Socialized medicine does not work...

[jasonnfree]

The fact remains any sort of socialism socialist medicine happens to be dozens of people taking out as compared to only one to a few paying in. No socialist entitlement program has worked in the history of the United States… Long-term

Don't know about the US. All I do know is that works in the three places I have lived (UK, NZ and Australia)..

It can't work in the United States because it's been tried for decades, socialist entitlement programs bring out the absolute worst in people.

Social Security and Medicare are socialist entitlement programs. Try to take those programs away from most all anti socialism republicans, and they'll go for their weapons. Same with public funded education, which has served this country pretty well in the past, contrary to what the extreme far right has been led to believe.

 

[JQPublic1]

Japan tops the list of longevity rates by country. But there are 29 more ahead of US on that list.

I remember in my misguided youth thinking how great it would be to be 95 in a wheel chair oblivious to the world around me because I beat the longevity rates.

According to my cursory research, elderly Japanese are still vibrant and active compared to elderly Americans.

 

[JQPublic1]

The fact remains any sort of socialism socialist medicine happens to be dozens of people taking out as compared to only one to a few paying in. No socialist entitlement program has worked in the history of the United States… Long-term

Don't know about the US. All I do know is that works in the three places I have lived (UK, NZ and Australia)..

It can't work in the United States because it's been tried for decades, socialist entitlement programs bring out the absolute worst in people.

Social Security and Medicare are socialist entitlement programs. Try to take those programs away from most all anti socialism republicans, and they'll go for their weapons. Same with public funded education, which has served this country pretty well in the past, contrary to what the extreme far right has been led to believe.

I wanted to agree but when you used the word, "entitlement" I had to refrain from total agreement. "Entitlement " is a word used by konservatives and has a negativity attached to it that suggests people are expecting something for nothing. That isn't true for the vast majority of people who worked and contributed to those social programs. However,when 2nd or third spouses dip into SS, or elderly immigrants and others who haven't contributed a dime to the benefits get on the payroll. For those, it IS an entitlement. One that needs to stop.

 

[Andylusion]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

BS, people living in countries with socialized medicine live just as long or longer than people do here!

First off, we have the highest life expectancy in the world excluding traumatic injury.

Second, life expectancy isn't all that relative to health care. There are monks that live in monasteries, that never do anything, never go anywhere, eat healthy every single day, are miles away from civilization, and never go to hospital, and live long happy lives.

Point being, zero health care, and they live really long lives.

Another example, breast cancer in Japan. Japanese have very very low cancer incident rates. Extremely low. Almost 1/2 the incident rate of the US. If you look at so-called 'medical preventable deaths', due to breast cancer in Japan, it's extremely low, compared to the US which is much higher.

However there's a reason, it's because fewer people get breast cancer, by almost half. What does the hospital do, that prevents women from ever getting cancer? Nothing. So this fact is completely relevant to the health care system.

But look a survival rates. Your chances of surviving breast cancer in Japan... 50%. In the US... 90% Which place has the better health care? We do. By far. Massively better than Japans.

Life expectancy is irrelevant to health care. It does not reflect the quality of care, at all.

According to the list published by WHO,the USA is 31st on the list for average longevity for males and females.

View attachment 111890

The problem with that data, is that it includes things that have nothing to do with health care.

For example, if I shoot myself up with Heroin, and die... is that because our hospital care sucks? No. Obviously not.

If I drive my car, 100 mph and crash into a truck and die... is that because our hospitals suck? No. Obviously not.

If I join a gang, and get shot by a rival gang and die... is that because our hospitals suck? No. Obviously not.

Longevity numbers simply look at statistics of when you are born, verses when you die. Not whether the health care system has anything to do with it.

Life expectancy does not take into account, anything except when you die.

So for example, auto fatalities. Japan has only 4.7 auto fatalities per 100,000 people. That's compared to the US, which has 10.6 Auto fatalities per 100,000 people. That's more than double.

Those numbers effect life expectancy.

Take Homicide. Japan has 0.3 homicides per 100,000 people. The US has 3.9 homicides per 100,000 people. That's 13 times as many.

