Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (17511)	11/24/2003 7:08:03 AM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793817

Yes, I know the conservative song regarding "socialized" medicine. Unfortunately for you, the facts do not support it. Here is a comparison of health care spending in four countries of roughly equal per capita income: USA, France, Germany, Switzerland. policyalmanac.org The facts: France, Germany, Switzerland have had "socialized" medicine for more than a generation. The USA does not. The USA spent 13.5% of its GDP on health care in 1997. The others spent 10%. The USA has an infant mortality of 6.75; the three others 4.37, 4.23, and 4.36. The USA has a life expectancy of 77.14; the others 79.28, 78.42, 79.99 Source: cia.gov Interestingly, all three "socialized medicine" countries have populations that are older than the US. If we were as old as them, we would spend even more on health care. Finally, the brave efforts that the US makes to save infant lives should logically decrease US infant mortality relatively to the others. If, as you imply, they let gravely ill infants die, their infant mortality rates should be adversely affected, no? The sad fact is that US infant mortality is so high because of lack of prenatal care for large segments of the population. I think the facts speak for themselves, unless you are blinded by ideology.