Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

If America followed the example of Socialist countries, Would that halve the US's spending on healthcare?

America spends the most money on healthcare than any other country on the planet

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-...

With US$4,271 per citizen.

It ranks worldwide 37th in healthcare rankings. Below countries such as Morocco and some other third-world countries.

France (Socialist) country spends half that amount, at $2,288, and ranks 1st in world healthcare rankings.

Australia (Socialist) spends even less at $1,714 and ranks higher than the US healthcare system.

Okay, so IM NOT an expert on these things, But if America was to get universal healthcare (alongside private healthcare), like in Australia and France.

Would that simply halve the US's spending on healthcare?

Like, If America just switched to a Socialist way of doing things, would it halve the costs?

I mean, even Republicans would be happy with that.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    You're not too bright are you?

    Do you have any clue as to why our costs are so high? Based solely on your rambling it is apparent you do not.

    Might I suggest you do a bit of actual research instead of mimicking Maddow and cohorts before spouting off again?

  • andy
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    Not really, considering I don't know how they came up with those figures, I would say that they are either very low or most likely for basic care only. You have to remember that most medical research is done in the United States since most other Nations can't allocate the resources for medical research. The United States also have the latest technology so that we can save more lives. Also, in nations such as Britain, once you hit a certain age your quality of care goes way down to control the costs.

  • 10 years ago

    Well...except for the fact that their systems provide poor care and are bankrupt. The poll you people keep quoting is done by a group that uses universal health care as one of the criteria in their ratings. Rather a circular means of thinking,isn't it? They also use unconfirmed statistics weighted to improve how the look.

    Sure, costs would drop, right along with the survival rate. Nice thing about socialized nations, the collective is far more important than the individual. That means the individual can suffer so long as the state remains in charge.

  • 10 years ago

    Because this is an entirely different pony. Don't get me wrong, I'm against any form of universal healthcare that requires participation. But this isnt even UH. This is simply a huge tax that will do nothing but inflate medical costs higher. Insurance companies wont be able to sustain covering everyone for everything, thus they will collapse. Which will force us into the single payer system, with no other choice.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Jose G
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    Our healthcare in the hands of the government is going to be a disaster and will in debt our nation much more. Who would have imagined that the United States of America would be borrowin billions of dollars from China? The ironic side is that President Barack Hussein Obama and the people in government that put this healthcare plan, won't be using it. It's totally unfair. Our nation is on its way to become another Mexico, and not the most powerful nation in the world. Sad and tragic.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    If France's Health Care System is so good, why has it been running in the Red since 1989 and having the government having to subsidize it more every year? In other words, the government spends more every year for it!

  • 10 years ago

    Those other countries do not oblige doctors to perform or order countless expensive and unnecessary scans and tests to protect themselves from ambulance chasing lawyers. We are at the disadvantage in any comparison because the trial lawyers are writing our laws...for now.

  • 10 years ago

    We spend more because we get more. Those socialist countries spend less because they get less in the form of doctor shortages, medical equipment shortages, hosptial and bed shortages, rationing, unacceptablly long waiting times, substandard quality of health care that they do get, more denial of services, etc.

    10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care

    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

    "It ranks worldwide 37th in healthcare rankings"

    That ranking has long since been exposed for the fraud it is.

    "Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied the rankings, calls the figures that resulted from this step "so many made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking." Dr. Musgrove, an economist who is now deputy editor of the journal Health Affairs, says he was hired to edit the report's text but didn't fully understand the methodology until after the report was released. After he left the WHO, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical journal Lancet criticizing the rankings as 'meaningless.' "

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621...

    So what's wrong with the WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies? Let me count the ways.

    The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem.

    Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

    When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

    Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.

    Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

    It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.

    The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.

    Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

    For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/...

    WHO's Fooling Who? The World Health Organization's Problematic Ranking of Health Care Systems

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9236

    "How come in Germany the health care system is 1/3rd the cost for the same service and facilities"

    False. They DONT get the same service and facilities as we do. They pay less because they get less in the form of rationing, waiting times, etc.

  • 10 years ago

    First of all , it's caled Social Democracy. And it's far from being Socialist.

    The British, Germans. Japanese, French, Canadians, Australians, Russian, Chinese....they haven't been dropen on their heads.

    We're the last one industrialized nation to implement this healthcare system..

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Public Option is what would have SAVED us billions of dollars.

    Now we're stuck with the worst of both worlds - being FORCED to give money to the Wall Street scum that caused this problem.

    EXACTLY how Republicans and Blue Dog Dem obstructionists wanted - this is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE HOLDING OUT FOR THE ENTIRE TIME!!!

    God, how friggin stupid do people have to be not to see this!

    Source(s): PUT PUBLIC OPTION BACK IN - NOW!!!!
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.