Thread: Why not socialized medicine

With Hillary as the front runner, it looks like socialized medicine will once again come before congress in the near future. Let's hear the opposing view, but (here's the kicker,) you have to cite a legitimate reference to what you say. (No Wikipedia, Fox News, HMO publications...)

I'll give the main arguments first and shoot them down.

Red Point: Socialized medicine will cause higher taxes.
Fact: True. The average province's sales tax in Canada is around 9%, while in the USA it is 6%. (reference) That is a 3% difference, but they don't have to pay for health insurance. The average family pays $11,000 in health care every year. (Reference) For that 3% tax increase you would have to spend $400,000 on taxed items.

Red Point: America has too many people for Socialized medicine to work effectively.
Fact: China has universal health care

Red Point: Doctors in universal health care will have to endure massive pay cuts.
Fact: Doctors in the UK make the equivalent of a million dollars per year.

Red Point: Socialized medicine in the first step towards communism
Fact: Just because it's called socialized medicine, doesn't tie it to socialism. Both parliamentary systems (UK, Canada, Australia) and republic systems (France, Spain, Russia.) Although, yes, there is socialized medicine in communist countries such as Cuba and China.

Red Point: I don't care about all that, it just won't work in America anyway.
Fact: People over 65 already have it, it's called Medicare.


More in depth: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/univ...ealth_care.htm

To correct a few points real quick. One China does not have universal health care. It really doesn't matter what their government claims, theres millions of poor people in that country who are treated horribly by the government and they get nothing in return. Also Russia isn't a republic, its a dictatorship. Anyway here are my arguements.

Our country is near bankrupted and can't affored it.
Fact: Our debt is currently over 9 trillion dollars.

Our country has shown it runs programs such as that poorly.
Fact: Medicare has many problems with being over complex and confusing, many people who should be covered are not, and its costing our country tons of money.

Countries can't run large programs in general.
Fact: Public education, social securty and medicare all have huges problems. You always hear people coming up with new ways to fix all of them, yet it never gets any better.

Socialized medicine in the first step towards socialism.
Fact: Its by definition socialism.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Red Point: Socialized medicine will cause higher taxes.
Fact: True. The average province's sales tax in Canada is around 9%, while in the USA it is 6%. (reference) That is a 3% difference, but they don't have to pay for health insurance. The average family pays $11,000 in health care every year. (Reference) For that 3% tax increase you would have to spend $400,000 on taxed items.

How would such a tax increase affect the economy and in turn affect the poor people socialized medicine is supposed to help? Tax increases are bad for the economy. Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Lower taxes benefit the population as a whole. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Red Point: America has too many people for Socialized medicine to work effectively.
Fact: China has universal health care

China is run effectively? http://www.medhunters.com/articles/h...reInChina.html

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Red Point: Doctors in universal health care will have to endure massive pay cuts.
Fact: Doctors in the UK make the equivalent of a million dollars per year.

Is that the guaranteed income of all of them? What is their incentive to work hard, maintain excellent reputations, and attract new patients? What encourages advancements in medical technology, which the U.S. currently leads the world in? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A96E948260

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Red Point: Socialized medicine in the first step towards communism
Fact: Just because it's called socialized medicine, doesn't tie it to socialism. Both parliamentary systems (UK, Canada, Australia) and republic systems (France, Spain, Russia.) Although, yes, there is socialized medicine in communist countries such as Cuba and China.

It is a form of socialism, hence the name. Therefore, it is a step in the socialism direction.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Red Point: I don't care about all that, it just won't work in America anyway.
Fact: People over 65 already have it, it's called Medicare.

Medicare is for one segment of the population. http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareElig...nguage=English When Medicare (metaphorically speaking) is given to absolutely everybody, the situation is very different because all of the advantages of capitalist medicine are gone. In other words, when something is completely taken away, its advantages go with it, unless what takes its place somehow provides those same advantages.

Just giving universal health insurance is one thing. I see problems with that, but it would definitely have a lot of advantages, as long as it stops there. However, what concerns me is how far the government will go with the situation once they are given an inch. Hillary Clinton wanted to go way beyond that when she was proposing the idea in the mid-90's. She actually wanted to make it where people are told by the government what doctor they can see, and she wanted to make it where people go to jail for seeing a doctor other than the one they are assigned. She spoke publicly in support of Bill's proposals. http://www.gargaro.com/healthcare.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/ma...ate_page2.html How much tampering will the government end up doing, and how much incentive will be taken away from doctors? I want medical advancements to haul ass as much as possible, and I don't see what will make that happen if it is not greed. How much of the greed element would the government end up taking out of the health care system?