Universal Health Care

:" I don't think most objective readers would agree taxes are "slavery" and use that to justify any position. If democratic institutions can provide a superior service, then I'm willing use them." Taxes are theft. When you treat theft as the right thing, you treat the victim as a slave, i.e. someone who exists for the sake of the perpetrator. This is objective. And democratic institutions do not provide a superior service to the free market, indeed, they do not provide a service so much as they provide oppression. "I enjoy living in society and I recognize taxes are the price of using those benefits." You can't imagine a society in which thievery is not the primary method of funding the government? It is nevertheless possible, so taxes are not in fact the price. " To remain objective, I will also stick with non-political sources (NGOs, Government reports, medical journals, mainstream publications). " Not one of those is "non-political." There is no such thing as a "non-political" source, ESPECIALLY government reports, which are political by definition, and the least objective of all observers in this. "Your ideology says universal systems will cause fewer people to become doctors. The facts show the US produces FEWER doctors and nurses than most universal systems. MORE people become doctors in universal systems because the government usually subsidizes their education." Your source did not demonstrate that. And the subsidies obviously show there is something to make up for. I am speaking of "natural" production. Spending endlessly increasing amounts of government cash to find more doctors and cover up the problem obviously creates problems somewhere else the cash is needed. Note that the quality of the doctors in question is also at issue. ":You say there will be less research, but the facts show the countries that spend largest share of their economy on medical research are the Nordics, France, UK, and Japan. The Nordics have the largest public share of healthcare and still perform much better in all areas of research. ." Excuse me, I do not see the term "research" in that source. And note the corruption of the comparison- the US is already 44% socialized, and that's just the DIRECT public funding. No free market has been given as a comparison. " Even in the US, most of the discoveries are made by government funding - not the private sector. The NBER and Congressional JEC Commission found 75% of the most significant US pharmaceutical drugs came directly from GOVERNMENT R&D. They also found a 700% rise in private research was mainly to alter existing drugs for new patents, without offering any new advantage or discoveries. R&D is only 1-2% of US medical spending - I think we have a lot of room to cut without impacting research." The source given does not contain the number 75... and note, of course, that the private companies are essentially crippled in what they can bring to the market in our present system. The choice is not between our current system and socialized medicine, the free market is also an option, and that implies the removal of regulatory barriers to testing new drugs on consenting parties. " 1) Universal systems cost less because they are more efficient. The US spends about twice as much per person (18% GDP compared to 9% or $7000 vs $3000), but remains the only country unable to insure 20% of its population." The US is already most of the way to being a universal system. It is not a valid indicator of the free market, the alternative I am advocating (note that the costs, as explained in the article I linked, are the results of such insurance rules as mandatory acceptance, mandatory coverage of various ailments not in the contract- in essence, precisely those moves that are already in the direction of universal health care. Note also you are only measuring direct spending- you aren't measuring the overall economic destruction caused by the high rates of taxation in many such countries (even the small amounts of private industry left in the US cause it to have nearly 10,000 dollars more per capita GDP than Canada, the most geographically and culturally similar of socialized countries.) When faced with that stark difference, percentages of GDP clearly only tell part of the story. "The largest cost difference is overhead and administrative waste, which accounts for 31% of the private sector costs and 1/3 of healthcare jobs." Note that it's never mentioned what constitutes this supposed "administrative waste," and also that most of that in government bureaucracy could be very easily classified as a "non-health care" expense even when it results from the health care system, creating illusory benefits. I wouldn't put it past the average government accountant. After all, it's easy to classify time filling out forms that make sure the right medicines go to the right patients as "waste," as long as you use dry language so no one looks into it. "High private sector overhead costs are due to marketing," I.e. providing information to consumers about the product. Hmm, wonder how much information should be cut out in a universal system. "inability to share information across competitors," Inability? What information? "the research to identify & deny high risk individuals," Which SAVES money. Hmm. "profit," i.e. the mechanism for making sure that only the services people actually want are invested in. "lower economies of scale," Only because anytime a company tries to fix that, by expanding, they are the victim of antitrust laws. In essence the government hold's a gangster-style monopoly on economies of scale in such situations. That does not apply in the free market situation I am advocating. " 2) Universal systems create a healthier society. When individuals are sick or develop conditions, they are treated earlier in universal systems before they become life-threatening or have to use more expensive emergency services" Then what's with all the reports of people going on waiting lists? Even this source, probably against me: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:YC_ag9J6Oc8J:www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf+canadian+versus+US+wait+times&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a admits that the US has much shorter wait times for those who deserve (pay for) a procedure, and that universal health care would increase the wait time. Indeed, many of the differences in health between the United States and other industrialized countries have to do with obesity , which universal health care does nothing to help. ""U.S. patients are more likely to report experiencing medical errors, to go without care because of costs, and to say that the health care system needs to be rebuilt completely. U.S. patients are also the least likely to be able to get a same-day appointment with their physicians when sick and the most likely to seek care in emergency rooms as an alternative." US consumers are notorious for complaining more about everything to everyone. That is a problem with this data. " 3) A universal insurance system allows Americans to be more mobile, take greater risks, and hire workers." At the cost of the seizure of any gains they happen to make. And the experience of the generally worse economies of countries with universal health care contradicts you. " 4) Public services are regulated by democratic participation. " Mob rule is not helpful to your case.