Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Case Against Socialized Medicine
The Daily Beacon ^ | 09/28/2004 | John Brown

Posted on 09/28/2004 1:19:47 PM PDT by johnnyb325

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 next last
To: johnnyb325

This thing is really simple once you break it down. Taxpayers pay the bill, but ANYONE, taxpayer or not gets free medical.

What happens when taxpayer needs medical? He gets substandard care and waits a DAMN long time to get it. Because his need now comes second to the people who dont pay taxes...actually probably are already TAKING taxes from other avenues..and who are taking all the "free" healthcare that taxpayer is paying for...clogging up the system.

Great freaking deal for taxpayer huh?? Where can I sign up to screw myself like that???


51 posted on 09/28/2004 3:44:58 PM PDT by libs_kma (Hanoi Jane and John . She's nothing but a washed up old, prune faced hag...and Fonda is too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb325

This thing is really simple once you break it down. Taxpayers pay the bill, but ANYONE, taxpayer or not gets free medical.

What happens when taxpayer needs medical? He gets substandard care and waits a DAMN long time to get it. Because his need now comes second to the people who dont pay taxes...actually probably are already TAKING taxes from other avenues..and who are taking all the "free" healthcare that taxpayer is paying for...clogging up the system.

Great freaking deal for taxpayer huh?? Where can I sign up to screw myself like that???


52 posted on 09/28/2004 3:45:28 PM PDT by libs_kma (Hanoi Jane and John . She's nothing but a washed up old, prune faced hag...and Fonda is too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma

Sorry about the double post folks...I get a little nuts over this subject and I smashed the post button extra hard and often :)


53 posted on 09/28/2004 3:47:07 PM PDT by libs_kma (Hanoi Jane and John . She's nothing but a washed up old, prune faced hag...and Fonda is too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

You're right. I've called it the wrong thing. I wanted to refer to the right to health care, which is more appropriate to the discussion.

I do think we all have the right to health care. It has nothing to do with nature, but rather forms part of living in a modern society. As a society, as something separate from nature, we bestow these rights upon ourselves.


54 posted on 09/28/2004 3:48:02 PM PDT by Liberal scum (What's with the free market faith?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Logophile

Aren't they *both* important?

Shouldn't we deal with both liberty and inequality?


55 posted on 09/28/2004 3:51:52 PM PDT by Liberal scum (What's with the free market faith?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum

I can refer you to the right forum...DU is at a completely different site. You flipped when you shopuld have flopped.


56 posted on 09/28/2004 3:52:25 PM PDT by libs_kma (Hanoi Jane and John . She's nothing but a washed up old, prune faced hag...and Fonda is too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb325
When we examine countries that have embraced socialized medicine, we find long waiting lists, expansive red tape and little concern for the individual.

And no incentive to innovate and find better ways to do things.

57 posted on 09/28/2004 3:54:26 PM PDT by NYC GOP Chick (Terry McAuliffe -- The Gift that Keeps on Giving)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Again, you're right. Capitalism doesn't *produce* inequality. It exacerbates it.

I was thinking primarily of financial inequality. What kind of inequality were you referring to?


58 posted on 09/28/2004 3:55:35 PM PDT by Liberal scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum

Something stinks to high heaven here scum...and I think, no, I know, its you...first day on Free Republic huh?


59 posted on 09/28/2004 3:58:48 PM PDT by libs_kma (Hanoi Jane and John . She's nothing but a washed up old, prune faced hag...and Fonda is too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum
An intelligent and rational liberal, welcome.

I see an unhealthy amount of polarization in US politics these days, and think we'd all be better off doing a bit more listening and a lot less screaming and name-calling.

Well said.

My dictionary defines a "right" as "something (as a power or privilege) to which one has a just or lawful claim".

Fair enough, I'll go with that.

It would seem to me that everyone has an equally just and lawful claim to health and well-being

I accept that you have a right to prevent me from *harming* your health and well-being. I don't accept that you have a right to compel me to provide whatever resources you desire for the purpose of improving your health.

and I'm sure it's included in the UN Declaration of Human Rights

It probably is, but around here that document isn't held in very high esteem. It starts off well enough, and then takes a hard left into socialism.

I'm not sure I follow you when you say that in order to claim health care, you have to infringe upon the rights of others. The health care system is set up to deal with large numbers of patients, precisely so that one person's treatment doesn't preclude another's.

So there's an infinite amount of health care available? Of course not. Doctors, hospitals, equipment, and drugs are all limited.

I also fail to see how private health care is superior to nationalized health care in this respect.

