John Stossel explains why socialized health care is retarded

[Joy]

I agree.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Alright, first, I want to say one thing, very simple: As Milton Friedman used to say, there is no free lunch. How do you think Canada pays for their socialized health care? Higher taxes. And because the government has no incentive to use resources efficiently, as a whole, socialized health care less less efficient than free market health care.

Why do you have a problem with the WHO statistics that force my hand cited, including this?:

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

It's not coincidence that America, the only developed nation that doesn't have socialized medicine, is where almost all new medicine is made. It's because we're not relying on the government that is at the mercy of uninformed citizenry who want everything for free. Try telling a for-profit company that you want everything they make for free. They'll laugh at you and sell their goods to someone who can pay for them. That's something a politician can't afford to do, because it looks mean, and the fact that it actually results in better standards of living for the great majority is almost always overlooked by people who don't like to read history books.

Exactly what percentage? How does this compare if you take into account America's wealth and large population size?

Having a nationalised health service doesn't stop commercial research, of course.

I believe that at least one university in the UK carrying out research on human embroyo stem cells with funding from the government, which is not something that could happen in America, as the President there vetoed the relevant bill.

[Joy]

In the long run there would be more funding overall from investors (if there's money to be made) than there could be from the government. There is, after all, a high demand for continuously improved, new, better drugs/treatment.

[Not A Communist Shill]

In the long run there would be more funding overall from investors (if there's money to be made) than there could be from the government. There is, after all, a high demand for continuously improved, new, better drugs/treatment.

A company will sell drugs to meet demand, regardless of how ignorant the buyers are. A government is likely to be more informed than the average buyer (though if they are wrong, their decisions obviously have a greater negative impact).

[Joy]

Drug companies don't like getting sued.

[Joy]

fwiw, I do think that people in the US take more drugs than they need to, and the health care system in the US does have a lot of problems. I just don't think that socialized health care is the answer.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Drug companies don't like getting sued.

Drug companies have no incentive to say "our rival's product is better".

[Logos]

Drug companies don't like getting sued.

Who does?

[Jimbean]

Why do you have a problem with the WHO statistics that force my hand cited, including this?:

yes

[discojoe]

Who does?

Johnny McShitpants

[FDG]

People. Should. Read. Books. About. Health. Economics. (yes, there is a branch of economics exclusively dedicated to this aspect). Before. Discussing.

[Logos]

Johnny McShitpants

I forgot about that stupid twat.

[discojoe]

People. Should. Read. Books. About. Health. Economics. (yes, there is a branch of economics exclusively dedicated to this aspect). Before. Discussing.

You're stupid.