Take drug overdose deaths. Japan has 0.43 deaths per 100,000 people. The US has 6.96 deaths per 100,000.

Now that isn't to say that every possible statistic favors Japan. They routinely have a higher suicide rate. Yet even with that, their suicides tend to be older, rather than younger. Most of the people who die in the US are younger, resulting in a larger drop in life expectancy, than a 70 year old who sets himself on fire in Japan.

But regardless, my point is this... it has nothing to do with health care. Japan's health care is far worse than ours, by any meaningful measure. But if you ignore relevant statistics, in favor of "which country has a higher life expectancy" then you end up thinking crappy care is better.

If we modeled our entire health care system on Japan's system, do you really think all the criminals would put down their guns? Of course not. Do you think auto accidents would magically stop? Of course not. Do you think all the Heroin addicts would wake up the next day "Oh I shouldn't do this!" and stop? Of course not.

That's my point.

 

[Andylusion]

Japan tops the list of longevity rates by country. But there are 29 more ahead of US on that list.

I remember in my misguided youth thinking how great it would be to be 95 in a wheel chair oblivious to the world around me because I beat the longevity rates.

According to my cursory research, elderly Japanese are still vibrant and active compared to elderly Americans.

My father is 76, and he can run circles around me. He still lifts weights.

What does this have to do with the quality of health care? Do you think the elderly in Japan are only active because some doctor runs to their house every morning and forces them to be active? Come on. Grow up.

 

[JQPublic1]

Japan tops the list of longevity rates by country. But there are 29 more ahead of US on that list.

I remember in my misguided youth thinking how great it would be to be 95 in a wheel chair oblivious to the world around me because I beat the longevity rates.

According to my cursory research, elderly Japanese are still vibrant and active compared to elderly Americans.

My father is 76, and he can run circles around me. He still lifts weights.

What does this have to do with the quality of health care? Do you think the elderly in Japan are only active because some doctor runs to their house every morning and forces them to be active? Come on. Grow up.

what does your anecdote have to do with reality! Am I to accept it just because of your purported "honesty?' Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link that you have been avoiding!

 

[Andylusion]

I hope to see socialized medicine made to work. 1st for our veterans and next for those under the age of 18 who shouldn't have to suffer because of the situation they were born into.

I hope to see the day when the chocolate cake only diet is made to work. 1st for our children, and next for teenagers.

Socialism never works. Never. Not one time in all of human history has it worked. Every time, when you socialized the system, the system implodes. It's the only economic system with a 100% failure rate.

You need to stop trying to dream up a Utopian vision, and start seeing the world for how it really is, and really works.

Facts do not support your premise. Additionally if you believe the capitalistic approach to medicine is any sort of panacea you're simply blind to the issue that in such system adequate care is limited to a select portion of the population. Medical expenses has long been the main cause for personal bankruptcy (62%) in the US, even though in most of those cases (78%) had some insurance.

First off, you are wrong about that. The theory that medical expenses are the cause of bankruptcy is a flat out lie. Just flat out, it's a lie.

I've looked at the evidence for this, and it's ridiculous. For one thing, if you owe just $500 in medical debt, they call it a "medical bankruptcy". Do you see a problem there? The cost of filing bankruptcy would be more than how much they owed in "medical debt". No one files bankruptcy on just $500.

Second, they don't take a look at any of your other debts. You could owe a million dollars in other debt, and if you owed just $500 to a hospital, they would call that a "medical bankruptcy".

If you were even remotely discerning, or rational, you would ask yourself the question "if they have insurance (as you pointed out), then how did it bankrupt them?". But you didn't. You mindlessly "derp they had insurance and still went bankrupt! Clearly health care bad!".

This is why 78% can have insurance, and still have a medical bankruptcy, because the morons that complied the data said even if you owed only a tiny amount in medical debt, no matter how much other debt you have, then it's a 'medical bankruptcy'.

Ridiculous.