For the same reason that capitalism is superior in providing virtually all other goods and services. Food is far more vital to life than health care; *everyone* needs it *constantly*, and our (mostly) capitalist system provides it so well that obesity is now a serious health problem among the *poor*.

But ultimately its underlying motivation is *profit,* not the greater benefit of humanity, and for this reason it seems inadequate as the sole provider of vital social programs like education and health care.

Why does the profit motive preclude benefiting humanity? In most cases the two are directly correlated. Under capitalism, I can only profit by providing a product or service that humanity wants.

Social programs should have as their sole founding principles the betterment of human life and society at large; money should not serve as a middleman.

You're ascribing more importance to intentions than results. See Marxism for how this turns out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but countries such as Finland, Sweden and Denmark also produce a disproportionate amount of drugs. It's harder to tell because all together they only have a population of about 18 million versus the US's 290 million or so, but per capita I think they're right up there.

I can't say you're wrong, but I'd like to see some stats on this.

National health care Plusses: Lifelong availability to everyone. Treatment never costs anything.

Yes it does. TANSTAAFL.

Minusses: Prohibitively high costs for a very significant part of the population, resulting in a large percentage of the population without access to health care or medicine.

True only of "pure" capitalism with no safety net at all. Not true in the US where the poor can get health care through a variety of means.

The US has chosen one way; most of the rest of the world has chosen the other. I'm not saying that one system is better, but clearly the world in general prefers the nationalized route.

On the other hand, the US is also the world's dominant economic power. It could be that we know what we're doing better than the rest of the world.

60 posted on 09/28/2004 3:58:54 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma

Ha ha. What is DU?


61 posted on 09/28/2004 3:59:17 PM PDT by Liberal scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
We can sit for hours and discuss what a right is, and whether people have a right to health care, or whether it's an entitlement. What really matters, though, is the fact that health care is a necessity, like food and water, things that give life. We do have a right to life, right?

Do you get food and water for free and on demand?

62 posted on 09/28/2004 4:00:41 PM PDT by NYC GOP Chick (Terry McAuliffe -- The Gift that Keeps on Giving)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma

"Because his need now comes second to the people who dont pay taxes"

Huh? Why is that? Here in socialized Spain, I, a full time worker, get the exact same medical service as a pensioner.

What do you mean?


63 posted on 09/28/2004 4:01:43 PM PDT by Liberal scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick

No, but nobody gets health care for free, either. We all pay for it sooner or later.

OK, so you can argue that there are slackers who get a free ride on the nationalized system, but they're the tiny exception.


64 posted on 09/28/2004 4:03:58 PM PDT by Liberal scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum

its for Dumb@$$ Underachievers. You have about as much chance of converting anyone here as a snowballs chance in Iraq, so just 'shove it' on back to loserville where you belong.


65 posted on 09/28/2004 4:04:13 PM PDT by libs_kma (Hanoi Jane and John . She's nothing but a washed up old, prune faced hag...and Fonda is too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb325

Socialized medicine CANNOT be a "right" because nobody has the right to someone else's time. Doctors cannot be forced to treat any patient in a free society, and that is exactly what the socialized medicine crowd thinks is legit. Sort of an extension of the "right to counsel".

Not to mention, when there are no profits to be made by being a doctor, what are we going to be left with in the operating rooms?

As I'm sure even Kerry knows, though he'll never admit it, the biggest problem facing our medical system is the frivolous lawsuits, like the ones exploited by John (there are two Americas, and I've been in both) Edwards.


66 posted on 09/28/2004 4:06:11 PM PDT by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum

If you don't know what I mean then you are out of your league and dont understand the US or its policies. If you're in spain you are terrorist appeasers and you have problems of your own...you should fix yours before you come and give your socialist bull$h!t opinions here. buh bye!


67 posted on 09/28/2004 4:07:28 PM PDT by libs_kma (Hanoi Jane and John . She's nothing but a washed up old, prune faced hag...and Fonda is too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma
so just 'shove it' on back to loserville where you belong

We really should be able to have intelligent debates without name-calling.

68 posted on 09/28/2004 4:10:07 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum
Aren't they *both* important? Shouldn't we deal with both liberty and inequality?

No. It is highly doubtful that any human society in the present world can offer both liberty and equality.

Human beings differ in their abilities and desires. If they are allowed the freedom to choose, some will always be more successful than others. (What is wrong with that?)
69 posted on 09/28/2004 4:11:27 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent

You're right of course, I'm getting carried away by the posts of this person whose country has capitulated to terrorsits, which is proven to be the worst way to possibly deal with them. I have no repect for that and I don't care for thier views either, which are not realistic to our situation, but which they seem to think we should adopt. I dont care to debate or discuss with terrorist appeasers but if you do then thats your call.


