Here is a list of the top 37 according to the WHO. I think I will take my chances with #37 when I look for the next place for my treatment. There is just something about saying that I am going to Coasta Rica for a heart transplant.... I think I would rather go to Louisville for this. Although, that is just my opinion.

 

1 France

2 Italy

3 San Marino

4 Andorra

5 Malta

6 Singapore

7 Spain

8 Oman

9 Austria

10 Japan

11 Norway

12 Portugal

13 Monaco

14 Greece

15 Iceland

16 Luxembourg

17 Netherlands

18 United Kingdom

19 Ireland

20 Switzerland

21 Belgium

22 Colombia

23 Sweden

24 Cyprus

25 Germany

26 Saudi Arabia

27 United Arab Emirates

28 Israel

29 Morocco

30 Canada

31 Finland

32 Australia

33 Chile

34 Denmark

35 Dominica

36 Costa Rica

37 United States of America

While I'll admit that the United States would be a big country to socialize, why is it that countries with socialized medicine always rank ahead of the United States on health care?

 

Is it because health care doesn't exist in the United States for many? If it doesn't exist, shouldn't something be done to make it exist?

Do some research. You'll quickly find that natons with socialized medicine actually rank far behind the U.S. on heath care.

 

I'm a born-bred Canadian, as well as my daughter and son, and I'm ashamed," Jill Irvine told FOX News. Irvine's daughter, Carri Ash, is one of at least 40 mothers or their babies who've been airlifted from British Columbia to the U.S. this year because Canadian hospitals didn't have room for the preemies in their neonatal units.

 

During the first four years of hospitalization insurance in Quebec, government expenditures on this program doubled. Since the introduction of comprehensive public health insurance in 1970, public expenditures for medical services per capita have grown at an annual rate of 9.4 per cent. According to one study, 60 per cent of this increase represented a real increase in consumption.

 

Nationalization of the health industry also has led to increased centralization and politicization. Work stoppages by nurses and hospital workers have occurred half a dozen times over the last 20 years, and this does not include a few one-day strikes by doctors. Ambulance services and dispatching have been centralized under government control. As this article was being written, ambulance drivers and paramedics were working in jeans, they had covered their vehicles with protest stickers, and they were dangerously disrupting operations. The reason: they want the government to finish nationalizing what remains under private control in their industry.

 

The most visible consequence of socialized medicine in Canada is in the poor quality of services. Health care has become more and more impersonal. Patients often feel they are on an assembly line. Doctors and hospitals already have more patients than they can handle and no financial incentive to provide good service. Their customers are not the ones who write the checks anyway.

 

One clear effect of a socialized health system is to increase the cost of getting above-average care (while the average is dropping). Some poor people, in fact, may obtain better care under socialized medicine. But many in the middle class will lose. It isn't clear where justice is to be found in such a redistribution.

 

 

Several lessons can be drawn from the Canadian experience with socialized medicine.

 

First of all, socialized medicine, although of poor quality, is very expensive. Public health expenditures consume close to 7 per cent of the Canadian gross domestic product, and account for much of the difference between the levels of public expenditure in Canada (47 per cent of gross domestic product) and in the U.S. (37 per cent of gross domestic product). So if you do not want a large public sector, do not nationalize health.

 

A second lesson is the danger of political compromise. One social policy tends to lead to another. Take, for example, the introduction of hospital insurance in Canada. It encouraged doctors to send their patients to hospitals because it was cheaper to be treated there. The political solution was to nationalize the rest of the industry. Distortions from one government intervention often lead to more intervention.

 

A third lesson deals with the impact of egalitarianism. Socialized medicine is both a consequence and a great contributor to the idea that economic conditions should be equalized by coercion. If proponents of public health insurance are not challenged on this ground, they will win this war and many others. Showing that human inequality is both unavoidable and, within the context of equal formal rights, desirable, is a long-run project. But then, as SaintExupery wrote, "Il est vain, si l'on plante un chene, d'esperer s'abriter bientot sous son feuillage." (It is useless, if a oak is planted, to hope to shelter soon under its foliage.)

The bill was about providing free health care to children. Can anyone truly say that they are against free health care for children who have none.

 

Have you read the entire bill?

It is a tough business but it worked well for the founding fathers (compromise and diplomacy) and it could work well again.

 

Agreed, unfortunately I don't see anyone out there with the FF's character.

While I'll admit that the United States would be a big country to socialize, why is it that countries with socialized medicine always rank ahead of the United States on health care?

 

Is it because health care doesn't exist in the United States for many? If it doesn't exist, shouldn't something be done to make it exist?

 

It doesn't rank above the US . . . unless of course you are buying into Michael Moores propaganda!

Here's the problem with social medicine. The more involved the government gets in funding, the less they will be willing to pay for procedures. As funding decreases, the revenue to doctors, hospital equipment, research and pharmaceutical companies will decrease. As the revenue decreases, you'll see a drop in the number of people studying medicine and looking for new medical solutions. In the end, you end up with a mediocre medical system with shortages and limited access.

 

 

While I agree with your statement in general about social medicine, I really don't think the incremental number of children covered under this bill would drive a material decrease in the overall revenue generated in the U.S. medical system. In fact, this program would in all likelihood increase the funding flowing into the U.S. medical system because I would be willing to bet that the majority of these kids are not currently covered by insurance of any kind and therefore don't interact with the medical system at all.

