All I know is that it is a proven method to reduce cost and get decent results. Which is what we need.
I just finished reading some posts on another thread about Medicare having stopped paying for thyroid blood tests and shingles and tetanus vaccines. They're reducing costs the nationalized way. We have examples of three nationalized health care systems in this country--the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid. I suppose one could say that they produce "decent results." If that's what we want, then that's what we deserve.
2. There are at least a dozen proven models of single payer or modified single payer that produce excellent results at ~1/2 the cost.
We can mimic them, just aboard that train. Or we can use our brains, analyze all the factors, and come up with something even better, something with long term viability.
Re "socialized," you keep ignoring its fatal flaw. In any pooled resource environment, where everyone draws at will from the commons, eventually use exceeds available resources. It's no different than the decline of fishing stocks. If everyone takes what he wants, the resource will eventually be depleted. Or have to be rationed to avoid depletion.
Just read the other day where the top one percent of taxpayers pay more than the bottom 95%. When the draw from the commons is based on votes and the resources have only one percent of the votes, what do you expect to happen? How can that be a good outcome? If "all you know" is that nationalized systems haven't yet reached that point in some other countries (the Brits are close), I guess it's not a concern. |