70 posted on 09/28/2004 4:15:08 PM PDT by libs_kma (Hanoi Jane and John . She's nothing but a washed up old, prune faced hag...and Fonda is too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum
Why don't the liberals all get together, with Soros and his sheep, and raise the money to pay for health insurance for all of these uninsured folks? Easier and cheaper than an entire government health care "system".

Churches have been taking care of those in need for 2,000 years. Maybe it's time the left did the same? Or are they incapable of doing anything without the government holding their hand?

71 posted on 09/28/2004 4:15:41 PM PDT by dha (The safest place to be is within the will of God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma

What's wrong with you? I'm here to DEBATE with people who have different opinions to my own. I want to understand the other side, while providing my own opinions. Leave the insults out of it, or leave me alone if you can't be civil.

Overall, I find everyone here to be thoughtful and courteous. Shame about you so far, libs_kma.

And everyone: pardon my sarcastic username. It would have been much more appropriate on a knee-jerk, reactionary site than on a rational, welcoming one like this has been so far.


72 posted on 09/28/2004 4:15:41 PM PDT by Liberal scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum
Surely even conservatives recognize its inherent tendency to produce inequality, for example. How do they propose dealing with this?

And that's a problem, because...? (Obviously, the completely pure form of any economic or political system is impossible to achieve and is probably undesirable.)

Cute screen name, btw. ;)

73 posted on 09/28/2004 4:15:42 PM PDT by NYC GOP Chick (Terry McAuliffe -- The Gift that Keeps on Giving)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum

And when there are no profits to be made by being a teacher, what are we going to be left with in the classroom?

In Spain, people study to be a doctor because they *want* to be a doctor. The pay is decent, but nothing like it is in the US.


74 posted on 09/28/2004 4:19:08 PM PDT by Liberal scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum
OK, so you can argue that there are slackers who get a free ride on the nationalized system, but they're the tiny exception.

Totally false. Way back when I was in school, I used to work part-time in an ER on the NYC border and the number of people who either came in to the ER with no insurance, as well as those with Medicaid who go to the ER with every fever, sore throat and fart, was staggering.

That not only affected the hospital's survival (they were eventually "absorbed" by a large corporation -- just like that 80s classic TV show St. Elsewhere), but also the doctors who stopped accepting new patients via the ER, as they were getting stiffed left and right.

The point is that if you make health care a free ride for everyone, it'll be a *lot* more than the slackers who'll take advantage.

75 posted on 09/28/2004 4:23:08 PM PDT by NYC GOP Chick (Terry McAuliffe -- The Gift that Keeps on Giving)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma; Liberal scum
its for Dumb@$$ Underachievers. You have about as much chance of converting anyone here as a snowballs chance in Iraq, so just 'shove it' on back to loserville where you belong.

Liberal scum has contributed more to the discussion here than you have.

76 posted on 09/28/2004 4:24:11 PM PDT by NYC GOP Chick (Terry McAuliffe -- The Gift that Keeps on Giving)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum
And when there are no profits to be made by being a teacher, what are we going to be left with in the classroom?

Under what scenario would there be no profit in teaching? As long as education is important, people will be willing to pay for it.

77 posted on 09/28/2004 4:24:27 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma

The terrorist discussion doesn't belong here. If you like, I'll be happy to take it up with you in another thread.


78 posted on 09/28/2004 4:24:30 PM PDT by Liberal scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb325

An old story that used o make the rounds about socialised medicine in the U.S.S.R. was that there were no abortions; a wag quipped, "That's because there's a 10-month wait."


79 posted on 09/28/2004 4:24:42 PM PDT by Old Professer (The Truth always gets lost in the Noise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum

Ok liberal scum. I'll stop the name calling, but surely, liberal scum, you dont mind that I call you liberal scum do you? :) Well liberal scum, its been intersting. have a nice day liberal scum. I'll probably not discuss anything with you again liberal scum. I just don't wish to make it a habit to talk to liberal scum. Nothing personal you understand :)


80 posted on 09/28/2004 4:25:03 PM PDT by libs_kma (Hanoi Jane and John . She's nothing but a washed up old, prune faced hag...and Fonda is too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb325
A "right" is the ability and autonomy to perform a sovereign action. In a free society founded on the ideal of liberty, an individual has an absolute ability to perform such an action - so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another individual. Health care is not speech: In order for you to exercise a theoretical "right" to health care, you must infringe on someone else's rights. If you have a "right" to health care, then it means you must also have the right to coerce doctors into treating you, to coerce drug companies into producing medicine and to coerce other citizens into footing your medical bill. This is Orwellian. "Freedom" for you cannot result in slavery for others. Thus the concept of a "right" to health care is an oxymoron: It involves taking away the rights of other individuals.

