We know the American left is in some kind of awe of the Canadian system and wants a totally government controlled socialized medicine? What is the strength in that?
The American right is merely on defense on health care, which I don't understand, why they don't promote a capitalist answer? Capitalism has solved many problems - why not health care?
2007-04-23 14:17:29 · 9 answers · asked by netjr 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Canadian system is not a good one to emulate. The problems with socialized medicine are many. With a socialized medical system, price for medicine is likely going to have a very low ceiling, because the government is pretty much the only customer. That destroys the incentive to create new medicine (though medical companies make astronomical profits, the costs of medical R&D would boggle your mind). Secondly, scarecity still applies. In an ideal world it wouldn't, and then capitalism is supposed to evolve into something resembling perfect communism, but it won't, and can't. Scarecity will not go away, though it does not have the same fearful connotation that it once did. If you are looking at the Canadian system, look at how much their system costs the government (and thus in taxes). Also look at the fact that for any major illness, they run south for the US border. Without price to be the determinent of who gets served in a scarecity situation, that scarecity doesn't go away. There just aren't that many rare organs to go around.
Also in response to an above answer, the cost of healthcare doesn't go away. If the employer isn't paying it and the government is, that means that you are still paying for it through tax dollars, which drastically reduces the amount of money that can be invested in businesses. Such a drain would hurt business more than having to pay for healthcare plans. At least this way there is competition.
2007-04-23 14:26:22 · answer #1 · answered by pepin_the_wanderer 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We have been trying the Capitalist solution for some time. Without an employer paying for a large percentage of the bill, healthcare is unaffordable for millions of Americans. In addition it is causing a huge drain on all American businesses. At this point it is not Unions or taxes that are hurting American business. It is the amount of money they need to spend on healthcare for their employees. Businesses are scrambling to try to reduce health care costs and the quality of the health care insurance is suffering. The private heatlh insurance companies that I have had to deal with are 10x worse than any government agency that I have dealt with.
However, it is a complex issue. We spend way to much money keeping somebody alive at the end of their life. It may sound cruel, but we all pay for it with high health insurance premiums. If we are to prosper, many tough decisions need to be made.
2007-04-23 14:24:09 · answer #2 · answered by beren 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
pepin has it right. Ive gone into it before but the USA shoulders the bulk of the cost of R&D for new medicines and vaccinations companies develop.
If the USA were to go to a governmetn socialized medicine system, and the government was bargaining for prices, well, then the drug companies would either... quit doing R&D, laying off scientists, not developing new pills etc.. or they would have to raise the cost of their pills worldwide to make up the money.
Then those countries with universal healthcare systems may not look so attractive.
2007-04-23 14:34:20 · answer #3 · answered by sociald 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Capitalism IS the problem with healthcare, that is the system that we have. Health cannot be available to everyone when the system is designed to make the highest possible profits for the healthcare providers and for the insurance companies. We have tried the capitalist answer for decades now, how well do you think it is working?
2007-04-23 14:25:44 · answer #4 · answered by irongrama 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do believe that a free market health care system is for the best, simply because competition will force it the health care companies to work, where in a socialized system, the incentive is that it is the good of the people. And if you look at privately owned businesses that were switched over to socialized versions, there is a giant jump down in quality. (Public Schools vs Private schools, UPS vs Postal Service) it is just a trend.
2007-04-23 14:24:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do Pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars advertising a product that I need a prescription for. Why do insurance companies spend billions of dollars advertising how cheap their coverage is. Why do Lawyers spend billions of dollars advertising how they can sue the doctors. Are you starting to see a cyclical pattern here? Start regulating the insurance misers the Lawyers and the Pharmaceutical companies and the cost for health care will go down.
2007-04-23 14:48:32 · answer #6 · answered by jeff_loves_life 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The unfold the wealth remark became into basically the top of the iceberg. Obama needs basically federal rule, and to get rid of the states rights on all significant arguments. while Obama costs Karl Marx, and his plans come excellent style the socialist playbook. basically the blind can see the line Obama is going down, stands out as the ned of the u . s . a . as all of us comprehend it. Obama needs 2 training, them and all of us else.
2016-12-10 09:47:35 · answer #7 · answered by maiale 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The purpose of capitalism is to distribute scarce resources. You may be able to afford a luxury car so you get one. I can not afford a luxury car so I don't get one. You maybe able to afford a heart operation so you get one. I can not afford a heart operation so I die. Resources allocated.
2007-04-23 14:59:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The trial attorney is the only problem with healthcare.
What are you talking about?
2007-04-23 14:25:18 · answer #9 · answered by thewindywest 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