Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2014 12:51 am wrote:
You tards aren't very savvy about economics, son.
Let's do a logic problem.
Society A has a private medical model, but single payer health insurance which is funded by a payroll tax. The size of the pool is everybody. Everyone is insured, but there issome waste and fraud. Still, costs are kept barely manageable in spite of the fraud, because of the economy of scale and universal participation.
Society B has universal government medical care, funded by a payroll tax and a VAT. Government focuses on cutting costs by providing care that is merely adequate, and by putting a premium on preventive care rather than letting health issues fester and become critical.
Society C has private insurance and private medicine. The insurance companies are profit driven, so they have attorneys whose only job is to create, massage, or find loopholes to wiggle out of liability precisely when their product is needed. There are multiple companies, each competing for business, and each must meet a separate raft of expenses for marketing and delivering their product. Billions are spent on advertising. Because executives are evaluated and bonused quarterly and are mere cogs in an impersonal wheel, the long term well being of the company is NO ONE's concern. This quarter is the exclusive and universal focus from the sales floor to the CEO's office. Waste and fraud are rampant. Millions are without any care at all, but cannot be turned away at emergency rooms. The cost of their care is, by over-pricing, passed on to the only player at the table with money: the insurance companies.
Those who have insurance foot the bill for all of the redundant marketing and redundant office expenses and redundant dividends. They pay for the fraud an abuse. They pay for the emergency room care of the uninsured. This group - the insured - must see to the profits of investors and the profits of the hospitals and the rightly high salaries of skilled medical professionals, all by themselves.
That is a reasonable description of France, England and America - in that order.
France has the best system, and the cheapest. Everyone participates - no one is without care. England has the shoddiest, but no one is left out. America has the least accessible and most expensive - with quality on a par with that of France.
Math is not political - and neither are economics. Whatever your prescriptions an prejudices and preconceptions, the mathematics of those three systems are immutable. They are what they are, without concern for how you feel about it or wish they were.
Since you went into greater detail about one over the other two by a ratio of about 4 to 1, that gives away the punchline. If I cared (I don't) I could find a lot of the shoddiest things about France (a wannabe power) to throw in the mix. The constant railing against America always seems to accompany some other "lesser" country that does A thing better (at least in the argument).
Ultimately it is a great credit to America that finding isolated items here and there to find a smidgen better takes a global search. I'd still pick America overall against any other country. These little comparisons meant to denigrate actually have that opposite effect.
There's probably a better mousetrap out there too in Bombay maybe.
Tidbit: Residents of Mumbai (and India at large) still call it Bombay. Mumbai is stupid.
This had to be said.