digerati

Author: Lee
It's another socialized health care success!

"France must make big changes to its health system in order to cut waste and increase efficiency, a government-commissioned report is warning.

The report says citizens must pay more and doctors must alter their behaviour.

Failure to do so could add 66 billion euros a year to France's public budget deficit by 2020, it adds."

What? You mean that giving unlimited "free" health care to everyone can actually cost an insane amount of money? Say it ain't so! (By the way, 66 billion euros is roughly $84 billion. This is 1/6 of the amount that Bush is projected to add to the US deficit, and France has an economy 1/7 the size of the United States.)

"The report was written by the High Council for the Future of Health Insurance, an advisory body set up by the government as it prepares to introduce healthcare reform legislation in June. ...

The standard of care provided by French doctors is ranked among the best in the world, but the report says the system is "badly regulated and badly governed".

A government-run enterprise that is poorly managed and inefficient, resulting in spiraling costs and diminished quality of care? I'm shocked, I tell you... shocked!

"The report says French general practitioners prescribe on average 260,000 euros' worth of drugs a year.

It says the French consume three times as many antibiotics as the Germans, and more than twice as many anti-cholesterol drugs as the British. ...

Problems in the French health system were exposed last year, when a heat wave killed around 15,000 mostly elderly people.

There was also a bed shortage in hospitals in December, when a nationwide flu and bronchitis epidemic broke out."

Once again, the massive shortcomings in socialized health care systems are exposed. Our privatized system definitely has its shortcomings, but these are due mostly to government interference. Get government out of the health care business, and the free market will cause costs will go down. France, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the "free" health care systems keep costs down by rationing care. Say what you like about our system, but France is running essentially one massive HMO. If this is what Michael Moore and the rest of the neosocialist left have in mind for America they're in for a huge fight.

(From: http://moorewatch.com/ )

BluntmaN

WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS

Hmm the US deficit is calculated for year 2005 and france's deficit from health care is projected for year 2020. This is only a warning that more efficient methods are needed but otherwise this piece of bullshit is not worth the bandwidth it occupies.

The fact that the french down pills like croissants does little to show that free health care is bad. The heat was a big disaster and the major problem was not bed shortage but air conditioned areas. The bed shortages mean nothing if there is an epidemic. So what does that site tell us? Besides that hatred for a particular person doesnt provide arguments?

Now do you really believe that 100% privatisation of health care is a good solution? I mean if you are unemployied and your kid gets cancer what do you do? Do you pick the hospital bill yourself? How do you pay for things like that? Sell your kidneys?(btw this does sound like a good idea maybe america will figure out the transplant market and be the first to legalise the trade of bodyparts.)

__________________
'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.'
Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)

bluelight

Privatisation?

Yeah right.

NONE...and i repeat NONE of the sectors in Sweden that used to be official (Post,Trains telecommunications health care etc etc...

NONE has given lower prices or better result in efficency after that they have become private.

The only thing that has come out is that people have been sacked .

Sacking people and "making things more effective whine... whine... whine...." (rightwing enterpiceleader talking) is the only thing this has given average.

The idea that capitalism by itself gives lower prices is crap.


Bluelight

bluelight

But it ism correct that the French conume loads of medication...antibiotics especially.

The reason....they have no strict rules on medication companys and the propaganda they use to sell and get stinking rich.

We have.We also have a light consumtion of antibiotics compared to them.

Capitalism cant rule itself.

Capitalism that isnt controlled by the people will act like a drunken cow with a chainsaw when let loose.



Bluelight

digerati

You let the sentences stream together. It didn't say the heatwave disaster was lack of beds, that when there was a flu and bronchitis breakout there wasn't enough room for the people who were sick, and I doubt they should have been given air conditioners.

Yes the projected date is for the year 2020, but still a deficit that high to worry about. Our 500 billion is a very bad number, no ones trying to justify that, but the report isn't saying the total will be 66 billion Euros, that per year that's how much would accumulate. Now seeing as 66 billion Euros is around 84 billion US, and their economy is 1/7 that of the US, their deficit will go up 588 billion dollars per year comparatively to that of the US. The finding was France government provisioned, so I doubt it's lying. Now the man's opinions on privatization I don't completely agree with, but the findings on the debt france could be facing is scary.

bird chest

You really need to research economics. I would explain this situation to you but you would not listen anyways and I do not have the energy to do it. You are basically saying a = b, that is not always true.

bluelight

Trade bodyparts will become legal ?Well if it does then that means the Apocalypse is already here.


Bluelight

BluntmaN

Human life has a price tag already mate the FAA sets it at about $3million (the lowest) and EPA sets it at $88million (the highest). And you are amazed about buying transplants?

__________________
'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.'
Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)

UberLord

I stopped reading here.
It's not free and was never free as it was paid for by taxation. If the author can't get that into his head then he obviously won't understand.

__________________
Gentoo Linux - Developer (baselayout)
Read my blog

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts

digerati

That's why the author put the word free in quotations.

BluntmaN

Good point now this is the best argument I have ever heard nice one mate you cracked it. Exactly I am saying that a=b and b=c and c=d etc etc what a point I am in awe. Thank you you really opened my eyes.

__________________
'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.'
Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)

digerati

Yeah I agree, he did a horrible post lol

bird chest

I said I was not going to explain it but guess I will now. You are paying for your healthcare through taxes and some hospital or whatever opens up that costs money and you have the money to go but why would you it is a waist of your earned money. Yeah it has some advantages but it is not worth the money. Of course a privatized whatever will fail when something is taxed out already and you get it. Example you could get a toyota for free or you could get a lexus for 100,000 grand what would you pick? I know what I would pick. What do you think would happen to lexus. They would lay off workers and reduce size to cut costs and reduce production to try and balance supply and demand. Well once the price goes down they lose a certain market which is trying to get the best cars that have the best status and their prices fall further. Till eventually they are no longer making a profit. So what do they do they either shift production to another product or go under. In health cares case what can they produce alternatley? Are they allowed to change? I am also curious as to the regulations placed on the businesses that were in swedan.