But it gets better than that..... they went a step further, and included people who had ZERO medical debt. Go read the report. Read how they came up with these BS numbers. Even if you had absolutely zero medical debt at all, if you went bankruptcy because you couldn't work.... Yes.... they claimed that was a Medical Bankruptcy. Your insurance covered 100% of the cost, you owed and paid nothing, and if you still filed bankruptcy, then it's a "medical bankruptcy"! Zero medical debt at all. Medical bankruptcy.

Hey, do you think in socialized countries, no one ever misses a single day of work? Of course they do. Do you think some may end up in bankruptcy because of it? Of course they do.

But they don't call those medical bankruptcies do they... only here in the US where left-ideology is the driving force behind the reports, not facts or reason.

But lastly, I would say that there is ample evidence that Capitalism is a far better approach.

Looking at the US system, is not an example of a capitalist system, so it doesn't support the claim that a capitalist system doesn't work.

The example of how successful a capitalist health care system is, would be medical tourism. The medical tourism market is growing at a rate of 25% per year. And by it's nature this is an entirely capitalist system.

This includes people with low incomes, under $50,000 a year. 50% of medical tourists has no insurance at all. Most spent between $5,000 and $15,000, per medical tourism event. Only around 30% were doing it for cosmetic reasons, of course even cosmetic surgery includes reconstruction after an illness event.

Medical tourism is often done through a medical tourism company, which of course is a profit driven capitalist venture.

Further, nearly all medical tourism is to private, non-government, non-regulated privately owned and operating capitalist based, and consumer paid for, hospitals and health care providers.

If you want to know which system works better, and provides the best care, all you need to do is see how people vote with their feet. When look at how they vote at polls, it's based on empty promises of what socialism will do. But when they vote with their dollars, you see what really works.

People don't travel around the world, to go to a state funded hospital. They go to the private hospitals. They don't go to the state funded hospitals of India. They go to the private pay-for-service hospitals of India.

The capitalist system works. Always has. Always will.

 

[Andylusion]

Japan tops the list of longevity rates by country. But there are 29 more ahead of US on that list.

I remember in my misguided youth thinking how great it would be to be 95 in a wheel chair oblivious to the world around me because I beat the longevity rates.

According to my cursory research, elderly Japanese are still vibrant and active compared to elderly Americans.

My father is 76, and he can run circles around me. He still lifts weights.

What does this have to do with the quality of health care? Do you think the elderly in Japan are only active because some doctor runs to their house every morning and forces them to be active? Come on. Grow up.

what does your anecdote have to do with reality! Am I to accept it just because of your purported "honesty?' Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link that you have been avoiding!

So now your are claiming that even wtih Medicare, a socialized gov-care system that applies to all the elderly in the US today, that even with that, Medicare sucks so bad, that Japanese elderly have it better?

Isn't the argument from all the left-wingers since Bernie said it, to have Medicare for all, and now your are telling me that even with Medicare and Medicaid for that matter, that they are not using any health care because they are worried about financial ruin with Medicare and Medicaid?

Can you people ever keep a consistent argument that doesn't flip flop every time you are presented with new evidence?

 

[LuckyDuck]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

That's strange. France is listed as number one in health care and having been to and talked to people in France, they indicated that they like their health care system.....and it's a socialized health care system. At least, it was working fine until the massive influx of deadbeats from the Middle East and North Africa.

 

[JQPublic1]

Japan tops the list of longevity rates by country. But there are 29 more ahead of US on that list.

I remember in my misguided youth thinking how great it would be to be 95 in a wheel chair oblivious to the world around me because I beat the longevity rates.

According to my cursory research, elderly Japanese are still vibrant and active compared to elderly Americans.

My father is 76, and he can run circles around me. He still lifts weights.

What does this have to do with the quality of health care? Do you think the elderly in Japan are only active because some doctor runs to their house every morning and forces them to be active? Come on. Grow up.

what does your anecdote have to do with reality! Am I to accept it just because of your purported "honesty?' Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link that you have been avoiding!

So now your are claiming that even wtih Medicare, a socialized gov-care system that applies to all the elderly in the US today, that even with that, Medicare sucks so bad, that Japanese elderly have it better?

Isn't the argument from all the left-wingers since Bernie said it, to have Medicare for all, and now your are telling me that even with Medicare and Medicaid for that matter, that they are not using any health care because they are worried about financial ruin with Medicare and Medicaid?

