Question about socialized healthcare.

I have a question about socialized health care. How much money do we currently spend on our defense budget. How much money do we currently spend on law enforcement? How much money do we currently spend on our correctional system? Isn't the reason given for socialized defense, law enforcement and correctional facilities based on public health & safety?

Now, how much would socialized health care cost and isn't it too a public health & safety issue? If the answer is yes, am I the only one who sees a correlation with respect of poor vs rich and who benefits as the only bases of policy?

of health care. If the money that is taken in premiums by the corporate health care industry, insurance, HMOs and big PhRMA is redirected and put into a healthcare pool and redistributed according to health care need, not affordability, we would have plenty of money for health care for everyone. It needs to be taken out of the hands of the industry middlemen and put into the hands of the non profit government and used for actual health care.

that is what law enforcement is, the fire department and a slew of others things are...SOCIALIZED.

We would have the funds to have a national health care program if the government was not engaged in empire expansion. How many of the industrialized countries with national health care start wars or invade and occupy other countries? ZERO. Not to mention that their military budgets are greatly smaller than what the US spends; this is because those countries with national health care have their priorities in order.

I do too.

want socialized payment of health care like the Canadians get.

care is what we need.

Nothing like some good old fashioned fear mongering.

I have never been anti-communist when all it is is just that. However, totalitarian rule regardless of what philosophy they claim to be under is unacceptable to me and Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and China are all totalitarian regimes with the window dressing of some fancy philosophy behind them. You don't know me so don't dare to presume. I am very invested in the health care issue. Decades of studying it has convinced me that the best method is socialized insurance run by the government with private health care doing it the capitalistic way with open market competition but also government regulation, something that is missing lately. Since it's not theory any more and many governments have tried many systems over decades, it's not like we have to guess, which is the best workable system. We also don't need hundreds of insurance companies providing basic health care. It's already been proven that it doesn't work and our country is the prime worst example of it.

That's odd. Considering that reference is absolutely meaningless. You yourself admitted that the USSR was a totalitarian state. So why are you attempting to bash Socialized medical care by talking about the USSR?

Is the US a totalitarian communist state?


There is a difference between thinking one is better than another and outright bashing one.

really means.

You are using the USSR as an example of failed socialized health care when there are already examples of successful socialized health care systems.

And on top of that, you are referring to a failed communist state with VASTLY different political and social structures than the United States.

So your reference was USELESS. It seems that someone who is educated on this topic would know all of this already.

Reading the articles on both websites should make you and anyone else interested in true health care reform better informed.

who have socialized payment of the health care bills but private doctors, clinics and hospitals that the patient chooses. National health care is like England where the govt. runs all the health care and pays the doctors and health care providers. In the countries with more successful health care delivery, health care providers are private practitioners but they receive their payments from the government. Everyone pays into it according to whatever taxation funds it, however everyone can get the health care that they need regardless of economic status that means children, the elderly, the disable, the unemployed and whoever needs to see a doctor or go to a hospital when they need it. No money changes hands at the health care provider level.

All single payer models here do not feature health care providers as government employees. The government just pays the bills. It's more like the interstate highway system than the police department.

The tried to invade the entire world. The Soviet Union had a socialized medical system, they invaded Afghanistan. The Peoples Republic of China has a socialized system, they invaded Tibet and raided into Vietnam. North Korea had a socialized medical system, they invaded South Korea. North Vietnam had a socialized medical system, they invaded and conquered South Vietnam.

and wouldn't give it up if you held a gun to their head...

There's nothing wrong with Socialism -- if it's REALLY Socialism...

I do not advocate for everything to be Socialized, 100% of any political philosophy is insufficient and just does not work. I think 50% Capitalism and 50% Socialism is a good combination, but I might to generous with the Capitalism.

People still think that Socialism is Communism..tsk tsk.

data from those programs may be relevant to a broader base of clients.

Medicare, a single payer plan, is much more efficient than private insurance coverage - so even going to a federal single payer option - or at least offering that single payer option - ought to realize savings for individuals.

The Republicans consistently, and effectively, run out two red herrings. 1.) A Medicare style program of government *funded* health care is socialized medicine. and 2.) A Medicare style program is relinquishing medical decisions to government bureaucrats.

Both are false, fear mongering tactics in this debate and ought to be countered at every opportunity.

:hi:

1) I am willing to keep paying my insurance payment to the single payor operating a not for profit enterprise.

