Boogy; you think in universal health care systems that people get drugs for free?

That is almost a Freudian slip; you literally believe that universal health care provides health care for free. Cmon dude.

dead, just clairfy one thing for me, I did not have enegy to find

is antibiotics a prescription drug in usa?

because it is in norway, an if that is the case, then it might make up the difference.

(have not searched finished, but it looks like about 50% of americans use prescription drugs, (150 million), if you remove the people without any healthinsurrance, and the people with an insurrance that does not cover it, then my thinking is that the numbers might be similar, if then the antibiotics are not all prescription drugs in usa, then that might add something, and lastly the volume of drugs consumed by a person might add the last difference) <---this is what I think could swing the arguement, if I am able to find all the stats on all of this

dead, noone is saying that a universal healthcare is free, we are saying it might be less expencive and work better, more efficient. noone is claiming it will be free.

in almost every other election in norway, healthcare and the best way of managing it is one of the key issues. with governments falling or staying on how much improvements they have made in the last 4 years, (improvemts also means keeping it within an acceptable price)

just saw boogs stat, I must say, I was a part of the 75%, one year, because I got this antibiotic acne cream, a one time treatment.

50% in us takes drugs every month, I am not sure the statistics presented is enough to say who uses more.

but as I understand, you say prescription drugs will go up with socialiced medicine, because people will not need money to use it. I say that one opposing factor will be less competition to please the untrained patient, and more focus on actually treating the illness as best possible, within an econmical framework (the states prescription framework), this ofcourse means that a reform of doctors income must also change.

Yes antibiotics is a prescription drug in the USA as well; but I don't get your point?

I've exhausted my search for the statistics you claim backs your argument. I'm afraid they simply might not exist.

At what point do you consider that I might be right? Or is that possibility impossible?

Yeah I'm not saying that the USA is a free market system. The USA is a hybrid system that is heavily manipulated by the government. Medicare in the USA is completely socialized medicine for example.

So quoting statistics that show enormous rates of prescription drugs in the USA is just more examples that back my argument.

So once again; drop the narrative of the USA vs Norway; no one said anything about that.

The argument is that prescription drugs are being over used because of subsidies. Subsidies that exist in the USA and subsidies that exist in all socialized medicine.

I am not saying that the effect you claim migth not exist, I am claiming there are effects i the other way, and there is not possible for us to know which effects are strongest.


I also believe that the only way of not overusing prescription drugs, and covering everybody is through socialiced medicine, seeing as competition for the patients that can pay will lead to those patients will get to whatever prescription they ask for, while the rest will get almost nothing.


btw, do you feel like all prescription drugs should be non prescription? or do you feel that some government oversight over the drugmarked is required, because if so, we are only disagreing to what degree the government should control it.


I told you what statistics I was looking for to show that we had not found the statistics that would complete the picture.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that central planning is the method of efficiently distributing goods.

I mean the USSR nailed the coffin shut on that thinking. I really think you should read Adam Smith.

Also I don't understand what you mean by other forces that you we can't measure. That's very vague. Anyways; I think you should investigate the answers to these questions instead of just refusing to acknowledge all the contradictions between what you believe socialized health care produces and what actually gets produced in practice.

please re read my post

"....competition for the patients that can pay will lead to those patients will get to whatever prescription they ask for.."

this was a specific example of an effect working the other way, and we have know way of knowing which of the two effects that was the strongest.




you still seem to use the USSR argument. it is wrong to use in this contex.

to put it short, ussr failed as a state because of many factors, being outproduced in weapons, having a dictatorship that was too rigid, too much corruption , etc...


now please show me that you understand my position and do not think of my position as the boogyman by stopping to use this comparason. this would be like me saying that you don't want more than 10% of the population to have healthcare. it does not get the debate any futher, but strawmans the other persons perspective. this is the 3rd time I tell you that it is an invalid argument.


centrally planning the entire economy, were alot of the services is about producing for the global market place did fail in the USSR.


the distribution of healthcare is not centrally planned , what they do is divide the healthcare into districts that governed themsleves, but got money from their central pot. in norway, general hostpitals used to sort under local government (about size of 5 counties). it was not efficent enough due to the need for specialized operations, so now norway is divided into 5 separate health districts that governs themselves, but has central guidelines and policies.

how I guess socialized medicine would work in the us would be that the main power would be on state level, with states being able to pitch in to increase care, where the bulk of the costs, and the guidelines would come from central. this is hardly central planning on how to distribute the healthcare.

I'm not going to stop using the USSR example; because it is a valid example.

It sounds like you are saying that the USSR would have succeeded if not for corruption; bankruptcy; etc.

That is kinda like saying that a turtle would beat a rabbit in a race; if only it didn't walk so slow.

The turtles nature is to walk slow. Centrally planned systems always breed corruption and excessive spending. It is the nature of the system.

Btw; if you think the proper way to discuss a topic is to demand that the other person argue his point in the method that you prefer; then you are missing the entire point of discussing topics at all.

Also just because you break the centrally planned system into districts or governorships or whatever you want to call them. The system is still centrally planned; it is only not executed in a decentralized manner. You even state this yourself by saying it would have centralized policies. This is exactly the definition of centrally planned.

Saying that the USSR isn't a good example because the whole economy was centrally planned vs just a single industry; makes no difference at all. It is only a question of magnitude.