Socialized Medicine

if a surgery costs that much in a free market, that price will not last, because specialized clinics, hoping to profit, will be built by the thousands. There will be a healthcare gold rush, a boom, then a bust, and the price of the procedure will plummet.

Prevention is one method to lower the cost of healthcare.

A country with socialized medicine inevitably has to start restricting its citizen's activities, diet, and drug use to lower costs on the system.

Yeah, but to the Left, that's unacceptable because someone could die in the meantime by not having access to that surgery due to the price not dropping quickly enough.

when the government controls healthcare, rationing will be the end result. On paper, people will be promised healthcare, but they will never get it. The government will hope that the patient dies before they get to treating them. The young will be prioritized over the old. So older people will be put on a longer waiting list to suffer, for years, until death.

Why don't we talk about how most of healthcare is a scam and insurance is fraud? Fuck out of here. I've been to the doctors twice in 25 year and I'm not paying for shit.

Explain further. What structural changes do you believe would be better than the current structure?

Eliminate insurance entirely and charge for actual services performed.

who is that?

I don't see the left like that. They don't care about people, only power. Once they're in power they will design healthcare to kill people to save money.
IN a free market, there are many ways to deal with payment: charity, payment plans, borrowing, etc. There are also teaching hospitals that treat patients for less, because new doctors need training.

>There is no question that quality and quantity of a product (like healthcare) is increased in a free market.

yes there is.

the market is aimed at the most profit, not the most medicine

the market entirely ignores research into things that are hard to treat, or not profitable.

also the idea that research is only done int eh US and that the rest of the world sponges off it is utterly untrue.

why?

Also, get rid of the ridiculous schooling and liscensing requirements for general practice doctors. We have this thing called the fucking internet for christsake. I know more than most doctors.

>As soon as you start subsidizing those people who can't afford healthcare, the price of healthcare skyrockets for everyone

no it does not, if you are running an efficient system. American healthcare is twice as expensive per capita as Uk health care. If the profits of the insurance industry (and its costs - utterly unnecessary) adn the private health care industry (utterly unnecessary to provide care) were taken out of the system youc ould do jsut as much research and development, and charge those who currently pay hge premiums half the amount they now pay. Add on a few percent - say only cut premiums by 30% - and you can pay for the health care of all the uninsured. To the same standard as now in place.

your assertion is simply false.

>doesn't know about the infinite cock munching stare

your autism is showing

I agree that people should be able to purchase actual services performed, but isn't insurance a good idea for people who would rather pay a monthly rate to save money in case a really bad health situation were to occur that would be difficult to pay out-of-pocket?

>An insured person in the U.S. has the best healthcare in the world

in some areas of medicine yes. But not all.

it isn't just the uninsured who have terrible maternity services... and your mental health services are awful

>. By all metrics, this is indisputable
nope. nope. and nope again.

just false

Free diet education and gym access for everyone. After that you pay for services you need.

Is your assumption that just as many medical breakthroughs and people wanting to become doctors would exist if there weren't a strong profit incentive for investment?

It's not just the doctors and scientists, it's the people willing to dump millions of dollars into a potential medical breakthrough in order to get a return on their capital.

>as well as paying a much higher tax rate).
but at the same time having a very very much lower cost of health insurance - ie zero.

so they end up better off and everybody gets health care. which makes everybody better off as it has positive multiplier effects on the economy, and on crime statistics..

the only people worse off are insurance salesmen and lawyers

>If we socialize the healthcare industry, that comes to a screeching halt.

bollocks

>There are so many ways to lower the cost of healthcare. But only the free market can discover and implement them well

rubbish.

the big cost (after profits of private healthcare firms adn insurance industry people) is labour - which is not reducible. the only way to reduce health care costs is to take the profit margin out.

WHERE THE FUCK IS THE SAUCE ON THAT PIC

>That will kill innovation (i.e., quality) and lower the supply of it further.
>An insured person in the U.S. has the best healthcare in the world.
Wrong.

Or just treat conditions before they get bad.

>They don't care about people, only power. Once they're in power they will design healthcare to kill people to save money.
nice conspiracy theory

I know doctors and medical researchers. They're not all in it for the money.

erm. gonna need a source on that claim that US prices are inflated to make a profitz

just recently wrapped up an employee benefits package development class. last i heard, from the lecturer, and the text documents that came with it, that a large chunk of premium pricing is due in part to legal liabilities, and in order to cover expenses incurred thanks to imcompliance. if memory serve sme correctly, premiums are also high because insurers need to hire additional staff amd put in te man hours to make sure that policies stay within compliance.

can honestly say i never once heard mention of profits. cant speak for everyone, but the vibe i got was that there is fairly little being to be made from profits in the insurance sector.

as far as hospitals pricing care, that again comes down to insurance. prrices are determined based on insurer/caregiver relations.

i suppose i may be biased though. got to see some of that socialized healthcare in action when i was in wien. Local doctor ended us shrugging off a peer because of a swollen arm. Socialzed doc said it was a bug bite, gave him some meds to request from the apoteke. returned to the US, and the swollen arm returned. turned out mr socialized doctor thought a blood clot was a spider bite.
so im fairly pro-US in regards to how to finance and provide healthcare.