2) If the government would start looking into what is really making us sick (hint, it starts with f and ends with ood, perhaps surrounded by quotes), they could actually cut the cost of health care so far that the problem would be out of work health-care workers.

Try this:
Other countries pay about $3000/year/countryman (per capita) to:
1. cover EVERYTHING
2. cover EVERYBODY (including tourists)
3. cover YOUR choice of doctor..
.. all the good stuff.

We pay: .... you won't believe it .... $8000/year/American and get LESS.

The additional $5000 per year per capita goes to insure CEOs get boatloads of money for making and running an infrastructure that denies health care to some, supposedly, if they don't work, that is at a job that has health care. They are a total waste except that they pay campaign funds that we don't pay our politicians to run. That campaign money goes to television ads that should be free, but that's another cause to talk about later. But, since the TV people like getting that money and the money spent on pharma ads they won't talk about how we could get health care for $5K less either. Neither will Sen. Baucus who receives $1500/day for his campaign funds. He won't even allow the CBO to put a cost on a single-payer program. Do you feel the fear?

America has just over 300 million people, men, women, and children. $8K*300M=$2.4T$/year. $3K*300M=.9T$/year. We could actually save 1.5T$/year having a single payer plan. But, it won't be costed.

So, we can look at what it costs other countries. GB=<3K, Canada ~3500 (They probably have to spend an additional $500 in order to have cards so Americans don't abuse their system.)

Actual figures are in this PBS video linked below. I think it uses 2006 figures. The latest American figure I saw was $8160/year so I just leave it at 8000 for ease.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch.html


PS. Our national debt is $11.5T$ and I'm sure of that.
Not sure of GDP: 11-13T$?
Budget: 3T$?
DOD part: .8T$, War .2T$, total 1T$?
Add interest on previous years to DOD, add .4T$?
Sorry to be so approximate and possibly so far off.

We already have "socialized education".. its called Public Education. As for the term "socialized medicine" -there is no other country with a national heath service which uses the politicized term "socialied medicine." The AMA and health insurance industry created that term long ago specifically to make it sound omninous (and it still works!).

Links picked from the pile after a google, so if someone else can provide better sources, by all means please do.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

Includes figures and pie chart for "In Context: US Military Spending Versus Rest of the World." Page down for "In Context: US military budget vs. other US priorities" chart.

Here's another: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Health care spending: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

...US Health and Human Services department found that people with lower incomes and less education tended to die younger... Another reason some countries achieve high life expectancy with low health spending is that clean drinking water and preventive health care can be provided with little spending. If there is near universal clean water and preventive care, life expectancy rates can be high. In the US, however, nearly 40 million Americans lack basic health insurance, and are therefore less likely to receive preventive care.

The per capita spending vs life span chart is mind boggling. Of course cost and availability is a public health & safety issue. We don't seem to be getting anywhere near the best bang for the buck in the US. If health care were more affordable, as it is in countries with public or single payer, then more people would have access to care and we'd all be better off in terms of general health as well as life expectancy. Removing the stress of worrying about paying for medical care would drastically improve quality of life as well.

As a former health care giver, I am shocked and saddened to see what has become of health care in America. $ 1. 4 million is being spent per day in DC by the health care lobbyists so your elected representative is getting taken care of and has quality health care we pay for and can't afford ourselves for our families, I know what is deemed, defended and supported in Tennessee and Virginia as quality health care and clearly profit care comes ahead of patient care. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62 MRSA ( methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureas ) is infesting our communities because filthy, uncaring hospitals and emergency rooms are breeding them and spreading them into our schools, homes, restaurants. How many more Americans' will be diseased or die while 74 % of Americans' are begging for health care reform ? More people died in America last year from MRSA complications than AIDS. When MRSA and a flu bug start mixing, it won't be pretty and we are being infected by the very health care system we depend on and trust to keep us safe and healthy.

It's about the health care insurance lobby buying off congress to protect their profits.

If it wasn't for that, I truly believe we would be on the road to real health care reform.

We won't have (real) health care reform until we have (real) campaign finance reform.

I've worked this out before.
Assuming the USA can apply the NHS model, it would cost roughly $2000 per person, per year. So roughly $600 billion per year, not counting start-up costs.
If you use the French model (generally accepted as the world's best), it goes up to about $900 billion a year.
For comparison, the total currently spent on the combination of Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance is roughly $2.3 trillion.