Socialized medicine is an abysmal failure

I am looking forward to the reply and any future debates we might have. "The cons in our system is that many people are uninsured and many more are constantly treated poorly by the insurance companies which make massive amounts of money off screwing over sick people. " While I am no friend of insurance companies for many reasons, this is a gross exaggeration. First and foremost, what makes for a failsafe are the checks and balances system. What do I mean? Insurance companies, like all businesses, compete with one another for your business. It is in their best interests to provide the very best coverage for the lowest amount possible, otherwise they will lose your business. Aside from which, also like any other business, they are held liable by contractual agreement to pay for the coverage both advertised and purchased by a client. To breech that contract is career suicide for the company due to litigation costs which end up being more costly than it would simply to provide the coverage promised. "If you're ill and do not have insurance, you're going to go bankrupt or die. " This is not true. There are homeless people out there who choose that lifestyle because it is the least amount of responsibility possible. When I was in the health care industry, we never turned down any one seeking medical care, which cost the hospital and their insurance providers a small fortune. And when I say we provided them care, this was for quite a few people were seen in my emergency room, literally, every night. A free meal, a warm and free place to sleep off the hangover, and then they were right back out the door to do it all over again. They were never turned away, even in spite of me having to fight them, have them throw food, urine, and feces at me, etc, etc. Good times. "The United State System: - Pros: The United States has some of the best health care in the world. If you're rich. " Nonsense. I'm dirt poor and have insurance. Provided, I'm in the military again right now, and that is given to me for free, however when I was not, I was able to have insurance. Here is where the two systems are backwards. Insurance companies expect you to pay for minor things through, say, a $100 dollar deductible. But if you need critical surgery, you can have that almost as instantly as the problem was diagnosed. With the socialist system, they will pay for these little visits no problem, saving you a measly $60 bucks, but you may NEVER get a chance to have that critical surgery because you will die before you can even be seen! So which is worse? A deductible or death? And what is the truth about the uninsured in America, by and large? . http://www.freemarketcure.com... "what if rather than rely on insurance we simply cover the care directly. " Because its TOO costly! There is overwhelming evidence of this. .. Plus, you end up paying far more in taxes for something you probably will never need, rather than paying a nominal fee for something you may never need. If they are rationing medical care, there is a problem. Your plan proposes to offer WELFARE, while a non-socialist system offers HEALTH CARE. I don't expect the government to pamper me from cradle to grave, and neither did the founding fathers. If you want less government intrusion, then stop voting for Big Government. A must read: . http://www.cato.org... What are some solutions? The undesirable aspects of the current system are not the result of the free market, but rather are the outcome of decades of governmental intervention in the health-care industry. Elimination of that intervention would shift power and responsibility from impersonal bureaucracies to consumers. The resulting free market, characterized by prudent consumers spending their own money, would control costs and let the American people have the kind of medical care they want. "Some "reforms" go even further in the wrong direction and call for a Canadian-type system, which would make the government the sole health insurer in the land. But the results of the Canadian system are exactly what we would expect of government control. Bureaucratic planning has created shortages, rationing, and long lines for service. For example, Canada has 11 heart surgery facilities, one for every 2.3 million people. In the United States there are 793 facilities, one for every 300,000. The wait for a coronary-bypass operation can last from four months to a year in Canada. Bureaucratic strangulation has also prompted a significant number of doctors to emigrate or take early retirement. The system has failed to even control health-care costs; the growth in spending for Canada and the United States is almost the same. " Source: . http://www.amatecon.com... "Consider the recent British controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an appointment with a specialist, only to have it canceled—48 times. More than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months. In France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave—when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity—15,000 elderly citizens died. Across Europe, state–of–the–art drugs aren't available. And so on. Single–payer systems—confronting dirty hospitals, long waiting lists and substandard treatment—are starting to crack, however. Canadian newspapers are filled with stories of people frustrated by long delays for care. Many Canadians, determined to get the care they need, have begun looking not to lotteries—but to markets. " Source: . http://www.manhattan-institute.org... Over, and over, and over again, we see huge flaws in the system which would be VASTLY worse in the United States because of the size of the population. Canada doesn't even have 1/3 the population the United States does. And considering that because America is a capitalist society, THIS is the only reason why so much revenue exists in this country. Taking away trillions of dollars in privatized medicine and dumping it in to a government already well over a trillion dollars in debt is ludicrous and foolhardy, to say the least. The United States citizens would suffer tremendously under the socialist system, as if we needed any more undeniable facts pointing to it's abject failure in other countries. In closing, socialized medicine does not work. It's no different than looking at USPS versus FedEx. Privatized business' run more efficiently because they have vested interests. And that makes for better quality. The same principle applies to health care, and really, why would we expect anything less? Communism, and its little brother, socialism, have proven with unimpeachable evidence, that their system ends as an abysmal failure.