I just looking back at the post that I origionally posted to and I do not see waht I was talking about then I looked back on the posts and realized that I quoted the wrong post orgionally and meant to respond to bluelight and his swedish healthcare stuff. Sorry bluntman.

So Bluelight what were the regulations and other facts about the situation in swedan. You give a vary vague example I would like to some facts to back up your claim.

Capatalism is not crap it is not coincidence that technologies have always taken off in capatalist society and fail in communism, socialism, dictatorships, facism, and any other government with to much government control.

BluntmaN

Look for my part I am not against capitalism but I dread uncontroled capitalistic free for alls. The health care market is in all aspects different than the car market or any other market cause here we are talking about peoples lifes. Private clinics and hospitals do exist in most countries and will continue to exist but public health care is foundamental in a humanitarian society.
Free health care (by free I mean paid by taxes) provides the basic health care needs. The private clinics provide a diferent service low waiting times, higher standards of service, better beds, less crowded rooms etc etc.
As for the argument that if people pay private insurance then it is unfair for them to pay taxes for public hospitals then I must also point out that some of these taxes go to dissability benefits, some to free defence attorneys(for criminals) others go to public libraries etc etc. Just because you dont use a public service does not mean it shouldnt be there.

__________________
'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.'
Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)

digerati

Well said.

bird chest

Another alternative would be a voucher system for healthcare that would still keep the privatization aspect but the government would still cover the cost.

Or you could make it an option if you want your Health care taxed out or not. But then you end up with a system where just the poor are having it taxed out and end up not having enough money taxed out to support the system.

I will never agree to the rich being forced to pay for the poor. Obvioulsly it should not be pure capatalism but not bordering socialist either. The more I read about it the more I become in favor of a flat tax or much flatter then we have now. If we did that the poor could complain so much more effectivley because they are paying their share.

BluntmaN

What exactly do you mean by flat taxation? One universal tax? It is both dangerous and unfair I found two university lecturers that discuss a flat tax plan but none is talking about flat taxation in the form of one rate for all poor, middle, high income earners.

Edward J. McCaffery
Douglas Dunn

Their proposals sound nice but I am no economist so I dont really know if they would work.
A universal tax rate is not a very fair tactic at all though. If you tax the rich the same as you tax the middle and low income payers then you effectively end up with an unfair tax scheme.

Let me explain further.

The low income tax payer paying a high income tax would run at the risk of falling below the poverty line.
The middle class would loose much of their investment power and their prospects of becoming wealthier not to mention lowering consuming power.
The high class and the rich are going to benefit the most (although in effect they actually pay less taxes because of loopholes in the tax system) which allows them to get more luxuries and accumulate more wealth.

In fact flat tax rates in the context of universal tax rates cause more damage to both the economy and tax payers. It makes advancement more difficult and allows the haves to get more luxuries while the havenots will have to strugle even more to survive.

I do understand that the rich are not milking cows but they have more money to spare than all other groups in society. They made their money by taking advantage of the freedoms the state provides and should be asked to return some of that money back.

As far as the "free" health care issue is concerned the rich would benefit as well as the poor and middle class. If health care services are payied through taxes and a public health care system with good standards is established. Then the rich employers would not have to pay ludicrus ammounts to private health insurance companies to provide health care for employees. The middle class will benefit cause it will allow their income to increase and hospital bills to be nullified thus increasing their buying and investment powers. The poor and low income tax payer will be given better chances of survival and development and it will provide with bigger opportinities to rise to the middle class.

__________________
'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.'
Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)

bird chest

first off their are no loop holes everyone pays on what they make end of story except for maybe giving to charity or something. I did not say their could not be programs to help the very poorest. It should not be a high tax either maybe 10-15%. Very few of the rich sit on their money also so that extra money they make they spend. That money goes to the middle and lower class workers. Companies do better and can higher more people and/or pay more.

I can't remember where I read this but it said 85% of the rich made it their on their own. Something close to that worded different but the point remains the same. These people spend and are not some heirerarchy that remains in power.

digerati

A lot of rich people use loopholes. Are they gigantically huge? Most likely not, but there are loopholes like buying an SUV and saying it's for the business and writing it off stuff like that.

bird chest

This is for a flat tax there is no lower tax bracet so it does not really help. Since they only get 25% off their taxes and not the whole suv. How are you to prove it is not for the business.

zerodamage

I do not understand what the issue is here. The poor in the U.S. do not pay taxes to begin with. The largest tax burden is on the top 50% of wage earner to begin with. You don't believe me? Look here (Excel spread sheet from IRS website)

And Bush and his rich buddies bs and all the tax money goes to them? Not at all. The Democrats receive more money from the rich than republicans according to data collected after the 2002 elections.
Read more about it here

BluntmaN

The issue was free health care and it turned to flat rate taxation.

We are not talking about the Bush tax cut. And zero talking about sources posting a link to Rush Limbaugh's page ffs I think you are smarter than this.

__________________
'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.'
Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)

zerodamage

I knew you would complain about it being Rush Limbaugh's webpage. However, the facts there speak for themselves. You can either ignore tham or accept them. They are the facts as quoted from Washington Times article. Do a search for that particular research piece and you will find the same exact information.

BluntmaN

I just couldnt resist there.
I do know it is from the WT but I thought what the hell lets get him.

__________________
'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.'
Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)