"Don't you worry; in 10 years time; there will be many examples of universal health care systems collapsing; at that point"

funny, the centrally planned healthcare systems have been around for 70+ years, showing no signs of collapse, just becoming more efficient. while the us healthcare system seems to have blown costs through the roof in just 25 years, I would say the US healthcare system is the one that is failing. but it will not collapse, it will just continue to decrease the number of people covered and the rich will get better and better service.


but I gotta go for a vacation, see you in 5 days

Mrk: "and I will concede that one of the bad things about central planning is that it says stuff like "only X people can be engineers" or "we need "10000 people to live here" , but that is also happening in every system, it just happens by money instead."

You just made my whole point right there. This is completely unethical. Essentially you are picking careers for people and telling them where they must live.

Also; I can't believe that you think this is how it works in the USA. It is simply not true; no one tells you where you must live or what you must do for a living. You argument that money tells people where to live is just plain embarrassing and simply isn't true. There are places that you can live in any area; that is affordable for poor people and even if there wasn't; it is possible to change your personal economic situation. It is impossible to change the situation in your case. Some bureaucrat says this is what you are allowed to do as a career and this is where you are allowed to live; period; end of story.

If you want to talk about this further; let's do it via voice chat. We can record the conversation and post it onto the forum. I believe I've gotten my point across; central planning is immoral and unethical; because it is based on the conceited concept that someone in government can decide your career etc better then you yourself can. It is a dangerous prospect; and I would never live in a society like that.

I too am taking a long weekend; have fun on yours! Talk when we get back.

Just want to add that you missed my point about health care for uninsured people. My point was not that they have to "wait" too long for care. My point was that they simply cannot receive care UNTIL they experience a health crisis which brings them to the ER. This is not the same as "wait times" in universal health care systems; you may have to wait one month in Canada to see a specialist for a non-urgent health issue, but everyone is able to make an appointment to see a doctor. Uninsured patients who are prescribed medicine and advised to pursue follow-up treatments by ER doctors are MUCH less likely to fill those prescriptions or seek those treatments than insured patients simply because they cannot afford it; the result is that their often manageable health problems are never addressed until they develop into a full-blown health emergency. This is not comparable to wait times in the Canadian system.

Sure that is true; but then there is also this point. Wait times under socialized medicine are for the entire population (well unless you are rich or in politics); whereas the only people who have to wait under a private system is the small fraction of people who are both uninsured and poor.

So for example; roughly 5-10% to percent of the US population (made up statistic; but made it pretty conservatively high to illustrate a point; it is probably close to 5 then 10) waits for medical care because of being uninsured and unable to pay for a treatment. Where as 99% of the population has to wait in the socialized medical systems.

Yes but then why is the population in many countries with socialized medicine generally healthier than the US? Why do those system, despite wait times, work so well as public health policy?

No one is denying that those with private or public health insurance receive world-class health care. But the uninsured are many tens of millions of people; you cannot dismiss them as statistically irrelevant. These are real people, most of whom work, who do not have access to adequate health care for themselves and their families.

To be honest; I think the USA still has better health care then most of Europe but not by much. It is more expensive; but it is also higher quality; in terms of expertise and drug availability (some exceptions). But by no means am I defending the American system; the American system is crap; but it is crap because of regulation; bureaucracy and central planning. Those same stats that show you life expectancies are higher in Europe; don't take into account that many people who die in the USA, and therefore are part of the statistic; die for reasons outside the health care arena. For example; you can't compare the life expectancy of Norway to Detroit and then come to the conclusion that it is health care that is the difference. Btw; even if you massage out of the reasons I'm talking about I doubt the USA has a higher life expectancy still; but there are also cultural differences that cause this effect also; for example obesity; which has nothing to do with health care.

Second; when it comes to individual illnesses suddenly the USA is mostly at the top. For example; cancer treatment; there is no where on the planet with more expertise and access to different treatments / drugs than the USA. Unfortunately I doubt we keep that lead much longer; as our economy plummets.

Anyway; it's a bit of an unfair comparison; you can't argue private vs public health care by using Europe as the example of public and USA as the example of private; because the USA isn't a private system. It is a heavily regulated and controlled private system; with a dominant and controlling public system that competes unfairly and therefore damages the private system.

Even if the USA has overall better health care it doesn't change the fact that is both unjust and morally disgraceful to have an underclass of uninsured people with no access to basic, routine medical services. Even if 85% of the population is well served by the US system--which is a big if--the exclusion of the other 15% is no less deplorable. But I am pretty sure you will disagree, because libertarian philosophy seems to have no problem with leaving the weakest and most vulnerable in our society for dead.

Would it really destroy the economy and bankrupt the state to provide medical services to all citizens? It hasn't in Canada, the UK or France; so why would it here?

You ain't seen nothing yet boog. Stay tuned.

Another example of central planning failure.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-postal-warns-could-default-222059604.html

So what about the uninsured?