The problem is that people are coerced all the time into providing for others in this country to the point where it is assumed to be a right. Socialized medicine is just a logical extention of what is pervasive.

81 posted on 09/28/2004 4:25:51 PM PDT by briant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma

I think you need to take your view somewhere else if you can't be civilize. As for "whose country has capitulated to terrorits", heard of the American-Mexican border?


82 posted on 09/28/2004 4:27:06 PM PDT by -=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent

My point was that teachers make little money, yet we still have them.

The same is true of doctors here in Spain, though they do make more than teachers.


83 posted on 09/28/2004 4:30:25 PM PDT by Liberal scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum

"And when there are no profits to be made by being a teacher, what are we going to be left with in the classroom?"

The PATHETIC teachers which currently infect our public school classrooms.

Socialized medicine is another one of these liberal ideas that sounds great on its face, but can never really happen in a way that more people are helped than can be helped in a capitalist health care system.


84 posted on 09/28/2004 4:30:52 PM PDT by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum

"Socialized medicine is another one of these liberal ideas that sounds great on its face, but can never really happen in a way that more people are helped than can be helped in a capitalist health care system."

But isn't the biggest advantage to nationalized health care precisely that it serves *everyone*?


85 posted on 09/28/2004 4:37:32 PM PDT by Liberal scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick

If I needed water and food, I could get it for free. Not the same with health care.

I find it hard to understand why subsidizing something essential like health care with taxpayer money is ridiculed, while building roads, courthouses, and bridges with the same money doesn't get half the scutiny.


86 posted on 09/28/2004 4:43:31 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: -=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-

Yes, I've heard of the American Mexican border. You ever heard of the failed cannuck socialist healthcare system? just curious.


87 posted on 09/28/2004 4:44:38 PM PDT by libs_kma (Hanoi Jane and John . She's nothing but a washed up old, prune faced hag...and Fonda is too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma

libs_kma has hurt my delicate little bleeding heart lefty feelings.

I've now changed my screen name to something more appropriate, less sarcastic and more respectful of the kind of posts that rule in this thread.

"Liberal scum" is now "shakeup".


88 posted on 09/28/2004 4:45:43 PM PDT by shakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum
You're right. I've called it the wrong thing. I wanted to refer to the right to health care, which is more appropriate to the discussion.

But you justified the "right to health care" by reference to the DHR "right to health and well-being".

And you're in good company. most socialists do the same.

WHY do you think "society" (whatever that is) can bestow any rights?

What if society bestows the right to be Jew-free?

Should the Jews all toddle off to Dachau?

The rights which form the basis of the United States government were not bestowed by society-not a single one.

The architects of the American system were crystal clear about the source of the rights they banded together to defend-and it wasn't "society".

89 posted on 09/28/2004 4:51:01 PM PDT by Jim Noble (FR Iraq policy debate begins 11/3/04. Pass the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
If I needed water and food, I could get it for free. Not the same with health care.

Would the quality, convenience and choice of the "free" stuff be equal to that of what you'd have to buy?

And it's only free to the user, not society.

I find it hard to understand why subsidizing something essential like health care with taxpayer money is ridiculed, while building roads, courthouses, and bridges with the same money doesn't get half the scutiny.

Because it's not feasible for individuals to build all those things. Theoretically, the government should only be financing and buying what it's impractical for individual citizens to do.

Are you *sure* you're a Libertarian????

90 posted on 09/28/2004 4:51:20 PM PDT by NYC GOP Chick (Terry McAuliffe -- The Gift that Keeps on Giving)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: shakeup

ok shakeup. I'm getting over my initial anger now. But I'd still rather refer to you as liberal scum if you'll be so kind as to indulge me that favor.


91 posted on 09/28/2004 4:51:24 PM PDT by libs_kma (Hanoi Jane and John . She's nothing but a washed up old, prune faced hag...and Fonda is too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

So you would privatize all public works?

I think one thing I'm realizing as this thread progresses is that to me moderation and balance appeal most to me.

A mixture of free market and government intervention seems to be the way -- sort of a checks and balances system. Each has its strengths, and I think they compliment each other nicely. Why give up either? Why not figure out which one works best where?

