Here's what socialized healthcare will become in the U.S.

[Andy]

Well, no, you can't opt out of paying for Medicare any more than you can opt out of paying for any other government program. If you could, a lot of people might opt to not pay for the newest military hardware, either.

Apples and Oranges. Defense of the nation is a necessary requirement, and a directive of the Constitution of the United States.

Medicare is supposedly a wonderful helpful program, that supposed to be a benefit to the public. It's neither Constitutional, nor a benefit in my estimation. It's a social program. Social programs are basically socialism, and always a problem.

I'm not sure where you are getting your figures. I got quotes for a phantom couple age 64 from Kaiser, which is one of the most affordable HMOs I know of. The cost starts at $568 a month if you pay 30% of the cost after a deductible of $5,450.

I got it from the same place. I'm not sure what zip code you are in, but each state has different minimum liability requirements that insurance companies must cover. In ohio, a more conservative state, the minimum insurance requirements are very low. Of course are the rates.

A $100,000 procedure, which sounds like a lot, but really isn't given the cost of medical care, would cost the insured $35,450. That is a real bargain, given that an uninsured person would be billed a lot more than the hundred grand.

That is, if the procedure were not part of the limitations, exclusions, and riders.

Of course, they could buy a better plan for $1,122 a month.

I'd be very skeptical of that $291 a month, not knowing just what exclusions and formularies there might be attached.

I'd be skeptical of your $109 a month plan, also. Do you know what is and is not covered? It might be a good idea to know that before someone crosses the double yellow, some uninsured deadbeat, that is, and you wind up fighting with your insurance company over that quarter of a mil for intensive care and rehab.

Sure, if that phantom couple I got the quote for had planned for medical costs to soar into the stratosphere, and had planned to see their 401k go in the toilet, then they'd be sitting pretty.

First, let's go back an challenge some of the assumptions. First, has health care really gone sky high? Not exactly. According to the Policy Research Institute of Wisconsin, health care cost as a percentage of income, as actually dropped. In the 1960s, people spent more than 6.6% of their income on health care. By 2006, only 4% was spent on health care.

So does this mean health care costs have not gone up? No. The problem with health care costs, is that it includes many things that may not be due to sky rocketing costs. For example, the figure on how much the US spends on health care, includes things that people choose to buy that they do not need. For example, Pamela Anderson's breasts. That's a health care expense according to statistics. Thousands of people get liposuction, botox, even 'lip augmentation (which is unbelievable to me). That's all considered expenses on health care statistically.

But it doesn't end there. It also includes many elective surgeries that are understandably wanted, but are not required for your health. For example, a women who get's breast cancer, does not require reconstructive surgery. That's an elective. Insurance companies may choose to not cover that because it drives up the rates for others to get basic health insurance. (this also is something that some states require insurance to cover, which in turn, drives up premiums)

Finely, a large part of our health care expenses are due to Medicare. Government programs ALWAYS drive up costs. The artificially high cost of medicare, drives up our statistics on health care costs.

This is why people even now, fly to India to get the exact say care for much cheaper.

So are there exclusions and limitation to health insurance? Of course. If you want to pay a lower price, you can't be getting Viagra from the insurance company. This was brought home to me by working for State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio. I worked as a tech doing IT upgrades. While talking with a claim adjuster for STRS, she remarked that her big problem now was people calling to complain they couldn't get Viagra. Later, due to massive complaints, they agreed to cover Viagra. Of course they passed a rather large rate increase for prescription pills coverage. Of course the complaints rolled in about that too.

As for my policy, It's been great. Now I do have a high deductible, but as soon as it was met, they covered nearly everything. I would highly suggest that anyone who does not have health insurance, find the cheapest policy they can and buy it. Even a $5000 deductible policy for $58/month, is well worth it in the end.

 

[Andy]

A $100,000 procedure, which sounds like a lot, but really isn't given the cost of medical care, would cost the insured $35,450. That is a real bargain, given that an uninsured person would be billed a lot more than the hundred grand.

I just remembered something else I wanted to comment on.

The prices for health care are arbitrary. I wish I could give you this MP3 I have on hospitals. It's on my Ipod, but I lost the source to it.

It's an interview with the director of a large Hospital company. In this interview he reveals some of the things that go on with hospital bills, that many don't know about.