>but muh free healthcare
it isnt free, and if you took your health seriously, and your wallet, youd just get insured. this whole “muh free healthcare” thing in the US is a joke. Especially considering how many insurers there are, and the variety of coverage packages that exist.

didnt they nationalize healthcare in chile, and years later, it was observed that quality of care went to shit, and folks decided to go to the US for advanced care?

last i heard, people still come to the US for medical care, from near about every corner of the globe.
normally id be willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but my experience says otherwise.

>last i heard, people still come to the US for medical care, from near about every corner of the globe.
A lot go to the UK and continental Europe too. Some even go to Cuba since it's relatively cheap for the quality they provide.

Something else to consider is what qualifies as "healthcare".
>birth control
>abortions
>mental health
>obesity
>other preventable illnesses
Leftists want to throw everything under that label, but why should I have to pay for peoples' unwanted pregnancies, bi-polar/anxiety/identity disorder, and diabetes?

Those are all still health issues. Doctors and scientists are pretty unanimous on this.

>miles of cock
checks out

>nice conspiracy theory
not a conspiracy, but a necessity. Government incentive is perverted due to the economics of socialized medicine. The incentive is to let people die because it costs resources to treat them. In a socialist economics, scarcity is the norm, because the economy is not growing.

This isn't socialism. It's social democracy. Also, even command economies have growth.

The only thing preventing people from leading healthy lives is their own lifestyle choices. Healthcare won't fix that.

Investors are though.

And investors are who pay these people.

Attached: 1527437047406.png (1149x1400, 174K)

utter bollocks

most illness is not lifestyle related

because by ensuring those are treated you save the economy billions in lost man hours and crime

Most all economies have some form of growth.

It depends on how fast you want that growth. Government involvement often slows down growth. You're saving current individuals at the cost of future individuals (by slowing down cures and innovation and an increase in resources).

>didnt they nationalize healthcare in chile,
which went to shit for all sorts of reasons - - unless you think the US economy is going tot ank (and it might as it has a huge healthcare cost that is a drag tot eh economy - all that insurance money does not actually manufacture anything or make money except for the shareholders)

Most illness in the U.S. is absolutely lifestyle related.

And most people with a decent IQ (with exceptions), are able to find a place in the economy to purchase health insurance to help them if a crisis were to ever occur.

>gonna need a source on that claim that US prices are inflated to make a profitz

lol

just really laughed out loud/

oh boy. No of course the trillion dollar a year profit health care industry does not charge a dime more than they have to...

>the vibe i got was that there is fairly little being to be made from profits in the insurance sector.

Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth Group — the big five for-profit insurers — cumulatively collected $4.5 billion in net earnings in the first three months of 2017

If abortion, birth control, mental health, obesity, and other preventable illnesses are still "health issues," then any compassion for people not receiving this "healthcare" goes out the window and no amount of government involvement is worth it.

again bollocks

every other country int eh G20 has socialised health care - none do this.

>(by slowing down cures and innovation and an increase in resources).
Last time I checked, Europe contributed to plenty of innovations relative to their small country sizes. Even Cuba, a poor communist-ruled country that's been economically isolated for 27 years, has a lot of innovations in medicine and science.

USA, the only advanced country were having a medical condition make you go bankrupt.

>There will be a healthcare gold rush, a boom, then a bust, and the price of the procedure will plummet.

and that boom and bust is so efficient - (no it fucking isn't)

and it will only do that for things that make huge profits - low profit diseases get neglected

Wrong. Genetics are simply poor healthstyle choices perpetuated to future generations.

This fundamental premise is flawed. People with illnesses are a customer base that demand cures. The more there is a demand for something, the more people will provide a supply because they have a profit incentive to do so. There's also a profit incentive to quickly come up with a cure.

So in that sense, it is efficient in address the largest needs of society.

false

>Most illness in the U.S. is absolutely lifestyle related.
Like arthritis or back problems? Those tend to get common in old age regardless of diet or exercise. Then there's cancer, cardiovascular disease, and high blood pressure, which can be influenced but not always prevented by diet and exercise as well as other lifestyle factors.

Attached: 25e.jpg (640x640, 37K)

>Genetics are simply poor health and lifestyle choices perpetuated to future generations.

Attached: brainlet 4.jpg (645x729, 41K)

Are you advocating a universal or single-payer system?

A single-payer system would skyrocket the costs of healthcare because the private industry being paid by the government could just expand indefinitely and demand higher prices from the government.

Again, see U.S. college tuition.

>and it will only do that for things that make huge profits - low profit diseases get neglected

bezos is the richest man on earth and did it buy shipping cheap crap to people's houses, often at a loss. You aren't a genius or a wildly successful business man, so what gives you the right to judge the market and predict how it will solve problems in the future?

Abolish welfare and the cost of healthcare will plummet

Do you have an argument faggot?

The technology and pharmaceuticals they use came from the U.S.

They are nowhere close to us in terms of innovation. For the real tough/rare surgeries/procedures, nearly everyone comes to the U.S.