Can you people ever keep a consistent argument that doesn't flip flop every time you are presented with new evidence?

MEDICARE is only available to those who are eligible to draw social security and then it only covers 80 % of most procedures. The patient is liable for the rest.Further, some hospitals and doctors started refusing to accept MEDICARE because they could not overcharge the patient on that platform. Further, if I remember correctly, time limits on hospital admittances. Medicare will only pay for about 20 days. I will have to double check that but off the top of my head I remember that happening to my mother. My point is that MEDICARE, is not so all encompassing and wonderful as you may think. But I would think that in a totally socialized medical environment, the attention to a patients health isn't rushed by financial worries or profit margins.

 

[jasonnfree]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

That's strange. France is listed as number one in health care and having been to and talked to people in France, they indicated that they like their health care system.....and it's a socialized health care system. At least, it was working fine until the massive influx of deadbeats from the Middle East and North Africa.

My ex worked in France and said the same about their health care. Also, she said the doctors make quite a bit less money than doctors here. And yeah, what good are safety nets if we're going to import tens of thousands of the world's needy here to overload what safety nets we have. Not mean spirited, just common sense.

 

[Andylusion]

The fact remains any sort of socialism socialist medicine happens to be dozens of people taking out as compared to only one to a few paying in. No socialist entitlement program has worked in the history of the United States… Long-term

Don't know about the US. All I do know is that works in the three places I have lived (UK, NZ and Australia)..

It can't work in the United States because it's been tried for decades, socialist entitlement programs bring out the absolute worst in people.

Social Security and Medicare are socialist entitlement programs. Try to take those programs away from most all anti socialism republicans, and they'll go for their weapons. Same with public funded education, which has served this country pretty well in the past, contrary to what the extreme far right has been led to believe.

First of all, past performance isn't proof of current or future performance. Whether or not socialized education has done 'well' in the past, doesn't mean diddly jack. Fact is, today parents weeps for joy, and throw parties, if their child is selected to get free private schooling.

We have people coming out of public education, that can't do basic math, or read a book with long words. I know..... I've met these people. I'm not the smartest guy in a 30 foot area where I live, and some of today's students make me look like a Ph.D in an Ivory tower somewhere.

Second, depending on how you define anti-socialism republicans, I would agree.

For one, there are a number of Republicans that are not at their core anti-socialists.

But more importantly, many of these programs have been lied about repeatedly, and so often, from even their very origins, that people don't realize what they really are.

I can't even begin to count the number of older people who believed that when they paid into social security, that it was being privately invested, into an account with their name on it, which shows the assets they have invested into.

And Social Security was carefully designed to give that impression. When you get your social security notification letter, it shows this is how much you have paid in. This is the expected pay out. Giving you the impression that, there is some bank somewhere, with your name on an account, that has all your investments in it.

In reality, it is just as you said, a total and complete socialistic system, where money is simply put in the governments hands, and given out to the current retirees, and there is no money anywhere. It's all spent. And the entire system, can, and will, collapse in on itself the moment the working people refuse to pay the bill.

Same is true of Medicare. People honestly believe that medicare is an insurance system, with all people paying into an investment scheme, that pays out in health care. Medicare too, is carefully crafted to appear like any other insurance system, to the point that in 2009 when they were pushing medicare reform, people actually screamed "keep government out of my medicare".

In reality, like you said, the entire system from start to finish, in dependent on money taken from the working people, to pay for the medicare people. From taxes out of our income, to sales taxes in states, to higher prices for all of our health care.... all to keep Medicare afloat.

The difference between you and me, is that just because "they would reach for their guns", would be the reaction, doesn't change the fact, socialism doesn't work. Both Medicare and Social Security are slowly going broke. Both are going to require much higher taxes. Both are going to require lower and lower payouts.

Even right now, the average SS check, is only $1,300 a month. That's the AVERAGE. Meaning 50% of the public gets less than $1,300 a month. And yet that system is still going broke.