Hospitals have contracts with insurance companies. As such, insurance companies negotiate discounts with hospitals in order to make their customers see a value to having that insurance company.

As such Blue Cross might negotiate a 65% discount. But the Hospitals cost of operating doesn't decrease just because the contract requires a discount. As in a $35K dollar operation, does not cost $12,250 just because Blue Cross wanted a discount.

So the Hospital simply picks numbers out of the air, to make the bill cover the cost of operation, regardless of the discount. As in, the operation now costs $100K, so that after the 65% discount, they get the $35K they need.

This is why you can have two people get the exact same operation, and have different bills. This is also why people without insurance are charged differently than those with. A guy where I work, showed me his hospital bill, and on the back was an explanation of what to do if you don't have insurance, and how to come up with your personal cost, that was much different than the cost if you had insurance.

In short, if insurance didn't exist at all, the procedure above, would likely be $35K, not the $100K that we see today.

This is also why hospitals in India, operating in a free-market system, without insurance entanglements, also have cheaper rates for the same basic surgeries.

 

[PLC1]

Apples and Oranges. Defense of the nation is a necessary requirement, and a directive of the Constitution of the United States.

Medicare is supposedly a wonderful helpful program, that supposed to be a benefit to the public. It's neither Constitutional, nor a benefit in my estimation. It's a social program. Social programs are basically socialism, and always a problem.

Can we all just pick which programs are OK and which are not, and just fund what we want? If so, then I have some tax money coming back.

I got it from the same place. I'm not sure what zip code you are in, but each state has different minimum liability requirements that insurance companies must cover. In ohio, a more conservative state, the minimum insurance requirements are very low. Of course are the rates.

It's hard to imagine that rates vary that much by state. How can people be insured in one state for 1/3 the cost of another? Something is wrong there, and it's most likely in what is and is not covered.

First, let's go back an challenge some of the assumptions. First, has health care really gone sky high? Not exactly. According to the Policy Research Institute of Wisconsin, health care cost as a percentage of income, as actually dropped. In the 1960s, people spent more than 6.6% of their income on health care. By 2006, only 4% was spent on health care.

According to AARP

The cost of health care is growing rapidly. On the national level, health care spending is growing as a share of gross domestic product, and hospital and physician services now account for more than half of that spending. On the individual level, the growth in health care costs is reflected in increases in health insurance premiums, which have exceeded rises in wages and overall inflation; declines in employer-offered health coverage, and the growing number of people who are under- or uninsured.

So does this mean health care costs have not gone up? No. The problem with health care costs, is that it includes many things that may not be due to sky rocketing costs. For example, the figure on how much the US spends on health care, includes things that people choose to buy that they do not need. For example, Pamela Anderson's breasts. That's a health care expense according to statistics. Thousands of people get liposuction, botox, even 'lip augmentation (which is unbelievable to me). That's all considered expenses on health care statistically.

Yes, it includes a lot of things that it didn't include in the '60s, things that hadn't even been invented at that time. How much do you really think that insurance companies paid for Pamela Anderson's brests? Sheesh, what an example.

From the above link:

Much of what is driving the cost of health care is the widespread use of new medical technologies. Advances have introduced treatments for conditions previously untreatable and new categories of spending.16 These advances also translate into increased functional levels and life expectancy for people with chronic conditions. Other factors, such as rising personal income, payment structure, and aging of the population also contribute to the cost of health care, but to a much lesser extent. The effect of an aging population (rising numbers of beneficiaries) on the future growth in federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid is smaller than the effect of rising health care costs per beneficiary.17,18 Published estimates show that the aging of the population accounts for only about 6 percent of the spending growth

But it doesn't end there. It also includes many elective surgeries that are understandably wanted, but are not required for your health. For example, a women who get's breast cancer, does not require reconstructive surgery. That's an elective. Insurance companies may choose to not cover that because it drives up the rates for others to get basic health insurance. (this also is something that some states require insurance to cover, which in turn, drives up premiums)

Insurance doesn't include a lot of things. Pre existing conditions, for example. You had high blood pressure before our insurance? Well, then, your blood pressure medicine isn't covered. Had a stroke, huh? Well, that is due to the high blood pressure, so it isn't covered either. Sorry, Charlie. Maybe Medicaid will pick up the tab, if you can find a doctor who will accept it.

Finely, a large part of our health care expenses are due to Medicare. Government programs ALWAYS drive up costs. The artificially high cost of medicare, drives up our statistics on health care costs.

This is why people even now, fly to India to get the exact say care for much cheaper.

If you go by ideology, then you are correct. Government does tend to raise costs.

Why, then, do we pay more than any other nation for health care?

It is highly debatable whether the overhead costs of Medicare are more or less than those of private insurance.

So are there exclusions and limitation to health insurance? Of course. If you want to pay a lower price, you can't be getting Viagra from the insurance company. This was brought home to me by working for State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio. I worked as a tech doing IT upgrades. While talking with a claim adjuster for STRS, she remarked that her big problem now was people calling to complain they couldn't get Viagra. Later, due to massive complaints, they agreed to cover Viagra. Of course they passed a rather large rate increase for prescription pills coverage. Of course the complaints rolled in about that too.

Viagra is pretty cheap. Some of the new medicines are not.

I'll buy my own Viagra if I need it, thank you. It would be nice to have some help with that new $600 a month medication that the doctor prescribed, however.

As for my policy, It's been great. Now I do have a high deductible, but as soon as it was met, they covered nearly everything. I would highly suggest that anyone who does not have health insurance, find the cheapest policy they can and buy it. Even a $5000 deductible policy for $58/month, is well worth it in the end.

That's great, for you. I really would look in to the exclusions, however. I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot of surprises, and that they don't necessarily involve breasts or Viagra.

As such Blue Cross might negotiate a 65% discount. But the Hospitals cost of operating doesn't decrease just because the contract requires a discount. As in a $35K dollar operation, does not cost $12,250 just because Blue Cross wanted a discount.

So the Hospital simply picks numbers out of the air, to make the bill cover the cost of operation, regardless of the discount. As in, the operation now costs $100K, so that after the 65% discount, they get the $35K they need

.

Yes, that's exactly what happens. Prices are not fixed, not even close. I've gotten explanation of medical benefits forms giving the amount billed at well over $2,000, the amount paid by insurance a few hundred, my part a hundred or so, and the rest written off.

But a patient without insurance would be stuck with the whole thing.

You don't dare not have insurance if you have any property at all. It is quite easy to go bankrupt due to medical costs. People do it all the time, even people who do have insurance.

 

[Cookie Parker]

"Oh! It won't happen like this in the United States." say the blinded, liberal zombies that follow their Messiah to the graveyard.

Look back on how our gubment has been run and what it runs, whether it be Rep or Dem, you know the gubment is run like crap. I think we can all agree on that.

Now imagine a health care system run by this gubment...

Here's what we can look forward to:​

A vision of our future health care system​

ROFLMAO!!!!

Are all your sites nothing more than fear-mongering lies from the rich to get you to tow the line?

ROFLMAO!!

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

I just remembered something else I wanted to comment on.

The prices for health care are arbitrary. I wish I could give you this MP3 I have on hospitals. It's on my Ipod, but I lost the source to it.

It's an interview with the director of a large Hospital company. In this interview he reveals some of the things that go on with hospital bills, that many don't know about.

Hospitals have contracts with insurance companies. As such, insurance companies negotiate discounts with hospitals in order to make their customers see a value to having that insurance company.

As such Blue Cross might negotiate a 65% discount. But the Hospitals cost of operating doesn't decrease just because the contract requires a discount. As in a $35K dollar operation, does not cost $12,250 just because Blue Cross wanted a discount.

So the Hospital simply picks numbers out of the air, to make the bill cover the cost of operation, regardless of the discount. As in, the operation now costs $100K, so that after the 65% discount, they get the $35K they need.

This is why you can have two people get the exact same operation, and have different bills. This is also why people without insurance are charged differently than those with. A guy where I work, showed me his hospital bill, and on the back was an explanation of what to do if you don't have insurance, and how to come up with your personal cost, that was much different than the cost if you had insurance.

In short, if insurance didn't exist at all, the procedure above, would likely be $35K, not the $100K that we see today.

This is also why hospitals in India, operating in a free-market system, without insurance entanglements, also have cheaper rates for the same basic surgeries.

That's very interesting. I'd love to hear the interview. Sounds like one of those industries (Hospitals and/or Insurance) needs some Regulating...

 

[Andy]

Can we all just pick which programs are OK and which are not, and just fund what we want? If so, then I have some tax money coming back.

Not exactly. We have a Constitution for that purpose. Obviously the military is a requirement of the Constitution. All those other programs... are not.

It's hard to imagine that rates vary that much by state. How can people be insured in one state for 1/3 the cost of another? Something is wrong there, and it's most likely in what is and is not covered.

Like I said, some states have stricter requirements for what must be covered, and by how much. There is also the issue of how much state level socialization there is.

I'll give a quick example. This doesn't fit perfectly, but I happen to know it off the top of my head. In Canada, the government also runs insurance for automobiles. There is also a minimum insurance coverage of $1,000,000! One Million. Now when you think about the average accident, that's a massive amount of un-needed coverage. Nevertheless, since it's required by the government, the cheapest premiums for a guy my age, with 1 accident in the past 5 years, is five times higher than my current premium.

It's all due to that minimum coverage.

According to AARP

I'm skeptical of this page. At face value, one would have to assume health insurance prices have doubled in 8 years. I'm not seeing that anywhere. Not where I work. Not with my parents. Not with any friends I know. Not saying I dismiss it out of hand, but that is way beyond anything I've seen. My own policy, I've had for about 8 years, and it has only increased by about $20/mo.

Yes, it includes a lot of things that it didn't include in the '60s, things that hadn't even been invented at that time. How much do you really think that insurance companies paid for Pamela Anderson's brests? Sheesh, what an example.

lol. Well my point was, people are getting lots of things done that are not needed, and then having to pay higher insurance premiums because of it. The Viagra for example. Gastric bypass surgery for example.

When you only go for things you need to survive, the price is much lower than if you get all these extras and electives and so on.

Insurance doesn't include a lot of things. Pre existing conditions, for example. You had high blood pressure before our insurance? Well, then, your blood pressure medicine isn't covered. Had a stroke, huh? Well, that is due to the high blood pressure, so it isn't covered either. Sorry, Charlie. Maybe Medicaid will pick up the tab, if you can find a doctor who will accept it.

Actually, that's not nearly as wide spread as people think. Is pre-existing conditions a problem? Yes, but not for those who keep their insurance. One of the reasons I bought my own insurance policy, is because now I never have to worry about pre-existing conditions for the rest of my life.

And by the way, most all pre-existing condition clauses are not forever. That's something that a lot of people don't know. People have this screw ball idea that if you have high blood pressure, that never again for the rest of your life can you get insurance to cover that. Buzz... wrong answer. Pre-existing condition clauses are normally for a one year, to two year period. After that time frame is up, you can have your insurance cover anything.

What companies do not want, if for you to not have insurance for ten years, break your leg, apply for health insurance, get your leg fixed, and cancel the insurance. That's unfair to both the company and all the other insurance customers, who will obviously pick up your tab.

Finely, there is what's called a "high risk" insurance policy. So even if you are in the worst health condition possible, you can still get a policy. Of course, logically the high risk policies are more expensive. But that's the way it goes.

If you go by ideology, then you are correct. Government does tend to raise costs.

Why, then, do we pay more than any other nation for health care?

It is highly debatable whether the overhead costs of Medicare are more or less than those of private insurance.

How many government programs are really easy, really simple, and quick to navigate? One of the big problems is that doctors often have to hire 2 to 3 people just to do paper work to deal with medicare, medicaid, S-chip, and all the other programs. Plus paper work for all the insurance companies because each company has it's own contracts.

Viagra is pretty cheap. Some of the new medicines are not.

I'll buy my own Viagra if I need it, thank you. It would be nice to have some help with that new $600 a month medication that the doctor prescribed, however.

You have to remember, you'll always pay more into insurance than you'll get out of it. Pills cost money. You either cough up the money for the pill, or you don't get it. If the pharmaceutical companies can't earn a profit off of making a new medicine, they won't make the new medicine.

It's the same in any other country. The reason they spend less on health care, is because they don't get the latest, newest, drugs.

If you want to reduce health care costs instantly, simply eliminate all new drugs from the market. That seems like a crazy theory, yet that's exactly how France does it. The government bargains with pharmaceutical companies for a price for a specific drug. If the price is too high... then it simply isn't available.

So to you, which option is worse? Paying a high price for new blood pressure medication, or not having it at all? Those are your options.

That's great, for you. I really would look in to the exclusions, however. I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot of surprises, and that they don't necessarily involve breasts or Viagra.

LOL. I have looked through it. There isn't much they don't cover. That which they do exclude, I understand that it's my job to have reserve funds in case that's required.

One thing you have to get, insurance isn't there to prevent you from having to pay for health care. It's insurance, just like any other insurance. If I have a $50K policy on my Condo. I don't expect to get $120K because my condo is worth more than it was when I bought it. That means if I want another Condo just like what I have, I'll have to fork out the extra $70K to buy one, or raise my insurance, and in turn my premiums, to have larger coverage. That's simply the way that it works.

Yes, that's exactly what happens. Prices are not fixed, not even close. I've gotten explanation of medical benefits forms giving the amount billed at well over $2,000, the amount paid by insurance a few hundred, my part a hundred or so, and the rest written off.

But a patient without insurance would be stuck with the whole thing.

You don't dare not have insurance if you have any property at all. It is quite easy to go bankrupt due to medical costs. People do it all the time, even people who do have insurance.

Well, that's not what I've seen. If you don't have insurance, they give you an alternative price plan. Instead of $100K, it's suddenly only $35K. Of course, yes you get stuck with the whole $35K yes. That's the price of high quality care. You can always do the socialist thing where you get crappy awful care.

But at least it's free.

The bottom line is, you get what you pay for. We have the best health care in the world. The more socialized you get, the worse off it is.

 

[Andy]

ROFLMAO!!!!

Are all your sites nothing more than fear-mongering lies from the rich to get you to tow the line?

ROFLMAO!!

Which part was a lie?

 

[Andy]

That's very interesting. I'd love to hear the interview. Sounds like one of those industries (Hospitals and/or Insurance) needs some Regulating...

What would you regulate? I thought about that myself, but I can't see a solution.

About the only thing I can think of that might work, and work really well, would be a system I heard about in another country. I can't for the life of me, remember which country it is that this is done.

Anyway, the system is you yourself pay for all health care costs. Then the insurance company reimburses you. What this does is, if you know the insurance company is only going to pay you X amount for health care, then you would find the best bargain you could. Because ever dollar it costs you, under how much the insurance company gives, is saved cash.

This makes the hospitals and doctors compete wildly for business. Which in turn makes things cheaper.

But to get us to that point, from where we are, would be horribly difficult. Tell people they have to pay for their health care first, would be the death nell to any politician who suggested it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What would you regulate? I thought about that myself, but I can't see a solution.

About the only thing I can think of that might work, and work really well, would be a system I heard about in another country. I can't for the life of me, remember which country it is that this is done.

Anyway, the system is you yourself pay for all health care costs. Then the insurance company reimburses you. What this does is, if you know the insurance company is only going to pay you X amount for health care, then you would find the best bargain you could. Because ever dollar it costs you, under how much the insurance company gives, is saved cash.

This makes the hospitals and doctors compete wildly for business. Which in turn makes things cheaper.

But to get us to that point, from where we are, would be horribly difficult. Tell people they have to pay for their health care first, would be the death nell to any politician who suggested it.

so your very very sick....so spend your time shopping around for a Dr? that's fine for some things, but other times your going to get the treatment at the closest place you can, and or not even know what they just did to you until after. If I got in a car accident I don't want to be in the ambulance ( already cost more then I have , and just got in the ambulance) and start going threw the yellow pages asking about pricing.

 

[Andy]

so your very very sick....so spend your time shopping around for a Dr? that's fine for some things, but other times your going to get the treatment at the closest place you can, and or not even know what they just did to you until after. If I got in a car accident I don't want to be in the ambulance ( already cost more then I have , and just got in the ambulance) and start going threw the yellow pages asking about pricing.

You could always go the socialism route where government pays for it.

Cuban ambulance barrow.

People tend to not get instantly sick from well. Now of course if you fall off a ladder, you are not going to shop around in the Ambulance. Nevertheless you are mocking a system that's actually in place in another country. So you look pretty stupid right now, since it seems to be working well enough there. If only I could remember where 'there' is...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You could always go the socialism route where government pays for it.

Cuban ambulance barrow.

People tend to not get instantly sick from well. Now of course if you fall off a ladder, you are not going to shop around in the Ambulance. Nevertheless you are mocking a system that's actually in place in another country. So you look pretty stupid right now, since it seems to be working well enough there. If only I could remember where 'there' is...

yea I must be dumb if I am mocking a system that is actuly in place....wait thats what you are doing ...so you must be dumb.

Also mocking? I pointed out basic flaws in the system...or do you think the system is perfect?

 

[PLC1]

We don't want to become like Cuba, of course. I don't think anyone would suggest that, at least, not anyone with any credibility.

So, let's take the argument totally the other way. It should be the personal responsibility of every individual or family to provide for their own health care, either through insurance or direct payment, or both.

OK, that might not be so bad, maybe.

Veterinary care, after all, is usually provided on a cash for service basis, and costs perhaps one or two percent as much as human care. Of course, we'd expect it to cost more to replace a hip on a human than on a German Shepherd, but 50 or 100 times as much? That's insane, but that's how it is.

So, a young single with no history of health problems suddenly has an attack of acute appendicitis. He/she has no money, and no insurance, as no problems were expected.

Do we let that person die of septic shock, or do we operate?

If we operate, who pays?

 

[Andy]

yea I must be dumb if I am mocking a system that is actuly in place....wait thats what you are doing ...so you must be dumb.

Also mocking? I pointed out basic flaws in the system...or do you think the system is perfect?

You are not very good with basic communication it seems.
I'm not mocking it at all. Socialized care is very real, and very deadly.

You didn't point out the basic flaws in a system, because I doubt the people there are doing what you claim they are doing.

 

[Andy]

We don't want to become like Cuba, of course. I don't think anyone would suggest that, at least, not anyone with any credibility.

So, let's take the argument totally the other way. It should be the personal responsibility of every individual or family to provide for their own health care, either through insurance or direct payment, or both.

OK, that might not be so bad, maybe.

Veterinary care, after all, is usually provided on a cash for service basis, and costs perhaps one or two percent as much as human care. Of course, we'd expect it to cost more to replace a hip on a human than on a German Shepherd, but 50 or 100 times as much? That's insane, but that's how it is.

So, a young single with no history of health problems suddenly has an attack of acute appendicitis. He/she has no money, and no insurance, as no problems were expected.

Do we let that person die of septic shock, or do we operate?

If we operate, who pays?

Of course we operate. Of course the person involved pays.

I also have a problem with the no money, no insurance deal. As a matter of personal responsibility, you should be saving money. If you are not, then what happens to you is generally your own fault. Is there anyone in this world that never has something bad happen to them? Read the news paper. It's filled with stories about people who said it couldn't happen to them. I haven't met a set of parents yet who had a perfect uneventful life.

With all the evidence that you need to be ready for life's Katrinas, why do you not prepare? And by what logic should you not have to pay for those events, when they happen to you? Is "I didn't expect any problems" a valid excuse for personal responsibility, and reason to have others pay for your problems?

Now don't get me wrong, on a personal level, I have myself paid the starting premium for a girl from Somalia who needed health insurance. I did this because she wanted health insurance but didn't have money at the time.

But charity by choice of the heart, and being forced to pay for some boozo who refused to provide for himself, by an over bearing government, is not charity, it tyranny.

What we are talking about here, goes beyond health insurance even. I know of a guy who didn't save up any money, and one day his car broke down. He's all in a panic cause he has no money to repair the car, and no money to get to work. Well uh... yeah... that's why you need to save up money. Should everyone pay for his car repair because he "didn't expect any problems"?

I know a former manager where I worked that bought a bran new F-350 pickup, and then got laid off from his job. Of course he had no money, and obviously he couldn't pay for his truck. They repo'd the truck, then sued him for the difference, and then garnished his wages at his next job. Should anyone else be made to pay for his mistakes cause "he didn't expect any problems"? Of course not.

The point of all these is to show we need to get back to personal responsibility. You need to be the executor of "You Inc." Businesses only survive when they plan for the future. So too, do people only survive when they plan for the future. This is how life works.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You are not very good with basic communication it seems.
I'm not mocking it at all. Socialized care is very real, and very deadly.

You didn't point out the basic flaws in a system, because I doubt the people there are doing what you claim they are doing.

your not good with basic thought it seems. You pointed out a system, based on your post I pointed out flaws. Then pull crap about Cuba, who 1 has a system I have not said I supported, 2, has many many other issues that play a part in any health care issues there in the first place. 3. assumes that if one place used socialized health care, then all nations who do it, must end up the same. That type of Idea would mean we should have game up Democracy because it failed in Rome...thus not worth improving on.