Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Part of National Socialism's appeal, was the 'free' and guaranteed 'benefits' offered by the State. Hitler and his fascists gave the population jobs, free-education, pensions, child-support, free day care, free-university and of course 'universal health care'. Socialized health care was a central part of the Nazi-Evolutionist dogma and cult. Socialized health would allow the Nazis to care for the 'health' of its citizens; but also permit the state to practice euthanasia, eugenics [practised at the same time in America and Britain]; and remove racially inferior 'genes' – all according to Darwinian 'science'. The Nazis always appealed to science and stated that the Catholic church for example, must be eliminated since it opposed evolutionary 'science'......
Socialized anything fails. Witness the death march of EUtopia, a system of socialist-communalization which is doomed. Gut your culture, engage in nihilistic Marxism, embrace GlobaloneyWarming and Islam, and erect untenable layers and programs of what is in essence a program of communalism or communism. Hide it all with an unnatural currency. One of the great 'moral projects' is socialized health care. There is little which is moral about a system which denies markets, choices, and is prone to fraud, waiting lists, bad service and lack of access. At the very least a rational state needs two levels of health-care – a free and open market for private insurances, and a socialized communal system for those who want to take the chance of dying while waiting for system access.
According to a Wall Street Journal article the US health system which is largely socialized and completely run by government [there is no free-market in US health insurances] suffers from what any analysis of any socialized system or program would reveal; fraud, over-use, incompetence, and ultimately higher death rates – itself a massive cost to society which is very conveniently ignored by the socialized health care lovers. What price death? Maybe the socialists can pull out their calculators and try to estimate the cost of higher death rates.
Almost all discussions about Medicare reform ignore one key factor: Medicare utilization is roughly 50% higher than private health-insurance utilization, even after adjusting for age and medical conditions. In other words, given two patients with similar health-care needs—one a Medicare beneficiary over age 65, the other an individual under 65 who has private health insurance—the senior will use nearly 50% more care. ....First and foremost is the lack of effective cost sharing. When people are insulated from the cost of a desirable product or service, they use more.
2) Bankruptcy leading to price controls and other distortions
....In 2007, MIT economist Amy Finkelstein explained in this paper the effects of Medicare's introduction in 1965: "By 1970, the program caused a 37% increase in hospital spending."
That spending explosion led Congress to impose price controls on in-patient hospital expenses in 1983, on physicians' services in 1992, and on outpatient hospital expenses in 2000. Those price controls have led to countless economic distortions, forcing physicians and hospitals to look for ways to maximize the reduced reimbursements. Of course, price controls haven't controlled spending—they never do. When Medicare became law in 1965, Part A (hospital expenses) was projected to cost $9.1 billion in 1990; actual spending was nearly $67 billion.
3) Higher private costs
......Several studies have also shown that low Medicare reimbursements shift costs to private-sector health insurance, making premiums higher than they otherwise would be. The actuarial firm Milliman estimated that private insurers paid an additional $89 billion in 2006 and 2007 due to Medicare and Medicaid cost-shifting.
...In 2010, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in March, Medicare and Medicaid made about $70 billion in "improper payments," or payments that shouldn't have been made, or were made in an incorrect amount. And many health policy experts think that estimate is low.
One culprit is the thousands of pages of regulations that make skirting the rules easy—even enticing to criminals. Another is the way the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) goes after fraud. It has historically used a "pay and chase" model, paying every bill that comes in and only investigating if later analysis raises red flags. That approach allows the scamming of tens of millions of dollars even before the government has an inkling of a problem.
Reform socialized medicine:
“Medicare needs to be totally revamped. The benefits package needs to be rationalized so seniors can tell what their financial exposure is and choose from private-sector, high-deductible options, including a Health Savings Account plan. Seniors need to benefit financially from good choices. Giving them more options and control is the best way to reduce that 50% additional utilization while preserving the program for the future.” [Mr. Matthews is a resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas. Mr. Litow is a retired health-care actuary.]
Socialism always fails. States cannot afford socialized programs. If you deem health care to be a human right than nationalize food, housing, water bottle distribution, and clothing. Health care is no different than any other market. If a socialized system is truly necessary than we should at least have the rational intelligence to allow a functioning market to co-exist in which private insurances, care, and access are subject to price points and supply and demand factors. Not only would that alleviate the stress on state budgets it would improve the morality of the system by both decreasing costs and death rates. The modern dark-age mantra of 'socialism is good' is absurd. Time to move on.