Just a matter of political will.

Eliminate all Boomers and the cost of healthcare would plummet.

>abortion, birth control, and obesity--all individual choices--are serious healthcare issues

Stop... Or rather, continue because no one has sympathy for intentionally irresponsible/reckless behavior.

well duh. its investment and risk management. of course it provides nothing tangible. the entire intent is to curb the unknown. its literally financial forecasting, like you would do if you signed a lease for a year and 6 months in, you lose your job. thankfully, you got an advisor that provides nothing of tangible value, to architect your finances into a shape where you arent screwed the moment disaster arises.

>There is no question that quality and quantity of a product (like healthcare) is increased in a free market.
No you nigger. Specifically physical well being of self aware beings constituting a free market society will be fucking purposefully worsened if it's profitable to cause and treat symptoms indefinitely. I guarantee you that free market entities will actively spend a shit load of magic jew paper to render you dead were you about to discover anything that would benefit mankind like a low or moloch forbid no cost cancer cure.

>The Left finds the idea of anyone not having healthcare as morally repugnant, so they want the government to provide it freely for everyone. That will kill innovation (i.e., quality) and lower the supply of it further.
Sure, it will kill the innovation of how to better and more efficiently treat symptoms while avoiding curing the disease. You can see what medical innovation is doing in free market. Suddenly gender dysphoria isn't mental disorder anymore so let's sell them hormonal drugs and don't forget to prescribe anti depressants to go along with that genitalia mutila- I mean gender transformation surgery goy.

Free market isn't interested in quality of product at all.

To pull your skin and stick it in the ass to reduce wrinkle, maybe.
But for serious life-saving medecine on a large scale, US is shit

What a fucking sad sack of shit. 15 fucking posts with this ID.

Heart disease
High blood pressure
Diabetes
Cholesterol
Stroke
Liver problems
Sleep apnea
Arthritis

Are almost related to diet/lifestyle choices. Some have a stronger genetic predilection for these illness, but almost all of them can be managed/avoided with just a little effort on the individual's part.

You're not going to win that argument.

do you have the 10-k that states that these firms are looking to grow their profits?

stupid question, disregard.

>But for serious life-saving medecine on a large scale, US is shit

This is just flat-out wrong.

Attached: IMG_20180628_195159.jpg (540x960, 147K)

This is a false dilemma. Not that I'm for socialized healthcare, but if people had higher IQ, doctors would not need to be so rare.

In fact, if the system weren't so heavily tampered with, the gains in efficiency from that alone might be enough to lower costs and improve quality enough to allow it to be cheap enough that it could be payed for by Milton Friedman's negative income tax.

Attached: A1A997F9-C127-48CB-98DE-45C2A7BE31BE.gif (480x270, 1.42M)

Netherlands here, we have a semi-privatized system with an obligatory base insurance of around €120 each month for all citizens as well as around €400 of initial costs to be coughed up by citizens if they need anything, after that the insurance pays.
All other costs are paid by the government.

Despite this semi-privatization 80% of all government spending goes to healthcare, so out of the entire 277 billion euro's the government spends in 1 year 221,7 billion goes to healthcare.

Fully socialized healthcare is not realistic in the west right now because of the demography being such that we are basically living in a gigantic old folks home.

Now add to that that America actually upholds an army capable of defending the nation's interests and it becomes clear why socialized healthcare is not actually possible, realistic or desirable and completely removed from reality.

Without looking at the numbers "free healthcare for all" is just populistic, idiotic sentimental propaganda.

>an increase in supply lowers the cost

You don't say.

The poor in America have better survival rates and longevity rates than similar euros of cancer. More screenings and elective procedures done too. Mostly, the difference in life expectancy is from car deaths, smoking rates, obesity rates, niggers, and fudged infant mortality rates. The last by how its determined in different countries. Got to be careful of lies damn lies and statistics. The double-edge sword you seem to see isn't true.

The poor not receiving healthcare meme in America is a myth. The bankruptcy meme is also largely a myth, because as young millennials, most of you don't know how bankruptcy largely works to protect people from debt. Outside that, we need to reform HC to make people save money in HSAs that are transferable, and open up the insurance to real catastrophic insurance. Ect, ect..

Can I get a detailed explanation of the fudged infant mortality rates?

I can't find good information on it.

This tbqh

That's another thing to mention: the majority of these countrys' government spending goes to healthcare.

Yeah open a biology textbook
Should a kid be denied care for a broken arm because he climbed up a tree? That's reckless behavior.

They objectively do become more likely with age though. The body tends to wear out.

Source? Most of this looks like pure ideology.

No, of course not.

No one should be /denied/ care, but individuals should have to pay for it. Your argument of providing "free" care for people even though their lifestyles are deplorable is a major problem.

>However, there are always some people who won't be able to afford it.

THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED

Man i love socialised health care so much

>36 days wait time for a first appointment with a stomach doctor
>another 32 days after that first appointment for a endoscopy

And you're probably not even poor meaning you could get quicker service if it were available.

>IS THIS THE CORRECT ANALYSIS OF MY FAPBAIT SLIDE THREAD, Jow Forums?