See, what you talked about, is exactly what happened in Greece. Literally, to the letter. Greece's pension fund problems have been talked about, warned about, screamed about for literally decades. And every single time people stood up and warned that the system had to be reformed, the Greek people stood up and demanded their rights to a Pensions, and Health Care, and Mass Transit. And the politicians gave them what they wanted.

Now they have nothing. The rails system is in disrepair, the pensions are cut to just a hundred dollars a month, and health care across the country is closed.

Why? Because socialism never works. It always fails. And if people in this country do not accept the fact that Medicare and Social Security must be reformed, then we will sink this country just like Greece. Greece was our wake up call. It was our last warning before dooms day. In the most near verbatim way possible, we're having the exact discussion Greece had 15 years ago. If we as a country decide to go the same path, which is what you are advocating here, then we'll have the same result.

 

[Dragonlady]

They don't demand you pay them. And they don't owe you a damn thing. How amazing leftist entitlement is.

They set the rates. They are the parasites. How come your premiums are so expensive? Because they have to make a profit. Health is one of the few industries that should not be for profit (I'm talking about the hospital side of things, not the drugs and all the peripheral stuff)

so doctors, nurses, the janitors, food prep people, all of those that develop, build, sell and maintain the equipment should all work for free? hospitals should never upgrade in order to keep up with technology?
interesting

"Not for profit" doesn't mean that health care workers should work for free. It means hospitals should be owned by their communities and not run as commercial businesses.

 

[Clementine]

There is no way It can work in the US... there are too many parasites in society

What do you call parasites?

Me? The insurance companies are the parasites...

They don't demand you pay them. And they don't owe you a damn thing. How amazing leftist entitlement is.

The left doesn't understand the concept of insurance. They think because insurance companies should pay for everything because they make a lot of money. Insurance will pay huge hospital bills, some in the millions. No one invested that much by paying their premiums so it's one hell of a payback.

Libs didn't get that insurance was originally intended to pay the huge unexpected bills from an accident or major illness. They think they should pay for every aspirin tablet.

They tied health insurance to employers and wouldn't allow competition across state lines. It meant little choice for individuals. It meant higher costs because of what companies had to cover. Big Pharms took advantage of those will insurance. When insurance is paying, the bills are higher than they are for a person with no insurance or one with government sponsored insurance. Hospital and doctors are only paid a portion of the bill with Tricare, Medicare or Medicaid and they are expected to eat the rest. They pass the cost on to those with private insurance. Many doctors have been caught padding the bills with Medicare, which they likely did to get more of what was actually due. The real profit is in drugs, medical supplies and equipment. Big Pharms win no matter what. Obamacare favored Big Pharms.

Socialized medicine means waiting lists. Just because you are deemed to be entitled to insurance and healthcare doesn't me will actually get care. They are forced to cap expenses. That means that each month, they put people on a waiting list for next month after the cap is reached. The list grows longer each month.

Leaders of socialist countries come here to the U.S. for care. That tells you all you need to know.

 

[Andylusion]

They don't demand you pay them. And they don't owe you a damn thing. How amazing leftist entitlement is.

They set the rates. They are the parasites. How come your premiums are so expensive? Because they have to make a profit. Health is one of the few industries that should not be for profit (I'm talking about the hospital side of things, not the drugs and all the peripheral stuff)

so doctors, nurses, the janitors, food prep people, all of those that develop, build, sell and maintain the equipment should all work for free? hospitals should never upgrade in order to keep up with technology?
interesting

"Not for profit" doesn't mean that health care workers should work for free. It means hospitals should be owned by their communities and not run as commercial businesses.

I'm going to jump in here....

Whether they work for commercial business, or for their communities, is simply a matter of opinion, not fact.

The fact remains that non-profit, and for-profit hospitals operate exactly the same. 100%, no debate about it, exactly the same.

All that "for the community" altruistic touchy feel-good non-sense, has absolutely no bearing on reality. None whatsoever.

In fact all non-profit organizations operate exactly like for-profit organizations.

Why do you think hospitals spend literally MILLIONS every year to put on huge charity events? To get donations. Just like advertising.