Sometimes I get the feeling conservatives want to completely eliminate government. Is that true? If not, where do you draw the line? What should be private and what should be public?


92 posted on 09/28/2004 4:56:41 PM PDT by shakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma
Listen, my brother, this site is owned by Mr. Jim Robinson, and it is not a chat room or flame factory.

It is not intended to be the DU of the right, and, in my opinion (YMMV) you aren't doing a good job of holding up the side.

Shakeup is arguing his points as well as anything that rests on false premises can be argued, try to answer him back.

93 posted on 09/28/2004 4:59:16 PM PDT by Jim Noble (FR Iraq policy debate begins 11/3/04. Pass the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: libs_kma

Feel free. I'll read a wink into it every time you do. ;-)

Anyway, I'm happy to discuss health care if you are.


94 posted on 09/28/2004 5:01:04 PM PDT by shakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Liberal scum

"But isn't the biggest advantage to nationalized health care precisely that it serves *everyone*?"

You're still not correct, as "everyone" can never be treated equally. Even with a socialized system, there are only so many hearts that can be transplanted. Chemotherapy nurses can only work on so many people. There are only so many surgeons to perform so many surgeries. In my mind, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making better health care available to those who can pay for it. It's another example of how free markets can level out the playing field. Those who cannot pay, simply get sick and don't get taken care of, and in turn have smaller families.


95 posted on 09/28/2004 5:02:39 PM PDT by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Thanks for the defense.

Regarding political philosophy, I'm afraid it's not my strength. What source of rights do you refer to when you talk of the founding fathers? Is it God?


96 posted on 09/28/2004 5:08:14 PM PDT by shakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Yep, this is not my day for this conversation. I'll admit to going a bit over the top and I'll remove myself from the thread. I have no beef with your sentiment as it pertains to this issue, but I must admit that I didn't have to read too far into your posts to find similar behavior. Anyway, thats neither here nor there. I enjoy FR too much to make this a into a big incident and I apologize to any I've offended.


97 posted on 09/28/2004 5:15:53 PM PDT by libs_kma (Hanoi Jane and John . She's nothing but a washed up old, prune faced hag...and Fonda is too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFarmer

Socialized Medicine:

The efficiency of the Post Office

The compassion of the DMV

And the skill of the Sanitation Department.


98 posted on 09/28/2004 5:18:39 PM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious
Show me a model, anywhere in the world, where socialized medicine is working well. You can't; which is why we need reform rather than jumping in with both feet.

Japan.

Here's a salient quote from the Japanese government:

Along with the improvements in living standards and better nutrition, the health insurance system has contributed in achieving levels of average life expectancy of the Japanese people and healthy life expectancy that are amongst the highest in the world. In addition, the health insurance system has also created an outstanding health and medical service which was indicated as the best in the world by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Average life expectancy has remained the highest in the world. In 2003, it was 85.33 years for women and 78.36 years for men. The infant mortality rate fell to 3.0 per 1,000 live births in 2003.

I don't know of any Japanese (many of whom certainly could afford it) coming to the U.S. for medical treatment.

However, it is an expensive system, on par with our own, though less expensive than the Canadian/U.K. systems (which in my opinion, seem to try to offer minimal service at a maximal cost.) Here is a good quote from the same page about the future economics of the system:

In recent years, Japan's social security system has fallen under close examination due to such factors as rapidly changing demographics resulting from the falling birthrate and aging population, and long-term stagnation of the economy. In terms of social security costs, benefits and burdens are projected to increase far beyond the level of economic growth, and revision and creation of a sustainable system have become urgent issues to deal with the increasingly heavy social security burden predicted in the future.

Japan is a wealthy country, and for the present can afford such a gold-plated solution, though there are legitimate questions about what to do as the population grays. My personal experience with the system is that is indeed as excellent as their government and WHO indicate.

My experience has also been that the Japanese payment system certainly was simple enough to navigate, unlike trying to deal with the "insurers" in the U.S. who in my experience seem oddly reluctant to pay on claims against them, though happy enough to charge extortionate premiums.

As you might guess, Japanese medical technology is first-rate; anecdotally, I have heard a Japanese medical technician remarking that typical medical equipment in the U.S. is not as far advanced as what is typical in Japan.

99 posted on 09/28/2004 5:19:42 PM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb325

Free Market Capitalization should provide business with enough incentive and tax breaks to allow them the means to offer Basic Coverage; getting the government out of this vital area; we all need to see deregulated!


100 posted on 09/28/2004 5:19:44 PM PDT by winker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson