So much bullshit... so much regurgitation...
I'll go SLOWLY for you to understand. I've said this many times to you, and I'll say it again. I THINK OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM NEEDS SIGNIFICANT OVERHAUL. It's breaking us financially and needs to be reformed. Healthcare inflation significantly outstrips regular inflation. It's a big problem.
...not everything I write is solely in response to just your posts, this an open discussion thread, not a pm back-and-forth. Not everyone posting in this thread agrees that US healthcare needs reform.
Second, it was a policy study I was referring to, not an article. Unlike you, I have no desire to make up facts and figures. The real telling issue is % of GDP. The French were hitting about 2.5% while the US was at a staggering 16%.
...you haven't shown any of my figures to be wrong, and by citing the percentage of GP you have only EMPHASISED the point that I was making:
That point being: 17% of a big number (America's GDP) is bigger than 10% of a smaller number (France's GDP)... therefore universal socialised medicine is significantly cheaper than America's system of insurance cartel profiteering and brutalising the poor.
Third, the point is that we are already significantly in debt, even when you exclude healthcare. Frances problem is projected to hit 66 billion by 2020. It's not shrinking, nor can you provide any evidence that it will. Now, we're significantly larger than France and our physicians and healthcare professionals are paid significantly higher. Barry's plan does not control these costs.
...this just makes my point too. France's deficit is growing because of the global banking collapse, the overspend on healthcare is only a tiny, tiny fraction.
The $66b you quoted is disingenuous as that is France's TOTAL government deficit... the healthcare deficit is only $11b, or about $3 per person per week (easily rectified with a tiny tax increase).
America is broke... time to replace the profitering and cartels with the most efficient; best performig and CHEAPEST system: universal socialised medicine... just like what's working so well in France.
THE POINT - If we followed the French system, our deficit would still be spiraling out of control.
...actually that's another blatant lie.
America would save 7% of it's GDP (going from 17% to at least less than 10% spending on healthcare, France spends 10% and they have smaller overall GDP and smaller GDP per capita).
That's a $994 billion saving (at least)... enough to run those off-books wars you guys so enjoy, or enough to give each and every American a $3,300 rebate each year (that's $13k+ for the average family!)
If Americans adopted the French system, and levied a tax equal to HALF OF THE PREMIUM Americans used to pay, your entire $12.5 trillion dollar debt could be paid off by 2035... and Americans would have more money to spend: stimulating the economy.
So actually your argument is blatantly false... just outright lies.
What you've also failed to mention is that France's healthcare system excludes services and that 92% of French purchase supplemental private insurance. That cost IS NOT factored in.
This is just outright dishonesty...
I recognisd your "fact" because I read the OECD Report from which it originates.
You neglected to mention that although 92% of French people pay supplemental health insurance, it isn't in any way comparable to what Americans understand by "private health insurance"... it's actually very cheap coverage for incidentals (dental work; opticians services; eyeglasses; cosmetic dentistry) it doesnt allow you to bypass the government run system and doesn't allow you to skip waiting lists (if there are any). The private coverage is COMPLIMETARY not primary. It sometimes even covers such privileges as post natal babysitters.
You likewise neglected to mention that only 12% of French healthcare expenditure comes from such private complimentary coverage... a whopping $385 per person, per year. Aren't most Americans paying more than that each month ot of ther own pockets? Even AFTER paying enough healthcare taxes to pay for a French style system nearly twice over?
Despite your assertions, that cost IS included in the $3k per person figure.
Please read what you quote.
Otherwise you just embarrass yourself further. As it is, with the churlish name calling alongside misunderstanding your own arguments and misquoting sources you either didn't read or didn't understand, it's probably best if you just slink away back under the rock you foolhardily crawled out from under.
We undoubtedly need massive reform, IMO. But the French way is not ideal for this country. There is no point in following a system that can't manage its own costs and that has a GROWING deficit. We have 300+ million and the system implemented has to be one that does not sacrifice quality or increase our debt. Even a small increase over a large population adds up.
...more self-embarrassment. Do you think American healthcare DOESN'T have a deficit?
Didn't I already show you that the French system is only over spending by $158 per person per year.
The French are taxing their population $2,900 per person to pay for a Rolls Royce healthcare system that actually costs $3,050 per person.
Yes, that $3,050 per person will be a whopping $3,500 per person by 2030... but America's $7,500 per person is on course to be $10k+ per person by 2030... so what's your point?
The average American is already paying at least $4k+ in taxes and salary levies per year (before paying any premiums) for shitty healthcare ($7,500 in total)... and you're arguing that adopting a system that gets better results; better care; no denial of coverage and all for only $3k per person will bankrupt America...? WTF?
You do understand that $3,050, whether you pay it in taxes or salary levies is a LOT SMALLER than $7,500 even if you pay some of that $7k in premiums, right?
Come on, I've heard of hysterical blindness... but this is just hysterical stoopidity.
Has anyone got a proper argument why America wouln't be better off adopting the French system?
The Luke