And they still have to be run like any other commercial business. They still have to maker up the products and services they offer, in order to get a decent profit. Just like any other business. EconTalk podcast, interviewed a CEO of a non-profit hospital. He said exactly this.

I don't understand you people. You seem to think that somehow this magical "for the community" idealism, makes the realities of life disappear. That if it's "for the community" then you don't need to charge enough to cover the overhead cost, and make a profit. Or maybe you think you don't need a profit at all?

Let me ask you something.... if the hospital doesn't make a profit, how do you pay to replace the Air Conditioning unit on the roof, when it blows up? Or how do you hire new employees when the number of patients starts to rise? Or how does the hospital buy a bran new $3 Million dollar CT scanner, if the hospital has no profits to pay for it with?

Let me tell you the difference between a "for-profit" hospital, and a "non-profit" hospital.

When the population in a city grows, and the hospital realizes a need for a new building, how do they get the money to build that new building, and thus benefit the sick patients that need care?

A non-profit, will have no investors to build the building. Thus they have to advertise, and spend money putting on charity events, and advertise, and hope that at some point some rich guy will want a tax deduction.

This is why non-profit hospitals normally end up adding a new building, about 5 years after they needed it.

On the other hand, a for-profit hospital, we will give up a percentage of the profits from offering the service from this new building, to investors, in exchange he investors supply the money to build the building right now, because we need it right now.

Keep in mind BOTH hospitals make a profit off of the new building. And it's generally the same amount of profit. The difference is, the for-profit hospital will give a portion of that to the investors which funded the building, allowing them to help sick patient immediately, rather than 5 years later, after funding a bunch of charity events, and finally getting some rich guy to put his name on the building.

Now which hospital did a better job of serving the community? The one that offers care to patients right now... or the one that had to wait 5 years, to get the charity tax deductions for the rich?

 

[Dr Grump]

[



The left doesn't understand the concept of insurance. They think because insurance companies should pay for everything because they make a lot of money. Insurance will pay huge hospital bills, some in the millions. No one invested that much by paying their premiums so it's one hell of a payback.

Libs didn't get that insurance was originally intended to pay the huge unexpected bills from an accident or major illness. They think they should pay for every aspirin tablet.

They tied health insurance to employers and wouldn't allow competition across state lines. It meant little choice for individuals. It meant higher costs because of what companies had to cover. Big Pharms took advantage of those will insurance. When insurance is paying, the bills are higher than they are for a person with no insurance or one with government sponsored insurance. Hospital and doctors are only paid a portion of the bill with Tricare, Medicare or Medicaid and they are expected to eat the rest. They pass the cost on to those with private insurance. Many doctors have been caught padding the bills with Medicare, which they likely did to get more of what was actually due. The real profit is in drugs, medical supplies and equipment. Big Pharms win no matter what. Obamacare favored Big Pharms.

Socialized medicine means waiting lists. Just because you are deemed to be entitled to insurance and healthcare doesn't me will actually get care. They are forced to cap expenses. That means that each month, they put people on a waiting list for next month after the cap is reached. The list grows longer each month.

Leaders of socialist countries come here to the U.S. for care. That tells you all you need to know.

Somebody has to be on the waiting lists. What? You think if everybody wanted their opertion NOW, that even with insurance there would be enough doctors to carry out said operations? Not on you nellie. It has nothing to do with waiting lists. It has to do with elites who can afford the best health care. Kinda funny when the right is always whinging about elites - hollywood elites, musician elites - or whatever. The true elites are Trumpis and his cronies. You think they ever 'want' for health cover...please get on your knees and blow him already...

What socialist leaders? what is your definition? somebody from Cuba or Somalia? no, they don't come to the US. They're not allowed in you dufus...

 

[Maryland Patriot]

They don't demand you pay them. And they don't owe you a damn thing. How amazing leftist entitlement is.

