems, yet still requires expensive insurance policies and out-of-pocket expensive to access whats available elsewhere for free.Again... PUBLIC healthcare is the same for the first 6 countries and not too far for the next 4 or 5. LIBERTY gives us the choice to pay more for more services.
The degree of "socialism" worldwide varies, which is one reason what attacks on "socialism", which some here treat as if it's monolithic, is a problem because it ain't monolithic. [maybe look up "socialism" in Wikipedia to see various forms of it] My cousins in Sweden enjoy a system which I would give my left um er big toe to have, and I can go through what they have if you'd like. Of course, they pay for it, and the cost is pretty high, but this is what they have continually voted in, but with adjustments. Some of those adjustments have been to make certain industries more capitalistic, but they even do that the "Swedish way", namely with much significant regulation and oversight.Yes, Metis, there are many different mixes throughout the world. Even the US is not strictly a capitalist society. But are the Scandinavian countries really socialist countries? We noted that some have tried a democratic-socialism but realizing they need to move more to the capitalist position.
Which socialist country is really driven by people ownership? Or which business is State owned but worker controlled?
Then why is it that westernized-industrialized countries that have it have better outcomes, according to W.H.O. stats, and yet they pay less than we do, plus they have universal coverage that we don't have?And if the degree and quality of health services decrease, you will watch your loved one die.
As I understand it, the "cost" of a socialized economy has been overblown by right wing critics. Yes, personal taxes are higher in the "socialist" Nordic countries -- but so are wages.The degree of "socialism" worldwide varies, which is one reason what attacks on "socialism", which some here treat as if it's monolithic, is a problem because it ain't monolithic. [maybe look up "socialism" in Wikipedia to see various forms of it] My cousins in Sweden enjoy a system which I would give my left um er big toe to have, and I can go through what they have if you'd like. Of course, they pay for it, and the cost is pretty high, but this is what they have continually voted in, but with adjustments. Some of those adjustments have been to make certain industries more capitalistic, but they even do that the "Swedish way", namely with much significant regulation and oversight.
Sweden has what is called "cradle to grave protection", which is why many call them a "socialist country". In reality, they, like all other countries in today's world, have what we call in anthropology a "mixed economy".
Anyhow, have a very Happy Father's Day!
Exactly.As I understand it, the "cost" of a socialized economy has been overblown by right wing critics. Yes, personal taxes are higher in the "socialist" Nordic countries -- but so are wages.
In Denmark, for example, the starting wage at McDonalds is ~ $20.00/h. Individual disposable income is usually greater than it is in the low-tax US. Minimum wage workers contribute to the tax base rather than detract from it in welfare, food stamps or housing subsidies, as they do in the US. Moreover, they don't have to worry about catastrophic healthcare crises or homelessness, and, should they want to go back to school to "improve themselves," they're financially able to do so. Tuition is not only free, but students receive stipends.
The "cost," of socialism isn't so high as detractors say.
More profits?
"Public" healthcare is not the same. The US already pays as much in public, tax funds as some other countries pay for their entire healthcare systems, yet still requires expensive insurance policies and out-of-pocket expensive to access whats available elsewhere for free.
You're at Liberty to pay twice as much for services other countries cover with tax revenues equal to our own. You're at liberty to pay extra, out-of-pocket fees for what's automatically available elsewhere.