France's health system is usually cited by the 'Left' and the lovers of state power and coercion, as the ultimate model of efficient compassion and universal coverage. The problems for the statists is two-fold. First the French system works because of the power of market forces. France has a large and growing private market. Direct private insurance payments now make up about 15% of total health spend. Private co-payments or deductions for public health services also account for about another 25% of total health care spending. Thus roughly 40% of total health spend in France, is privately based or privately funded. In Canada the amount is about 30% and in the US about 45% [the US system is not a market system but that is another topic]. Second, the French public health system, whilst providing some effective health support, is burdened with many failings including huge budget deficits [$15 billion per annum]; poor quality in many areas including decaying hospital facilities, and a lack of timely access. These problems are no different than those experienced by other health system models.
France spends 11 percent of its GDP on health care, second only to the United States among OECD countries. That’s some $3,600 per capita each year, with a public health insurance program that covers the entire population. But the French system in which the state accounts for 60-70 % of all spend is still largely inefficient and running huge deficits. As one report points out:
France has an annual budget deficit reaching $167 billion [of which health care is about $15 billion] and the country cannot continue running social security at a deficit. The struggle, however, comes down to maintaining the quality of the benefits embedded in a system that is regarded as a national birthright. Since the entire French population—workers, employers and the retired—has some 20 percent of its income deducted at the source to fund the health care system (taxes on alcohol, tobacco and the rich also contribute), everyone pitches in. And if everyone is entitled, then there is just not enough to go around.
20% of income is given on average by each adult citizen to the health system! This is a fantastic amount. Surely there must be a more efficient method of providing health care. And there is. You will need to have 2 systems – a public system paid by income or a sales tax; and a private system based on market competition between consumers and suppliers of insurance products. This is where France is heading and indeed at some point in the future, the private market in France will account for 50% or so of total health spending. There is no alternative.
Funding. Most of the funding is from a 13.55% payroll tax (employers pay 12.8%, individuals pay 0.75%). There is a 5.25% general social contribution tax on income as well. There are also dedicated taxes which are assessed on tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical company revenues.
Private Insurance. “More than 92% of French residents have complementary private insurance.” This insurance pays for additional fees in order to access higher quality providers. Private health insurances makes up 12.7% of French health care spending. These complementary private insurance funds are very loosely regulated (less than in the U.S.) and the only stringent requirement is guaranteed renewability. Private insurance benefits are not equally distributed so there is, in essence, a two-tier system.
Physician Compensation. French doctors are paid by the national health insurance system based on a centrally planned fee schedule, but doctors can charge whatever price they want. The fees are based on an up front treatment lump sum, which is similar to DRGs in the U.S. The patient–or their private insurance–must make up the difference between the fee charged by the doctor and the amount paid for by the universal health care system. The average French doctor earns only €40,000, although medical school is free for them and the French legal system is fairly tort-averse.
Physician Choice. The French have a fair amount of choice in which doctors they choose. However, recently the French have moved towards a more “managed care” practice style where patients have a “preferred doctors” who acts as a gatekeeper for specialists.
Copayment/Deductibles. 10% to 40% copayments.
Waiting Times. France has generally avoided waiting lists, likely due to the fairly high coinsurance charges. Recent trends towards increased restrictions, reduced reimbursement rates, and rationing has increased wait times however.
Almost every French citizen or resident holds a green card, the “Carte Vitale,” which gives access to an efficient and state-of-the-art health system. This electronic proof of coverage carries an individual’s personal information, and by handing it off to a medical center, laboratory, public hospital, private clinic, or even drugstore or physiotherapist, a patient can get whatever treatment may be needed, often without spending a single euro. Health care professionals are then automatically reimbursed on the basis of fixed rates for each service or product by the sécurité sociale, the public health insurance system, which covers 60 to 100 percent of all costs.
The French system has merit, but the most important factor might be the French establishment's recognition that the private market will be the engine of reform and better care and thus the ideological debate is more advanced in many cases within France than within other states, which puts it ahead of most other nations in its ability to adapt health care to reality.
“Our huge, multi-wing hospitals absolutely need restructuring so that the public sector becomes as well-organized as the private one,” says Professor Pierre Coriat, head of the anesthesia unit of the Pitie-Salpetrière, the largest public hospital group in Paris (88 buildings scattered across 90 acres). As the elected president of the physicians practicing in Paris’s public hospitals, Dr. Coriat is one of the major partners negotiating the government’s strategic reform of its hospitals. Since public hospitals account for 44 percent of health care spending in France, it is a critical and high-priority project.
This attitude is what will save French health care. Running $15 billion in health deficits yearly, whilst increasing waiting times and tightening rationing is impossible. Socialized health care will lead to systemic dysfunctions, failures and eventually bankruptcy. You need a multi-tiered system, including a public insurance program, as well as market forces, price points and competition, within the health care market[s]. You wouldn't socialise your food production. You shouldn't completely socialize your health care either.