 

Another point I wanted to make was in reference to your comment that with a drop in doctor's fees, there will be less incentive for people to enter the field of medicine. To that I say let more doctors trained to appropriate standards in other countries emigrate to the U.S. and fill that supply gap. Many other professions are fully exposed to the winds of foreign competition--it's about time unnecessary protectionist policies be removed from shielding the medical profession as well.

It doesn't rank above the US . . . unless of course you are buying into Michael Moores propaganda!

 

I do not argue that our health care is "better" than most countries. The problem is only the "fortunate" can afford insurance and then get that "better" treatment.

 

A few years ago, my job took dental benefits, so guess what?? That's right, I dont go to the dentist nearly as often. Why?? Its too EXPENSIVE. Last year, I had a terrible toothache so I got a root canal & crown. The total cost was almost $1,500. $1,500 for ONE TOOTH!!!!

 

My 8 year old nephew unfortunately got cancer 2 years ago. My brother had insurance but it still costed the family over $100,000. they had to get a second mortgage on their home!!!

I do not argue that our health care is "better" than most countries. The problem is only the "fortunate" can afford insurance and then get that "better" treatment.

 

A few years ago, my job took dental benefits, so guess what?? That's right, I dont go to the dentist nearly as often. Why?? Its too EXPENSIVE. Last year, I had a terrible toothache so I got a root canal & crown. The total cost was almost $1,500. $1,500 for ONE TOOTH!!!!

 

My 8 year old nephew unfortunately got cancer 2 years ago. My brother had insurance but it still costed the family over $100,000. they had to get a second mortgage on their home!!!

 

This is a sad story. With the current American Health Care System, we begin to put a individual price on individual lives.

This is a sad story. With the current American Health Care System, we begin to put a individual price on individual lives.

 

How is that different than any other system in the world? See info above on Canada's.

This is a sad story. With the current American Health Care System, we begin to put a individual price on individual lives.

 

That is the type of propaganda that liberal media has been selling for years. But if you take the time to research and study the consequences of socialization and communism, you begin to see that the results are much worse compared to capitalistic societies. As one of my good friends said, "socialism sounds good in theory, but it just won't float in the real world." He is a democrat by the way. :thumb:

 

I have no doubt that your intentions are noble, I am just not sure if you have thought through the consequences of your viewpoint.

 

JMHO.

This is a sad story. With the current American Health Care System, we begin to put a individual price on individual lives.

Universal health care would mean that we would all be paying for everyone's health care all the time.

I do not argue that our health care is "better" than most countries. The problem is only the "fortunate" can afford insurance and then get that "better" treatment.

 

A few years ago, my job took dental benefits, so guess what?? That's right, I dont go to the dentist nearly as often. Why?? Its too EXPENSIVE. Last year, I had a terrible toothache so I got a root canal & crown. The total cost was almost $1,500. $1,500 for ONE TOOTH!!!!

 

My 8 year old nephew unfortunately got cancer 2 years ago. My brother had insurance but it still costed the family over $100,000. they had to get a second mortgage on their home!!!

 

 

So do you feel that the government should bail you and your loved ones out with situations arise such as those described above?

I do not argue that our health care is "better" than most countries. The problem is only the "fortunate" can afford insurance and then get that "better" treatment.

 

A few years ago, my job took dental benefits, so guess what?? That's right, I dont go to the dentist nearly as often. Why?? Its too EXPENSIVE. Last year, I had a terrible toothache so I got a root canal & crown. The total cost was almost $1,500. $1,500 for ONE TOOTH!!!!

 

My 8 year old nephew unfortunately got cancer 2 years ago. My brother had insurance but it still costed the family over $100,000. they had to get a second mortgage on their home!!!

 

You do know that you can buy an individual policy, don't you?

Universal health care would mean that we would all be paying for everyone's health care all the time.

 

The bill that was proposed & vetoed WAS NOT a universal healthcare bill. I was aimed to insurance children that did not have insurance. There are kids that I have personal talked to that have not & cannot go to the doctor when they are sick b/c they do not have the money. Some have not been to the doctor in years.

 

Universal healthcare & insuring our youth is apples & oranges! You can say first step or whatever but it IS NOT universal & it is not complete socialism. We already have medicare, medaid, welfare, social security, etc which are all socialist type programs so adding one program to help these youth that do not have insurance will not make us a Socialist country.

The bill that was proposed & vetoed WAS NOT a universal healthcare bill. I was aimed to insurance children that did not have insurance. There are kids that I have personal talked to that have not & cannot go to the doctor when they are sick b/c they do not have the money. Some have not been to the doctor in years.

 

Universal healthcare & insuring our youth is apples & oranges! You can say first step or whatever but it IS NOT universal & it is not complete socialism. We already have medicare, medaid, welfare, social security, etc which are all socialist type programs so adding one program to help these youth that do not have insurance will not make us a Socialist country.

 

Its one step at a time. I do not think ANYONE save the disabled should have their health care supplied by the government. Health insurance for a child in the state of KY anyways can be supplied through the school system for as little as $20 a month.