They set the rates. They are the parasites. How come your premiums are so expensive? Because they have to make a profit. Health is one of the few industries that should not be for profit (I'm talking about the hospital side of things, not the drugs and all the peripheral stuff)

so doctors, nurses, the janitors, food prep people, all of those that develop, build, sell and maintain the equipment should all work for free? hospitals should never upgrade in order to keep up with technology?
interesting

"Not for profit" doesn't mean that health care workers should work for free. It means hospitals should be owned by their communities and not run as commercial businesses.

owned by the communities? so, do you have to belong to a certain community to use their hospital or as in my case where I live in a community that would be able to build a state of the art facility, do we build it and then have to listen to the ghetto dwellers claiming that they are not getting equal care because they can only build a mud hut with a chicken swinging witch doctor as its only employee. How does that work
I know you and the rest are going to claim that wont happen, but look at the schools, built in the communities from the property taxes collected, all we hear in Maryland is how the white people in the counties have such better schools than the black kids in the inner city baltimore.
If you want the best available for the most people, you need to have a for profit business, non profit is not going to work.

 

[NoNukes]

There is no way It can work in the US... there are too many parasites in society

What do you call parasites?

Me? The insurance companies are the parasites...

They don't demand you pay them. And they don't owe you a damn thing. How amazing leftist entitlement is.

Yeah, like they expect a job so that they can support themselves, which they cannot get. The ones who want to work sell drugs.

 

[Dr Grump]

If you want the best available for the most people, you need to have a for profit business, non profit is not going to work.

Oh yeah it does. Very well in fact. I've bolded the interesting parts. And yes, this really is a HEALTH INSURANCE company. God forbid anybody try starting this in the US....blasphemy!

Southern Cross first opened for business in 1961, introducing health insurance to New Zealanders and laying the foundations for one of New Zealand’s most enduring, best known and trusted brands. Southern Cross was established because its founders strongly believed New Zealanders should have on-going access to private healthcare options.

Southern Cross is a group of businesses that share an interest in your health. Our range of products and services, combined with our not-for-profit focus, size and experience, means Southern Cross plays a unique and important role in the New Zealand health sector.

Southern Cross Hospitals are the largest network of private surgical hospitals in the country, last year providing treatment to 75,000 patients at its 18 wholly owned or joint venture medical facilities.

Group Structure
The Southern Cross Healthcare Group is made up of various legal entities, united by a common brand, a not-for-profit philosophy and the goal of achieving better value healthcare for New Zealanders.

The legal name of the Southern Cross Health Society is Southern Cross Medical Care Society (a not-for-profit Friendly Society constituted under the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982). The other Southern Cross entities are the Southern Cross Health Trust (a charitable trust registered as a charitable entity under the Charities Act 2005) and its subsidiaries.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If you want the best available for the most people, you need to have a for profit business, non profit is not going to work.

Oh yeah it does. Very well in fact. I've bolded the interesting parts. And yes, this really is a HEALTH INSURANCE company. God forbid anybody try starting this in the US....blasphemy!

Southern Cross first opened for business in 1961, introducing health insurance to New Zealanders and laying the foundations for one of New Zealand’s most enduring, best known and trusted brands. Southern Cross was established because its founders strongly believed New Zealanders should have on-going access to private healthcare options.

Southern Cross is a group of businesses that share an interest in your health. Our range of products and services, combined with our not-for-profit focus, size and experience, means Southern Cross plays a unique and important role in the New Zealand health sector.

Southern Cross Hospitals are the largest network of private surgical hospitals in the country, last year providing treatment to 75,000 patients at its 18 wholly owned or joint venture medical facilities.

Group Structure
The Southern Cross Healthcare Group is made up of various legal entities, united by a common brand, a not-for-profit philosophy and the goal of achieving better value healthcare for New Zealanders.

The legal name of the Southern Cross Health Society is Southern Cross Medical Care Society (a not-for-profit Friendly Society constituted under the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982). The other Southern Cross entities are the Southern Cross Health Trust (a charitable trust registered as a charitable entity under the Charities Act 2005) and its subsidiaries.

this is not New Zealand, we have a totally different economic system here.
But, Im sure there is nothing keeping you from heading to New Zealand to obtain your superior medical care.
I will never understand liberals, everything should be free, nobody should make a profit, and at the same time everyone should be able to raise a family of four with money left over when their only income is from sweeping the hair off the barber shop floor, or slinging pre-made burgers at some fast food place.